Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Believing depends on how much you think on existence Arslan , Mehmet Tayyip Jan 31, 2005
Dear Franchois,
I read your article about 23th Flash on Naturalism. I appreciate your reasoning, though I have also some objections to your ideas.
First of all, as you stated that if we consider 4 alternative explanations for the xistence of creatures, when we prove that the first three ways are errorneous, the last one becomes obviously true. We call this "super natural cause" as the God, Allah. This God is same for all believing people, though they are called Muslim, Cristian or Jew. Because, if you believe that God is the Creator, then what ever you call it, it does'nt matter.
Secondly, we also believe that causes are needed for creation of an animal or creature. You have stated that : "causes are not like jars. Jars are fixed entities which cannot effect change, but causes, such as natural selection, effect other entities." Here, the main idea is that elements necessary for creation of an organism are used in specific amounts and these causes don't have mind themselves to create anything or organise anything to have an outcome. So, according to us, an Organisator is required to use elements in specific amounts for a specific outcome This obviously needs reasoning. Referring a reasoning to inanimate objects is not logcal as you appreciate.
within a living body?
Besides as the conflicting causes are needed in the creation, they are also required for the maintainance of that organism. For example, if you take an erythrocyte, acidosis enhances release of oxygen to tissues. Do you know where is acidotic in the body? The answer is venous sites. That is the more acidotic a part of the body is, the more oxygen is needed andthere. Vice versa, erythrocyte acquires oxygen at lungs where CO2, the source of acid wtihin body is exhaled. Acidosis and alkalosis are two conflicting causes residing in our bodies. These systems helps us in maintaining our lives. So who is thinking this and organising it in this way? Is it just a chance? Look there are enourmous numbers of such examples. You can yourselfsay that they are all resulting from chance and natural selection resulted in survival of creature having this chance.
In my opinion, these sentences result from two considerations: Either you have not understood the core idea or you just don't want to believe in God. The main point here is that we both see the same things. But the difference is that we both attribute the existence to different causes. We say that yes, there is DNA, different glucose, fructose, fatty acid and protein metabolisms in our body. However, these exact mechanisms indicate a reason behind them. Because the molecules consisting DNA, and the DNA it self has no mind and reasoning, and since everything follow the most optimal route, we think and believe that these are created by a Creator, Allah. You can believe also that these are all result of chance.However you are blaming everybody believing in God to be ignorant. Such a blaming is not and should not be that easy.
Related Articles: The Risale-i Nur on Naturalism

Title Author Date
Believing depends on how much you think on existence Tremblay, Francois Jan 31, 2005
Thank you for your interest in my article on the Risale-I Nur.

It does not matter what you call this "supernatural case". As long as you
cannot disprove the "third way" - natural law - the identity of such a
fantasy is unimportant. Since supernatural explanations are by definition
negation of natural law, and we can never completely negate natural law, to
consider a supernatural explanation is always illogical.

You say that "causes don't have mind themselves to create anything or
organise anything to have an outcome". Yet the idea that a mind is
necessary to organize the composition necessary for any outcome, is nothing
more than a false presupposition. In Neo-Darwinism, all organisms have what
it takes to survive because they are the descendants of a long lineage of
organisms that survived, and transmitted their capacity to survive through
their DNA.

You claim that I said "they are all resulting from chance and natural
selection resulted in survival of creature having this chance". There seems
to be a compulsion amongst believers to assume that I claim "chance" can do
anything, but you cannot quote me saying so. There is a good reason for
that : I don't believe in "chance". Neo-Darwinism is not "chance" either.
Therefore your assumption is false.

I know this is hard to accept for many believers, but natural law is not
"chance". Science predicts natural events all the time, from the orbit of
planets to the evolution of bacteria. Everything in the universe follows
the patterns and the laws found by the scientific process. There is no
"chance" regulating your brain, your body, Earth, or anything else that we see.

Dear Mehmet, stop believing in this false "chance or god" dichotomy. Unless
you do this, your eyes will always be closed to the power of science and

Related Articles: The Risale-i Nur on Naturalism