Article Series of “Science Approach of Creation Model”
How can We Correlate the Natural Causes, Which Seem to Move Randomly and İrregularly, to the Magnificent Order That Appears in the Universe and Matter?
Submission of Feuilleton and Topics to be Discussed:
The article series that we will present under the main title “Scientific Approach of Creation Model Articles” is for now planned to be published in four parts. Each part may contain more than one section about the topic. In the article series, we will address crucial issues and introduce innovative perspectives, implementation methods and strategic approaches about them. While stating that it is very important for you to read the source materials that are cited in the article in order to form a whole picture in your mind, let us list the topics that we will examine:
In our first article, we will provide remarkable examples of serious analyses in the characteristics ofintellectual (theoretical) background of the scientific philosophy of Creation Model and we will provide satisfactory answers to the strange questions raised by the spokespersons of the new atheism.
The exclusive feature of our analyses in this article is: They are valid for the past, the future and the present, meaning all the time periods, and have independent upper approaches that are unaffected by the variability of scientific data.
Throughout the article series, we will provide examples – sometimes within the article and sometimes by citing – for basic approach methods in the characteristics of intellectual (theoretical) foundation of the scientific philosophy of Creation Model, original definitions, conceptualizations and categorical evaluations, analysis and proofing methods based on sound logic, and conclusions related to current scientific approaches.
Also, we will focus on following topics: Why are we so persistent in being scientific? Why is it Important to Establish the Scientific Compliance of the Creator? How should the scientific criteria be questioned? What is the right training method and strategy? How to effectively and easily reconstruct minds without fragmentation? That is how they set the scientific method! A Third Alternative to Rejection and Acceptance: Producing Our Own Concepts and Approaches!
By examining some surprising questions addressed to our book titled “The Academic Proof of the Creator” published in English, we will draw attention to the seriousness of the question of not being able to get rid of the materialist framework in scientific terms, even as sometimes seen in the Islamic world. “You always criticize and say the wrong things. So, what are you saying?” We will give serious answers to those who ask such questions. We will respond to those who define the scientific approaches that accept the existence of the creator and make their inferences in this direction as “old and outdated”, with a strong argument to the term and we will reveal what the ageless perspective is and what features it has.
Now we begin our article and enter through the door of striking analyzes that reveal the necessity of the existence of a creator, and a journey of imaginary and mental discovery.
How can We Correlate the Natural Causes, Which Seem to Move Randomly and İrregularly, to the Magnificent Order That Appears in the Universe and Matter?
It may be said and it is said by those who are the spokespersons of New Atheism: “As evidence for the creator’s existence, you show the regular and artistic nature that moves randomly and beyond measure, and emerge from natural elements. But of course, are the natural reasons acting randomly and irregularly? Indeed, there are laws of nature in the universe and matter, which give regular results and order. Are these irregular and random? So, what we mean to say is that the basic causes in the universe act very regularly because of the natural laws and ensure the regularity of the matter! What makes you think that there is a need for external intervention!? ”
The answer to your question: The answer to your first question is yes and no. The explanation to that is given below.
Order and proportionality, which appear in the form of laws of nature in material causes, do not present the characteristics of creating complex life and nature.
They possess a state of limited structural regularity, which can be considered as it is suitable to be given order only by the presence of external knowledge, will and power.
Meaning that someone from the outside will come and prefer to give a certain and complex shape and order to the matter and material causes, will have the knowledge of how to do this, and will use a guided measured force for a particular purpose.
We can better understand and explain this theoretical narrative by objectifying it with a simple example as follows:
For example, you are at a beach standing on the sand by the sea. The natural causes and elements around you are the sea water (wave), maybe a little wind, sand and sun. Perhaps the law of gravitation can be mentioned, even though it does not have a material existence. Now, it is correct to say that these natural causes and elements (even laws) can only develop regular reactions to the external actions, and do not have the ability and characteristics to form complex and orderly structures by themselves. So, how do we know this is what it is and why do we accept it?
Because, for example, water… Wherever you turn it, it goes there. If you pour from top to bottom, it goes down. It does not move right, left or up. The sand is the same. It can be seen that it has a structure that when certain forces are applied, it can enter the same shape by responding to each application angle and force in the same way each time.
(In this case, the gravitation law and the sand seem to have a harmonious order. In fact, the law of gravitation is not something that has a material reality. The phenomenon called law consists of the description and the materialization of the event, that’s all.)
When you squeeze the sand with your hand, it comes out of your fingers in a certain order and spills on the floor. If you soak this sand with water, it becomes more compact and close to the dough which will not be dispersed immediately, and will be suitable to give a certain form. But it does that in a certain order. When you soak it with a certain amount of force and a certain amount of water, it concentrates at the same consistency each time and becomes suitable for forming. The concentrated sand when you pour water once, will not be more loose and scattered when you pour water another time. Or sometimes when you squeeze it in your hand, it does not just go to the air instead of spilling!
So is the wind, so is the sun. The sun evaporates a certain amount of water each time. Or it dries the wet sand at a certain time period. When the wind blows from the right one time, it swings the goods to the right and does not swing to the left or up other times.
Yes, the order and measurability, which are defined as natural laws in matter and material causes, are in this characteristic and degree. There is nothing more and beyond.
This is exactly why, you will never see a self-made sand castle on a beach. A complex structure, such as a sand castle, can be embodied by an external intervention each time and by a person with knowledge, will and power who builds that sand castle.
Natural laws, which are essentially an expression of the regular movement of the matter, are merely a objectified description of the existing and limited (as mentioned earlier) order and proportionality in the nature. They are not the explanations of miraculous formations that we witness in the universe, which have of complex order and life, not even explanations of themselves. Yes, as Newton put it, the law of gravity does not even explain the gravity. They are never and cannot be accepted as the real cause of occurred events. Since they are purely an abstract concept without a material body, they cannot be the true creators, operators, nor be seen as the real explanation and reason of anything. The limited regularity that appears in the nature and in the natural elements and causes thus needs another external explanation.
For detailed analysis of natural laws, please refer to the following basic / reference article “Approach to the Laws of Nature”
Therefore, the natural causes, which have a limited order in the point of their response to an external intervention and which do not present any other ability and structural feature other than moving completely random and irregular, must be not the cause and source of the complex structure and order that we witness everywhere and always in an environment where they are brought together and mixed with each other, and under normal conditions and that they are merely the reason why we should look for an external cause. That is all. Otherwise, it can not express that the natural causes are real effective reasons and operators.
We, who carry out all of our daily lives with the similarities that we have established by looking at the matter and the actions of the matter in the nature that we see every day, and who form the life experience and perception of the world by observing the logical inferences and the events that we see around us, of course will use the basics we know to reach the truth to make judgement on such issues.
Consequently, it is absolutely necessary to conclude that the miraculous, wonderful and astonishing elements that we witness in nature are by the intervention of an external cause (if we are going to make inferences on the things we see and not try to explain them with imaginary fictions).
A Very Striking Answer to a Strange Question:
It can be said that “What are you talking about? Here, it seems that, these materials make these living things just before our eyes in an orderly and they make the existing organism function continuously. And you ask how this happens. Here it just happens!”.
Our answer would be this: Yes! Superficially, it appears so. But No! It should not be like that and could not be. The explanation of this answer is as follows: Any living thing which is created artfully is being created/formed together with some accompanying causes. However, the fact that they are co-existing at the same time, and that its formation is conditioned on the existence of the causes could not be a sufficient evidence by itself for the invention of that artful objects by the causes. Yes, the existence of an object could be dependent on numerous conditions. It is not possible to claim that a condition is enough by itself for the existence of an object just because lack of it leads to the nonexistence of that object. In other words, a simple condition for a thing is not the “real reason/cause” of that thing. If you do not give water to a garden, it dries out. Just by looking at this fact, it can’t be said that water is the sole reason of existence of the plants in the garden.
Also, when it is analysed carefully, it can be understood that these causes lack an orderly capability to produce and operate living beings and it is certainly found out that they are employed like factory workers who get orders from a single centre and that they do not operate independently. This result is not something that can be seen visually. It is not a completely theoretical and technical interpretation, but a strong opinion and a logical inference. It is a conviction clearly seen and judged by the mind and an inference that deserves to be accepted scientifically.
If we are told: “You claim that the matter is not created by the causes. In fact, we also say the same thing. Matter/objects are formed/created as a result of these causes”.
We reply: “The real answer to this question is hidden in your second sentence. Yes, we also say the same thing. Matter/objects are formed/created as a result of causes.
But, in addition to that, we also say this: “The matter/objects are not created by these causes. Someone else is creating the matter by using these causes”. There is a substantial difference between these two expressions.
If someone claims: “I have painted that picture!” Then, we can ask “What is your evidence? Do you have a talent for that? Were you standing before it when that picture was being painted? Do you have any witness? Or, if someone claims: “This picture is painted by so-and-so” Then the following is the first question that should be asked to that person: “Does that person who you claimed painted the picture, have a talent for painting? Was he before it during the painting or was he seen while painting that picture?” If he has not such a talent, how can it be claimed so? Somebody who does not have any talent for painting stands before the canvas. He is a blind, deaf, lame, ignorant and talentless person. And someone, who took that man by his hand and brought forward, claims “This man has painted that picture!” Why? “He stands before the canvas!” His being before the canvas is not sufficient; does he also have the knowledge and the talent for making that picture? This is what we look for. If he hasn’t got it, then we will seek another reason.
It may be questioned as an objection to the approach which accepts that the basic particles of matter and atoms are like ink at the tip of the pen and shaped by the direction of divine power as follows:
It can be said: “Yes, this is possible. But, not each possibility is realized. How can we decide if this is the case in reality?”
Physical factors in nature, the nature of the matter and material causes, due to their common characteristics, do not show a tendency to get into order on their own. They tend to invade just like a flood (Wind, sun, air, soil, earthquake, rain, heat, fire, ice, rock, mountain, river etc.)
The common characteristics of great factors and material causes existing in nature are as follows:
“Their Blindness”, that is, they are unable to work by seeing,
“Their deafness”, that is, they are unable to communicate with each other to act by knowing what others do,
“Their ignorance”, that is, they are unable to work purposely,
“Their lifelessness”, that is, the inability of those who are not even aware of their own existence, to be able to foresee the formation which was not existing before and which they do not own themselves.
“Their unconsciousness”, that is, they do not have the willpower in the sense of “making decision by taking into account the harms and benefits”
In a similar way, the existence of nature and the material causes together with the objects is not sufficient Although they do not have the knowledge and talent for making that object, they can’t claim to be the inventor/the creator of that object just because they are in its vicinity. Therefore, it should be accepted compulsorily that there is someone else employing them.
Then, We should ask this question: What would be the situation of natural causes; whose basic characteristics are being blind, deaf, ignorant, lifeless and unconscious, and which are thought to be moving randomly and irregularly when observed one by one; in an environment where they are mixed and brought together under normal conditions?
Since there is almost an infinite number of variations, which can be expressed with probability calculations, of the various forms, and situations that may come into being with the combination of material reasons in different manners.
In that case It is a fantasy and quite simply a science fiction to imagine that the elements which do not have the feature to act on purpose, seeing and communicating with each other do the following:
*Despite their confusion because they face infinite number and variety of complex probabilities and dead-ends,
* They enter into new ways, getting out of dead-ends, with a great skill
*And, they choose a certain option without any hesitation,
*And, each time they decisively take right and accurate actions,
*And, whatever they do, they choose the shortest way, the easies manner and most beneficial form and hence achieve the visible steady state of the matter (Please look at the intermediary note below); and they create and orderly and artful living being.
*And they are able to function continuously in the body of that living thing.
And we ask: Doesn’t this beautiful universe, which is a paramount, magnificent and lively picture by which our minds are amazed just like everyone else, does not deserve an explanation concomitant with its beauty and excellence?
In order to provide a better clarification of the issue we are examining, we also bring the following item to your attention as an additional supplement:
There is such an atheist thinking: “We cannot use the logic, which is used in daily life, that every piece of art has its own artist, in comparison to organic creatures or to the nature and we cannot use it to make evidence of the existence of the creator.
But, in reality, this is never the case! According to the atheistic point of view, the coming into existence of living organisms is based on the non-living objects and elements found in nature. Isn’t it so? In fact, in order to create an artwork, inanimate substances are used. The only difference is that, for a machine or a piece of art made by humans, a person who is intelligent, conscious, knowledgeable and willful is utilized. However, in the construction of living beings and organisms in the nature, inanimate atoms are working! Of course, It is undisputed that the ability and the capacity to do a regular work of a blind, deaf, unconscious, lifeless element is much lower compared to that of a living being which has reason, will and consciousness. The laws of nature, which are claimed to manipulate these non-living things elements; cannot really explain anything, let alone the works requiring consciousness, will and knowledge, as they are non-solid abstract concepts referring only to the description of the movement and operation of the material.
In this case, the fact that an inanimate and unconscious element, using the same substances, produces a more orderly work than a live and intelligent element, makes us to look for another effective element and this becomes an evidence for its existence. Therefore, this comparison is a correct deduction.
This is the case, because if a work with a certain artistic level, made by the hand of a living being necessitates the existence of an artist; the fact that “the art made on the surface of a non-living thing” is much higher compared to the former one, makes the existence of a much powerful artist inevitable.
Indeed, the points that should be taken into account is the following: Our judgement would not change even if in a case where the art made by a living being is higher than the art that appears on the surface of an inorganic thing. Due to the characteristics of the work appearing over the non-living thing (that is the necessity of its being made with knowledge and a power directed by a will) the fact that this art requires the existence of a conscious artist will remain valid.
However, especially if the art of the living element, which is more amateur than the works of inanimate elements, has been made by taking as model the art that appears on inanimate elements, in such a situation there remains no doubt in the existence of an artist who does not appear. We can give the example of an artist whose painting, which is made by taking a scene in the nature or a fruit basket as model, could be just a copy of lower value compared to the original model. In order not to accept this comparison, it is necessary to deny the art activity that could be observed by our eyes.