Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hi guys,
During the last 500 years, Muslims have not exactly demonstrated a propensity to contribute
to mankind in the field of science. The Koran teaches not to query or question, but to accept
and knuckle under, to submit. More than half the Muslims can't read or write and have little
or no education. This shows, as only a single scientific Nobel Prize has ever been awarded
to a Muslim and anything significant, whether a bicycle, a phone or electricity were discovered
or invented by non-Muslims.
These are the facts. Even though Islam is an oral based tradition, Muslims require a
book, the Koran. Because that book is highly vague and ambiguous, they require explanatory
books. Because these explanatory books are not precise enough they require even more
explanations and when those dry up they resort to interpretations. This has resulted in a
huge amount of texts all dedicated to Muslims and their attitude to life and their god.
Because these texts have been created over large time periods and across regions and
even continents, they contain differences, which are today tearing Islam apart.
1000 years ago, Islam was a coherent worldview, an attitude towards life and focussed on a
god with clear attributes and demands. Over time humans increased in sophistication and
brain activity, which was further stimulated through the contact with other civilisations.
This lead to an increasingly critical view, as more and more logical contradictions were
found and the critical analysis of the central book in Islam, the Koran, revealed huge flaws.
Instead of tackling the problems head-on and accepting the passage of time, Muslim clerics
refused and still refuse to acknowledge any errors or mistakes in the book and stubbornly
defend their antiquated positions regarding the entire worldview. 1000 years ago, Arabs
of different denominations and religions worked together and researched for the benefit of
all. This ability seems to have been lost.
With the advent of the internet, the tactic of hiding anything unpleasant and flaunting
only what was deemed positive, broke down. An initiative, which was highly dishonest
and of dubious ethical value, tried to artificially inject some modern thinking in the way of
scientific discoveries into Islam and the Koran. This was eventually revealed and led
to a further humiliation of the Muslim community and further exacerbating the built-in inferiority
complex.
This stubborn refusal to modernise and restructure Islam sees a highly divisive and sectarian
religion with hundreds of groups now fighting each other over who has the better implementation
of the interpretation of the Koran and the sole path to salvation while all others are
doomed.
This is the situation and the backdrop where Muslims try and come to terms with what is
going on today. Groups try and gather financial support from their followers to try and sell
their particular version of Islam. iERA is one such group. In their desperation to secure
a slice of the cake of donations from the Muslim community, they follow the Christian
apologetics and copy them word for word. In the past this was limited to philosophical
topics and is now going into the scientific arena. iERA got badly burnt when they tried
to bring embryology into the Koran and yet, they are now trying something similar with
evolution.
Why evolution? Well, the internet is available to most and anyone with just a medium education
can establish what is fact and what is fiction. For decades, Muslim apologists have drummed
the sentences into the brains of followers that the Koran encourages thinking and checking,
not knowing this would backfire at a later stage.
But still today, there are Muslims who are being told and believe that the Koran categorically
states that the first human, Adam, was created by their god. Literally, manually and physically.
They don't check for themselves to find that the Koran does not explain any of the processes
and does not even state anything about Adam being the very first human or how Eve - or
rather his spouse - was created. The Koran does not specify where this happened and why
clay was used or whether all other humans were direct offspring from Adam and his spouse.
The Koran does say that humans were created in stages and this is taken by some to mean
that the Koran condones and accepts evolution.
So we have different groups propagating different concepts and versions of interpretations of
the Koran. And then we have reality. iERA has decided to keep their followers dumb and
uninformed. They opt for the method of trying to shoot down the last 200 years of human
development and ultimately return to the 7th century, where people reigned not by intellect,
but the sword. Where a god was not allowed to be questioned and the clergy made the rules.
Everyone was equal, except for the few who were more equal.
Yes, I must admit, I have heard many of the Islamic slogans and lines of reasoning all
the way to the propaganda and hi-jacking of events and discoveries from Communists in
the 70s. Well, we all know it failed then and it is failing now.
iERA take a silly route of trying to falsify or at least damage the reputation of science.
Because this is all it is: an emotional and rather primitive whining. Ignoring facts.
Finding a mistake in the calculation of the speed of light will not affect light itself
in any way. Finding a mistake in the explanation of how
evolution works does not influence evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how we humans think evolution works. This
is based on facts, observations, experiments and induction - as well as deduction.
Humans being humans, we have learnt from our mistakes and have devised a methodology to
combat fraud and ensure a high degree of reliability of what we describe. This has been and still
is described in the Philosophy of Science.
That's why the Scientific Method was introduced; the process to ensure only valid data is used
and a single opinion is unable to induce authority,.
This is not perfect and mistakes still happen, but they are not as common and possible as
easily as a few decades ago. Because this system is quite rigid and robust, people who
have tried to manipulate a specific branch of science and failed have vented their frustration
in claiming conspiracies and making movies like Expelled and writing pamphlets like the
people over at iERA are doing.
I will not do a line by line deconstruction because it is simply too ridiculous and the
pamphlet is a disappointing farce. It uses huge words such as "metaphysical presupposition"
or "metaphysical assumptions", which are never defined or explained.
Entire sentences such as "Since empiricism is a key metaphysical assumption used to justify
evolution" are thrown out there without bothering to show what it is or how it is used.
The amount of insecurity, ignorance and sheer stupidity comes through, when sentences such
as "therefore evolution is tentative, in other words it can change based upon future observations."
pop up. The person writing this has just used the expressions "Philosophy of Science" and
the "Scientific Method" and then pretends as though this is something different and
new.
The Theory of Evolution is indeed tentative. That is the entire point. It gets updated
on a daily basis.
Why don't people without any knowledge on a particular subject first try and get to
grips with some facts before embarrassing themselves and all Muslims who ecstatically
click "Like" without understanding what they are doing?
What absolutely cracks me up is this childish and incredibly primitive attempt at making
science look bad:
Conclusions: a. Science is a limited method
b. The philosophy of science brings to light a whole range of issues
c. The philosophy of science, exposes it as not reaching the level of certainty.
d. Revelation is a source of certain knowledge. They use "epistemology" and then refer to
divine revelation as knowldge and a certainty.
The inherent definitions of science are made to look as though this is a secret and iERA
have just uncovered this. Then, the contents of a religious book is defined as fact.
When I fly I normally wear plastic nose clips when going above 2000 metres.
iERA now argue with me whether brass or wooden nose clips are prescribed - without realising
they should first establish that I can actually fly. The material of the nose clip is completely
irrelevant if I can't really fly.
So we have just learned that you first need to establish the existence of something before
discussing their attributes.
In other words: First prove that this god you speak of exists
before making the book he supposedly authored a fact or certainty. Easy.
This is now repeated endlessly and on the next 14 pages every possible -ism is now listed
to show what a weak system science with its philosophy and methodology is - and what science
can't do.
What is happening is that iERA are showing their followers some cards, briefly, and tell
them what it says. Then the next card. And so on. With these cards they now construct
a beautiful, comforting, cosy structure and place some veils in between this structure
and the people. They declare this the result and ask followers to now verify the result.
Muslims who have been given results and have then verified them are used to this and willingly
comply. They don't care about reality or facts and only set out to verify the result. When
they were given the result that the Koran miraculously contains scientific facts million
and millions of Muslims set out to verify this, not caring about reality or facts.
Because Muslims are used to knuckling under and doing as they are told, they now go and
verify the construct iERA puts before them. BUT there are exceptions. Some use the faculties
quoted above and now put them to use, not to verify but ask questions. They go and lift
one veil after the other and finally reach the cards to see for themselves whether what
they say is what iERA says they say.
One card talks about the definition of science. It is brought up almost 100 years ago by Bertrand
Russell, not a scientist, but a philosopher. It is cut down to 2 lines.
And this is what he really said, not defining science but differentiating religion from
science. Is this academically dishonest?
You remove the false card.
The next card says that science has no bearing or opinion on religion and does not concern
itself with the super-natural, while iERA says it says: science has replaced religion,
citing a guy researching telepathy and psychic animals.
You remove the false card.
iERA says the scientific method consists of 4 points and quote a few points from a Berkley
page on understanding science and instead of reading it and learning, they select a
few lines and do a bit of copy/paste and that's it. Here's what it really looks like and what
the site itself says about what NOT to do. They explain everything in an easy to understand
fashion using high-level diagrams and each one opens up for more detailed explanations.
So if iERA had followed just these simple instructions they would have understood what
science is and what it is not and could have saved themselves the embarrassment of this
useless piece of paper.
You remove the false card.
What is worse however is that I can now take their own sources and refute them - the same
phenomenon found in their horribly bad and flawed embryology pamphlet.
iERA says that a card says that science is limited because "questions such as does God
exist? And is there a soul? are outside the realm of the scientific method". You look
at the definition of science and find that science does not concern itself with the super-natural
by definition.
You remove the false card.
It's like saying: submarines are limited. They can't fly.
It is truly pathetic. The title says: Has evolution been misunderstood? How many times
is evolution addressed? Never. The entire 25-page effort is only doing one thing: trying
to sow doubt. Doubt that science has a correct understanding of something. Doubt that a human
can never be right when an invisible, unproven god is believed to say something else. Which
in the case of the Koran, is not even the case. But the Hadiths, which contradict the
Koran, do require the faith of a Muslim to question the veracity of science.
Even if I address every claim made here, I will automatically be accused of not having
read this petty pamphlet and that I have not understood it. Standard knee-jerk reaction.
Thomas Kuhn, considered to be one of the fathers of the Philosophy of Science explained the
different approaches to scientific discovery and documentation as puzzles and revolutions.
A puzzle-solver is not entering completely uncharted territory. Because its puzzles and
their solutions are familiar and relatively straightforward, normal science can expect
to accumulate a growing stock of puzzle-solutions. Revolutionary science, however, is not cumulative
in that, according to Kuhn, scientific revolutions involve a revision to existing scientific
belief or practice (1962/1970a, 92). Not all the achievements of the preceding period of
normal science are preserved in a revolution, and indeed a later period of science may find
itself without an explanation for a phenomenon that in an earlier period was held to be successfully
explained.
He explained how the different topics required different approaches and why different time
periods seem to switch between discoveries and stagnation or consolidation.
He also pointed out the problems when comparing mass in connection with Newton and Einstein.
They were different types of mass - or just more general and specific views of mass. This
is how science finds definitions and explanations, trying to work together instead of against
each other. iERA used him for one of their quotes - why didn't they read what else he
wrote? Or is it because Dr. William Lane Craig did not mention this?
In their desperation, iERA has to ultimately turn to the apologists from the US Discovery
Institute, who are Christian apologists without any discoveries, but with wild claims regarding
their god. iERA copies them, without really understanding what they are copying.
The Muslim who has dared to approach the construct iERA has built up has pulled false card after
false card and finally, the entire thing comes crashing down. Now what?
Well, the shiny and comfortable result is gone and now this person can take the cards
with their correct meanings and put them where they belong, one by one. Slowly, this leads
to result, maybe not as shiny or comfortable as the iEAR one, but this one delivers the
satisfaction that it is built on facts and not wishful thinking. It is real.
Every Muslim can do this. It is a matter of choice. And if you shy away from reality,
everyone understands that years of brainwashing can't be instantly discarded. Just have the
tolerance towards others to not believe what you believe.
The rest of this iERA tripe is making observations like: most cars can't fly. How this is supposed
to contribute anything is beyond me. We get the barrage of names I forecast and short,
meaningless quotes which do not serve any apparent purpose other than to introduce as
many well-known names as possible. I am well aware that the introduction says this is just
a paper to get people thinking about the "scientific method" and the "philosophy of science". But
is this primitive act of quote mining really going to "evoke thinking" or drive the wedge
in even further between scientific reality and Muslims lacking knowledge and education?
Imagine what happens when the school teacher in some village in Bangladesh or Niger gets
this paper and discusses it in class? The teacher will not know that this is based on
fabrication, disinformation and quote mining. Why don't iERA also think of their social
responsibility instead of only the cheers they get from their home crowd? But I suppose
money talks louder than compassion.
The absolute and total highlight of this idiotic piece of nonsense is when iERA deliver their
proof for the divine origin of this book: the Kalam Cosmological Argument! My goodness!
Is that all iERA have to offer? I almost died when I read this the first time round because
I was sipping on a cup of coffee.
I also laughed at this one:
1. All men are mortal. 2. George is a man.
3. Therefore, George is mortal.
Like
1. All men are mortal. 2. Margret is not a man.
3. Therefore, Margret is immortal.
Idiotic.
As idiotic as a personal anecdote found at the end of the paper. I only know one person
so idiotic as to put this here, and that is the senior clown of iERA, Hamza "The Liar"
Tzortzis. The claim is that there was a "personal conversation" with Richard Dawkins. I only
know of one such encounter, so if there is another I am mistaken here. The only one I
know of, which was Hamza sticking a microphone under the nose of Professor Dawkins when he
came outside when at a convention. The encounter lasted a full 3 or 3 and half minutes - what
a "personal conversation". Half the time was taken by Hamza talking at Professor Dawkins,
who indignantly asked "what are you talking about?", no pause or silence happened and
the question regarding philosophy of science as opposed to "doing science" was never put.
So either this is a personal conversation I am unaware of or this is just another lie.
So in conclusion we see that the iERA paper lacks a rigorous structure, does not define
the terms it uses, contains useless expressions and simply repeats the same thing again and
again. It does not explain evolution or what the Koran actually claims and does not show
what results a Muslim can find when comparing evolution to Islam. iERA claim that anyone
who accepts evolution must do so because others say so. This is just another lie. Anyone who
is interested can access the data and can check the assumptions or conclusions. This
is impossible when encountering creation by a god.
The only thing missing from this paper was Adolf Hitler, who loves to make an appearance
when emotional negativity is used.
I would have expected an analysis of what evolution does using the Theory of Evolution
and what process the Koran suggests, to have a basis for a comparison. I would have tackled
the most common misconceptions and errors Muslims make and shown what actually happens
in real life when applying the Koran. Sadly, iERA is unable to provide the service I would
expect, if I were a paying member of their group.
Fail!