Article Series of “Science Approach of Creation Model”-3
Click Here for First Article (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?)
Click Here for Second Article (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?)
Article Title: That is How They Set the Scientific Method!
A Third Alternative to Rejection and Acceptance: Producing Our Own Concepts and Approaches!
If it is said to us and it is said: “The things that are touched, visible, and tested for accuracy by observation and experiment can only be considered scientific. That is how they set the scientific method! No matter how logical your proofs of the creator’s existence are, they say it is not scientific! “
Our Important Answer and Rejection to that:
No! We never accept. Terms such as science, compliance criteria, and scientific methods cannot be monopolized and do not accept monopoly. Such a thing is unscientific and a shameful attitude in the name of science. This should be accepted as such. What do you mean, they have defined and accepted! Are we hostages? No way!
Some even say (desperately accepting this definition) that ‘there is truth outside science’. We refuse it without hesitation.
Islamic civilization, the world’s largest civilization in the 2nd century (the hegira calendar), continued in this way until the 16th century. We taught them science. And civilization. We will not learn from them!
We reject these ridiculous criteria and methods that have been speculated in the last 200 years and are confined to purely materialist and atheist concerns and we throw them away!
(Speculation: Reaching a conclusion on a subject by solely thinking and without relying on evidence. To construct.)
We stress that simple computer example we shared before to those who do not accept this right approach and ask the question. If he or she cannot answer and is forced to remain silent, and desires so much, he or she can ridicule it in a way that no one with their right mind would accept! That is all!
We do not have confidence in ourselves as Islamic world. We choose either to demolish, oppose and refute, or accept as it is. No. There is a third way: To put forward our own acceptance, concepts and understanding. We will say that this is our approach to science and we will express it with the most sound logic setup. Having said that, there is no problem in using the term science and being scientific. Being scientific means suitable for science anyway.
A serious problem is that we (the Muslim World) have an inferiority complex; while others play with concepts as they like, change, update, adapt, produce and use them as they wish, when it comes to us doing something like this, the reaction is “Why.. No way! We can’t produce. We only use and imitate what is presented to us.”
The answer is very simple: “It is all right if you do it.”
We set certain records and standards together with their justifications and produce our concepts through them. Frankly, we don’t see a problem with that. But still, some have difficulty accepting it. Whatever…
We should also emphasize that: Here, we do not confuse concepts, we redefine them. Therefore, no one should advise us to learn what scientific means! We can make a science that accepts the existence of the creator and makes its inferences accordingly by developing concepts suitable for ourselves and Islam and transforming the existing concepts.
In fact, since the concepts of science, eligibility criteria, scientific method, philosophy of science or science approach are theoretical, they take the form of the container into which they enter, like water. That container is your basic principles and practices. It is only you who determines it, and you do not allow anyone else to determine and impose it. Because academic freedom and scientific independence requires this. Islamic science. Atheist science… There is no need for such things and definitions, and they are wrong!
Science is a general term, and scientific approaches are also included, which means that science is not merely accumulation of knowledge without comment. When we say science activity and doing science, it should be understood that you can do it with a science approach (i.e., interpretation) that you accept as truth.
In fact, everyone knows that the assumptions mentioned as part of the scientific criteria do not conform to the practice of real life and that they are flawed approaches: Only what is visible (which can be tested for accuracy by observation and experiment), and tangible can be regarded as facts that meet scientific criteria. ”
However, these criteria, for the sake of materialism (and perhaps in order to bring some scientific work under a certain discipline and standard), have been described as such, and such an approach is purely baseless. Because those criteria obligate everyone who considers themselves to be right: “Reason and emotions are not scientific, but real!” Such a ridiculous sentence and assumption cannot exist. However, we should clearly be able to say “ Reason and emotions are scientific truth!”. Being scientific means “suitable to science and reason”! Is the truth ever contrary to science and what is scientific or is it ever unscientific? Naturally, the scientific criteria that have been defined as naturalist cause you to see and show the emotions that makes us human as a “chemical movement of hormones and elements”. This is the biggest insult that can be made to the human being and to reason that is the most basic tool we use to make science.
We should be able to express what we claim to be true is scientific. The fact that the eligibility criteria are defined in a narrow field does not change the truth. That is how we define. We say this is more true. It is that easy!
Does not some people say, ‘This is science, it’s the scientific fact, the scientific method is like this’? Why cannot we say? Don not we have anything to say, and freedom to do science?
Such a thing can never be accepted and there is no such thing and cannot be! Obstacles are in our minds! If we explain our issue well, such things cannot prevent us from doing science. Those mistaken assumptions have value and importance in the face of truth!