The Incoherence Of Atheism by Abdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUjayrī

The British physicist Paul Davies has an interesting book titled The Goldilocks Enigma. The book attempts to uncover a curious issue pertaining to the nature of the universe that we live in, in terms of how it is perfectly suitable and balanced for us, as if it were a Goldilocks universe. As is known to anyone familiar with the term, this title is borrowed from a famous and popular children’s story, Goldilocks and the Three Bears. In summary, a girl by the name of Goldilocks finds a bear house in the forest. Each bear has its own food, chair, and bed. Sampling each, Goldilocks finds that two of the three (belonging to the father and mother) are not suitable for her because they are too hot and too cold (food), too high or too low (chairs), and too hard or too soft (beds). The only one she finds suitable for herself are the ones belonging to the small bear. The similitude here is that the universe in which we live has been made in a masterful manner: It has been fine-tuned to such a great degree that, had it been any other way, it would not have been able to support life. From this, the teleological argument takes shape. The argument has been used right across the religious spectrum and in all eras and geographies. For example, Rāzī said, Fiṭrah testifies that the appearance of a house inscribed with unusual inscriptions and built in a finely balanced manner with wisdom and benefit cannot be possible without a knowledgeable scribe and a prudent builder. It is known that the signs of wisdom in the upper and lower worlds are far more than the manifestations of wisdom in that small house. Given that the original fiṭrah is a testament to the inscription needing a scribe, and the building needing a builder, this testament would be all the more so in the case of this entire world needing a maker that acts with choice and wisdom.243

Ibn al-Qayyim  said, Allah  predisposed His servants – and even animals – to take a liking to placing everything in its rightful place, to carry things out at their appropriate moment, and to acquire things in the desired manner. He also predisposed them to dislike the opposite and to go against the aforementioned methods. The first is indicative of the perfection, knowledge, power, and proficiency of the doer; its opposite is indicative of his own deficiency and the deficiency of his knowledge, power, and expertise. This is the fiṭrah that people simply cannot depart from. It is known that the one who predisposed them like this and placed this capacity in them would be worthier of these praiseworthy traits than they are. Allah  places things in their rightful place. He makes them unique by assigning to them attributes, shapes, configurations, and sizes in a manner that He knows better than anyone else. He brings them out into the open – and that too at the only time suitable for them. One who possesses sound analysis and upright thought, and contemplates as one should do so, would testify to that in what he sees and knows. He would use what he witnesses in evidence for what is concealed. Everything is from the making of the Wise, the Omniscient. To demonstrate this, it suffices to know the wisdom behind creating animals, their limbs, attributes, configurations, the benefit that can be derived from them, and that they absolutely represent the wisdom that is desired in them. Allah  recommended His servants to do this: “…as there are within yourselves. Can you not see?”244; and “Do they not ever reflect on camels – how they were masterfully created?...”245 In a similar fashion, if one properly contemplates and observes all of His upper and lower creations and everything in between, he will find it all to be designed and enveloped in great wisdom. He would be able to read the wisdom etched into them and proclaim: “This is the making of the Omniscient and the Wise, and it is the decree of the Almighty and the Omniscient. If minds can find anything more suitable than this, they should recommend it; if they see anything more beautiful than it, they should bring it forth and showcase it. That is the making of ‘the One Who created seven heavens, one above the other. You will never see any imperfection in the creation of the Most Compassionate. So look again: do you see any flaws?’”246 One who observes this world and contemplates it as it rightly should would know that its Creator masterfully designed it and fortified it. When he ponders over it, he would find it to be like a house in which all its installations are prepared. The sky is raised like a roof, the Earth is stretched out like a carpet, the stars are clustered like lamps, and welfare is stored therein like treasures. Everything in it is designed for something it is suited for. Man is like the owner who was made entitled to it. The various types of flora have been prepared for his purposes. Different animals are utilised to his advantage. Some of them are only for milking, siring, and nourishment; some are only for riding and transportation; others are for beauty and adornment; and others are for all of these, such as camels – their stomachs are storage containers for drink, food, medicine, and cure. There is a lesson in them for those who want to observe and signs for those who are discerning. And within the avian species – with all of its variety, shapes, colours, population numbers, the advantages they afford, their songs, with their wings outspread and folded in, and with their migration and settlement patterns – there is a great lesson and clear indicator to the wisdom of the Creator, the Omniscient.’247

Ibn Rushd  excellently phrased this argument. He said, As for the method the religion pursued in edifying the masses on the world being from the making of Allah , note that when the verses carrying this meaning are contemplated, this method can be found to be one of providence. It is one way that we have stated is indicative of the existence of the Creator . Furthermore, when a man looks at a perceptible item and finds it to be fashioned into a specific shape, size, and configuration, and that all of these are aligned to the benefit and end goal one would expect from it (such that he would have to admit that this benefit would not have been found if it was fashioned into any other shape, configuration, or quantity), he would be convinced that this thing has a maker who made it. This is why its shape, configuration, and size are aligned to its benefit. It is also why it would not be possible for all these things to have just coincidentally converged for that benefit. For example, when a person sees a stone on the ground, and he finds it to be shaped in a way that makes it fit to be sat on, and he likewise finds its configuration and size to be as such, he would know that this stone was fashioned into a chair by a maker who configured and shaped it in that place. As for when he does not see this sort of arrangement for sitting, he would be certain that the stone’s appearance in this place and manner was coincidental, without any person having placed it there. The same is applicable to the entire world. Man can look therein and see the Sun, the Moon, and the stars – which are the cause of the four seasons, night and day, rain, water, wind, sections on Earth becoming inhabited with people and terrestrial animals being found therein – and that water is acclimatised for aquatic creatures, and the air made suitable for flying creatures. He can see that if any of these forms and structures are disturbed, the creations present here would all be disrupted. He would therefore be certain that it would not be possible that all segments of the world just coincidentally converged for the sake of man, animal, and flora; rather, that was by the design of someone who willed this. That would be Allah . Man would also know with all conviction that the world was constructed, because he would instinctively know that it is impossible to find such convergence out of sheer coincidence without any maker. This type of evidence is decisive and simple, as is obvious from what we have written here. Its basis lies on two principles that everybody acknowledges. One is that the world, along with all its constituent parts, is aligned to the existence of man and all animals that live here. The second is that anything – along with all its constituent parts – that is aligned to a single act and a singular goal must be considered made. These two principles obviously result in this: The world is made, and it has a maker. The argument from providence denotes both of these points simultaneously. This is why it is the most esteemed of arguments for the existence of the Maker.’248

One of the most famed and widespread passages for this argument in the Western space is the fascinating analogy by William Paley in his book Natural Theology: ‘In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone?’249

The answer is obvious. The complex composition a watch contains instinctively reveals the existence of its maker. Paley wanted to draw an analogy for the universe from the watch, which necessitates the existence of a watchmaker. It is from here that this example has become famously known as the ‘watchmaker analogy’, as a metaphor for the world needing a Wise, Omniscient Maker.

The composition of this argument is similar to the composition of the argument from creation in that it also relies on: a) sensory and perceptible data, and b) innate and instinctive concepts. It is what gives the argument its strength. This argument is easy to comprehend and conceptualise – it has no difficulty to it. For example, when a person looks at the Grand Canyon, which is the steep sided canyon found in Arizona, and then he compares this to Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, where a colossal sculpture of four American presidents is carved into the granite face of the mountain, or other man-made sculptures and carvings, he would perceive that there is an obvious distinction to be made. Although it is understandable that the former was caused by wind and river erosion, he may not be able to believe the same are capable of the latter. Even though he would not have seen them being carved and sculptured in person, he would most certainly know that there were people who did this. If you contemplate on this point further and try to identify the reason for this distinction, it would simply be down to the nature of the composition and complexity of the structure that would make man made design to be more plausible. This explains why this argument is so widespread in its usage to prove the existence of Allah. Like its predecessor, it is one of the most used arguments in religious and philosophical circles, and it makes the creation the subject matter, where reasoning and rational concepts are applied to them. Whereas the argument from creation is leveraged to prove that there must be a creator for the creation, this argument leverages the finely-tuned nature of the creation, which suggests there is a Wise, Omniscient Creator. The first argument draws its reasoning from the actual moment of creation; this argument draws its reasoning after creation comes into existence. The latter also stands out insofar as it introduces further attributes of the Creator, such as His perfect power, will, knowledge, wisdom, and others.

As this argument is used extensively, there have been various terms to describe it, though they all refer to the same meaning: argument from systemisation; argument from fine-tuning; argument from design (teleological argument); argument from providence; argument from purpose; and argument from planning.

Looking at revelation, one can find many usages of this argument as evidence to assist servants in revealing the greatness of the Lord  and His perfect knowledge, power, and wisdom. It stimulates man’s innate predisposition, that invites him to ascribe these manifestations of masterful construction to a Wise and Willing Doer. Read, for example, the following statements of Allah : • ‘To those who disbelieve in the Hereafter belong all evil qualities, whereas to Allah belong the finest attributes. And He is the Almighty, All-Wise.’250

• ‘It is Allah Who has raised the heavens without pillars – as you can see – then established Himself on the Throne. He has subjected the Sun and the Moon, each orbiting for an appointed term. He conducts the whole affair. He makes the signs clear so that you may be certain of the meeting with your Lord.’251

Though these verses are in the context of proving why the Lord  alone is worthy of worship – the proof being that the polytheists affirmed that He  is alone in absolute Lordship252 – they also necessarily imply that Allah exists. The fact is that the verses that can be presented in this regard are too numerous to be all listed.253 They are the verses that instruct servants to animate their powers of contemplation to ponder over the creation of the heavens and the Earth, the alternation of day and night, and the care given to the stars, clouds, winds, and all natural phenomena that are indicative of their Creator’s magnificence. This is in addition to those verses that speak of the wonders of Allah  in the animal and plant kingdoms. Man himself is not precluded from this process of contemplation – he is to observe and be the subject of observation at the same time. This is why Allah  said, ‘There are countless signs on Earth for those with sure faith.’254

Thus, one of the decisively established points in revelation is about celebrating the act of worship. This is achieved by reflecting on Allah’s creations, where one utilises the observation of them to believe in Allah  and His perfect attributes, and – as a result – to understand His worthiness of being the only worthy being for our servitude and worship.

There is no doubt that this argument has had a huge impact in the debate surrounding this issue. Such has been its sway that it has forced many atheists to acknowledge its power; in fact, it has caused some of their most famous figures to abandon atheism altogether. British philosopher Antony Flew, a famous ex atheist who had previously written a number of pro-atheism research papers and participated in numerous debates, ended up affirming the existence of a Wise, Omniscient Creator who made the universe. In his book There is a God, he expressed the deep impact this argument had on him personally, which led him to abandon atheism: ‘Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God. Developments in two areas in particular have led me to this conclusion. The first is the question of the origin of the laws of nature and the related insights of eminent modern scientists. The second is the question of the origin of life and reproduction.’255 This argument has forced even the most ardent of atheists into admitting that it is one of the best polemics offered by theists.

The teleological argument is based on the following propositions:

• First proposition: The universe we see and live in is masterfully made and consummate. The signs of care and providence therein are apparent.

• Second proposition: This consummate mastery suggests that there is a Wise, Omniscient Doer who created it in this manner.

• Conclusion: Allah  is the Wise, Omniscient Creator who created the universe.

The argument can also be based on an elimination process: list all the possibilities first, then remove the implausible ones. The statement here is that the universe is masterfully made and consummate. The possibilities for this being the case are three:

i. It appeared out of causal determinism. ii. It appeared out of coincidence.

iii. It appeared thanks to a Wise and Willing Creator.

By dispelling the first two options (which is to be discussed in more detail soon), the only option remaining is the third.

When a person thinks about the phenomenon of the mastery that exists in this universe and looks at its wonderful manifestations and imagery, he would see that this argument can be found abundantly across the world that we live in. The universe is laden with amazing scenes of beauty, grandeur, and mastery. The atheist physicist Steven Weinberg said, ‘I have to admit that sometimes nature seems more beautiful than strictly necessary.’256 Suffice it to say that, had this beauty and mastery not been in such abundance, we would have been in a totally different universe – and our world would have become a hard place to live.

This abundance of evidence for the masterful construction of the universe has had a huge influence in the teleological argument’s spread and the simplicity of its application. In fact, this abundance makes it suitable for a wide range of people, as people can differ vastly in terms of their ability to comprehend and contemplate the signs of intelligent design in the creation. This is also because people differ in terms of their cognitive experiences and knowledge. Whenever the intellectual tools inside a person are in greater abundance and maturity, he would gain a foresight into the subtlety of an immaculate construction that someone without these tools would not be able to acquire. The essence of this capability is found in all people so long as their fiṭrah and senses are uncorrupted. Beyond this, they can vary in terms of the extent they can exercise reflection – an act of worship – just as they can vary in terms of the impact that reflection can have on them. In traditional writings, in the pursuit of understanding the Creator  and to deepen one’s knowledge of Him and His perfect attributes, there is a faith-based response that speaks to reflection. One of the best writings on this is what Imam Ibn al-Qayyim  wrote in his books Shifā’ al-ʿAlīl and Miftāḥ Dār al-Saʿādah, where he extensively researched this issue in the search of Allah’s wisdom in many aspects of His creation, revealing His omniscience in the manifestation of masterful and consummate construction embedded in the creation. Abū Ḥāmid al Ghazālī  also has a treatise on the same issue, titled al-Ḥikmah fī Makhlūqāt Allah.

With the advancement in scientific knowledge, further manifestations of greatness, grandeur, and mastery in the creation of Allah  have opened up for us. This has left many minds astounded. Many contemporary scientific studies today have presented highly sophisticated tools of knowledge to us, underscoring the same meaning that we can ascertain when observing the manifestations of consummate construct in the universe – only in a more detailed and in-depth manner.

So that we are precise, what science can offer in this field is evidence for the propositions upon which the existence of Allah  can be rationally negotiated. Natural science, as per its current definition and the field in which it operates – cannot offer any direct evidence in this issue, because it seeks to reveal the material and natural causes to observable events. However, what it can provide are preludes upon which the desired evidence can be based. This uncovers what is one of the problematic areas in many atheist discourses, especially those that make science out to be the sole source of knowledge, thus shutting down the path of demonstrating evidence for Allah’s existence. This is because this would mean the sources of knowledge are restricted to material means alone. It casts a prison from which one cannot escape. A person may only be able to source knowledge of causes – and their causes – from inside this material prison, even if all the evidence suggests that the solution lies outside these prison walls. By the same logic, the efforts of atheists to demonstrate the non-existence of Allah are also from outside this material framework, as they are merely philosophical summaries based on that knowledge. This is why it is important to highlight the conflation that oftentimes occurs between scientific knowledge that is known to be correct on the one hand, and the philosophical theories that are based on science on the other. These theories, after distillation and analysis, might turn out to be correct after all, though they might be proven false as well.

First concept: The fine-tuning of the universe.

One scientific concept that can be leveraged to uncover the deeply consummate construct of the universe is known as the fine-tuning of the universe. This idea first surfaced in a paper written by the physicist Brandon Carter in 1974, which was titled ‘Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology’. The next work to appear on this was by Bernard Carr and Martin Rees in 1979 called ‘The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world’, followed by the classic encyclopaedic work The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler in 1986. Subsequently, many writings on this issue appeared, all of which carry the same premise.

The key premise is that when the universe is contemplated, we can see that there are standardised and extremely finely-tuned laws and constants in place for life to exist; in fact, some of these laws are so finely balanced that the existence of the entire universe rests upon it, and that any imbalance in any of these constants would lead to ultimate destruction. The level of mastery present in the making of the universe is not restricted only to biological living beings or this astonishing planet in which we live. This mastery extends to the laws and constants that govern this universe. These constants are a set of numerical data that have been very carefully selected, such that if they would have fallen either side of those numbers to even a small extent, the entire system of life – and in fact the entire universe itself – would disappear. The very existence of the universe is linked to these crucial numbers. Stephen C. Meyer, founder and director of the Discovery Institute, clarifies this with an example: ‘Imagine that you are a cosmic explorer who has just stumbled into the control room of the whole universe. There you discover an elaborate “universe-creating machine”, with rows and rows of dials, each with many possible settings. As you investigate, you learn that each dial represents some particular parameter that has to be calibrated with a precise value in order to create a universe in which life can exist. One dial represents the possible settings for the strong nuclear force, one for the gravitational constant, one for Planck’s constant, one for the ratio of the neutron mass to the proton mass, one for the strength of electromagnetic attraction, and so on. As you, the cosmic explorer, examine the dials, you find that they could easily have been tuned to different settings. Moreover, you determine by careful calculation that if any of the dial settings were even slightly altered, life would cease to exist. Yet for some reason each dial is set at just the exact value necessary to keep the universe running. What do you infer about the origin of these finely-tuned dial settings?’257

The logical conclusion, which we shall come onto, is that there is something that calibrated these dials so that those constants could gain and retain the values that are distinct to them and necessary for the existence of life and the universe.

There are a number of examples showcased in the universe that demonstrate fine-tuning. We can mention a few as examples.

When we ponder over the Earth’s gravitational pull, its control over us, and how it pulls us back down to itself, we feel that there is a mighty force from which there is no escape. However, when compared to other natural forces, it appears to be very weak. In fact, it is 1036 times weaker than the strong nuclear force. The weakness of gravity compared to other natural forces is a key element in the extremely precise fine-tuning for life. In the New Scientist magazine, in the article titled ‘Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity fine-tuned?’, it states, ‘The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for. If it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.’258

The gravitational constant of the universe has been incredibly and precisely tuned – had it been off even by 1060, we would not have existed. To understand 257 Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, p. 57.

how exceedingly narrow this life-permitting range is, imagine you have a fine tuning machine or a calibrating dial. Then you divided the degrees of the dial by 1060(1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

,000,000,000) probabilities, and you are required to get the tuning right from this pile of probabilities. Another example is this: You grab a measuring tool like a ruler and measure the universe from one side to the other, then you measure up the gravitational force of the Earth and place that value on that ruler – if you erred by even one inch, it would spark a cataclysm. Surely it would be more rational to believe, given that this finely-tuned number is in play, that this was a result of knowledge, and that it could not have been by sheer coincidence.

Martin Rees, the famous British physicist and author of Just Six Numbers, clarifies that had gravity been slightly stronger than it is, the stars would burn out and their energy would be rapidly depleted, causing their untimely death. If, for example, the Sun’s gravity was doubled, its possible age would reduce from a possible 10 billion years to just 100 million years.259 In addition, this gravitational pull would cause the planets orbiting around it to be extremely small. As for living beings that stay alive on those fragile planets that support life, they would be crushed by gravity if their size increased even by the span of an insect, which would mean that any intelligent life would be impossible. The New Scientist magazine article goes further and mentions that for the universe to be able to support life, there must have been a balancing act between the expanding rate of the universe and the gravity to within one part in 1015, just one second after the Big Bang – any imbalance in this early moment of the universe would have spelled doom for any prospect of life.

This is the force that is responsible for the stability of matter by holding together protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus, thereby forming atomic nuclei. All protons as we know carry a positive charge; what allows it to remain stable inside the atom nucleus – and not being expelled – is the strong nuclear force. It is like trying to force two magnets of the same pole together – doing so would lead to repulsion. However, if the power that is attempting to put them together is stronger, it would be possible to overcome repulsion. The strong nuclear force is also balanced in extremely precise fashion. Had it been weaker by 2%, hydrogen atoms would have undergone repulsion and would have never been able to bond with other chemicals, leaving the universe in a state of nothing other than hydrogen atoms roaming around. Conversely, had this force 259 Astrophysicists estimate that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old, and that it has enough hydrogen to remain alive for a further 5 billion + years. been 2% stronger, the hydrogen atoms would have bonded with each other so rapidly that they would have all become helium, which would have been the overwhelmingly predominant chemical element across the universe. There is a wonderful balance in this force: Some hydrogen atoms bond to become helium atoms, whereas the rest of the hydrogen remains to form all other chemical elements, such as bonding with oxygen to form water. It would be difficult to envisage any life without this perfect balance in this force. What has been said for the strong nuclear force is equally applicable to the weak nuclear force, as well as the electromagnetic force. Along with gravity and the strong nuclear force, they represent the four forces that regulate the universe. All four are so finely balanced that if any of them were to change even in the slightest, life would not have been able to exist. Examples that are indicative of fine-tuning are too numerous to mention. They can be studied and observed in the books that deal with this wondrous phenomenon. Some works that come to mind in this regard are Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees, Big Bang, Big God: A Universe Fit for Life? by Rodney Holder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by Gerald Schroeder, A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology by Alister McGrath, The Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davies, and God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science by Neil Manson. In fact, most Western writings that have researched this argument showcase a variety of examples to demonstrate the finely-tuned nature of the universe, its laws, and its constants. What is wondrous about this state of being finely-tuned is that, had some of these forces not been where they exactly are, the universe would have long ceased to exist the way we know it. Some forces are balanced in a way that allowed the development of stars, planets, and matter. Other forces are so finely balanced that they were simply put in place to welcome mankind. The lattermost point is what is known as the anthropic principle. There is a set of data related to the nature of this universe that would have made it unsuitable for life had it been any different. The British philosopher Antony Flew skilfully painted an image of this argument in his book There is a God:

Imagine entering a hotel room on your next vacation. The CD player on the bedside table is softly playing a track from your favorite recording. The framed print over the bed is identical to the image that hangs over the fireplace at home. The room is scented with your favorite fragrance. You shake your head in amazement and drop your bags on the floor. You’re suddenly very alert. You step over to the minibar, open the door, and stare in wonder at the contents. Your favorite beverages. Your favorite cookies and candy. Even the brand of bottled water you prefer. You turn from the minibar, then, and gaze around the room. You notice the book on the desk: it’s the latest volume by your favorite author. You glance into the bathroom, where personal care and grooming products are lined up on the counter, each one as if it was chosen specifically for you. You switch on the television; it is tuned to your favorite channel. Chances are, with each new discovery about your hospitable new environment, you would be less inclined to think it was all a mere coincidence, right? You might wonder how the hotel managers acquired such detailed information about you. You might marvel at their meticulous preparation. You might even double-check what all this is going to cost you. But you would certainly be inclined to believe that someone knew you were coming.’260

He adds, That vacation scenario is a clumsy, limited parallel to the so-called fine-tuning argument. The recent popularity of this argument has highlighted a new dimension of the laws of nature. “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture”, writes physicist Freeman Dyson, “the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming.” In other words, the laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life. This is the anthropic principle, popularized by such thinkers as Martin Rees, John Barrow, and John Leslie.261

When Ibn Rushd coined the argument from providence in his book al-Kashf ʿan Manāhij al-Adillah, he pointed out the care a man receives:

The method the Glorious Book pointed out and invited all to its gate is this: When a comprehensive assessment of the Great Book is conducted, this method of argument can be found to be designated as two types. One is the method of providence vis-à-vis man and the creation of all things in existence for his sake. Let us name this the argument from providence. The second method is the design of the essences inside existing things, such as the fashioning of life in an otherwise inanimate object, and one’s sensory and rational perceptions. Let us name this the argument from design. As for the first method, it is based on two principles. One is that all things in existence here are aligned to the interests of the existence of man. The second principle is that this alignment is by way of necessity from a willing doer who willed this, as it is not possible that this alignment occurred by chance. As for their alignment to the interests of the existence of man, one can be certain of that thanks to how night, day, the Sun, and the Moon are in line with his interests; the same applies to the alignment of the four seasons, and the place he is in – Earth. This arrangement also includes many animals, plants, inanimate objects, and the other many elements such as the rains, the rivers, and the entire set of Earth, water, fire, and wind. Providence also manifests in the limbs of humans and animals, meaning they are all arranged for man’s life and existence. In all, it is understood that the benefits offered by everything in existence fall under this type. This is why it is incumbent upon one who wants to fully understand Allah  to look at the benefits offered by all things in existence.’262

In addition to the organised nature of the universe and all of its laws and constants that Allah placed therein, it is even more wondrous that this universe is an object of education and understanding. This is not a light point; it could have so easily been decreed not to be so. So what was the reason for the universe being not only organised and an entity to be studied, but also able to express its laws and regulations in mathematical terms to a very high degree of precision? Einstein quipped, ‘The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.’ Our existence in this world is at a fixed place and a fixed moment in time. With highly specific, precise, and finely-tuned measurements about the world that we now know of, the space for us to decipher the universe has now really opened up. This would not have been possible without these cosmological measurements in front of us. In the introduction to the book The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, it reads:

The fact that our atmosphere is clear; that our Moon is just the right size and distance from Earth, and that its gravity stabilizes Earth’s rotation; that our position in our galaxy is just so; that our Sun is its precise mass and composition – all of these facts and many more not only are necessary for Earth’s habitability but also have been surprisingly crucial to the discovery and measurement of the universe by scientists. Mankind is unusually well positioned to decipher the cosmos. Were we merely lucky in this regard?263

This degree of mastery and fine-tuning brings about a set of questions: How were these constants, states, and data points found? Is there someone or something that brought them all together in this precise fashion? Was it always meant to be this way? Or did the universe simply come about as an accident?

As for the atheist viewpoint that the universe was – supposedly – always going to come to a point where it is now at, then that is not necessarily the case. This is the stance that most physicists adopt, such as Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, George Ellis, and others. For example, Davies states, ‘A genuine theory of everything must explain not only how our universe came into being, but also why it is the only type of universe that there could have been – why there could only be one set of physical laws.’264

The determinist position claiming that these constants were bound to appear leads to the position that it would be impossible for any universe to come into existence in which there is no life, and that the existence of the universe in this narrowly suitable manner was determined and always bound to happen. This goes against reality: All the data suggest that the probability of a universe – like ours – that would support life is extremely minuscule compared to the infinite probabilities of lifeless universes. There is not even a whiff of evidence that would suggest that these constants must always come about in this manner. Indeed, some scientists speak of a theory that has not been discovered until now. It is called the ‘theory of everything’ (TOE). It attempts to offer a theory that organises the four forces of nature into one law, which will hugely simplify a lot of aspects in physics. The search for this theory had already begun with Einstein, who said, ‘What really interests me is whether God could have created the world any differently.’ Of course, his efforts in this regard did not come to any fruition. The ‘string theory’ is a continuation of the attempt to find TOE. The most famous attempt today – which is at the forefront of these discussions and is the lead theory – is what is known as the ‘M-theory’, which attempts to unify all consistent versions of string theory under one rule. Such assumptions are the go to default of some people who want to explain why the universe’s laws and constants are as they are. Victor Stenger says, ‘Many physicists expect that ultimately a theory of everything (TOE) will be discovered that will include a calculation of all its parameters. In that case, there will be nothing to fine-tune.’265

Therefore, would the demonstrable existence of something like the M-theory lead to the accuracy of the deterministic view of the universe, leading to the denial of the existence of Allah ? It does not seem so – for two reasons.

Firstly, let us assume that these types of cosmological constants are governed by a law whose values – in light of that law – can only be in accordance with the existing data. Would such a law in itself be deterministic and envisaged only as such? Or would it be possible for it to assume different scenarios and variations that result in different values for the cosmological constants? If that is the case, the question would switch from one of ‘Why are the constants like this?’ to ‘Out of all the probable versions, why is it only this version of absolute law?’ Therefore, the process of seeking out an absolute and universal rule that would govern all theories would no longer have any impact in the debate over the existence of Allah , because Allah Himself would have been the author of this first rule, and He would have been the One Who delineated those values and numbers that made the universe suitable for life.

Secondly, imagine a man adopted a more vigorous stance and claimed that this law can only be in the manner it is, in the sense that it cannot ever be envisaged that there are other different versions of it in any other possible universe. If we assume the existence of other universes, they would all be copies of our universe, because this absolute law would be governing all universes; therefore, this law in itself would be deterministic, as well as the laws of physics that are born out of the law. However, it would appear that this choice too is unacceptable. It raises further questions of a profoundly deep nature. In fact, it is based on preconceived notions that cannot be scientifically proven. In reality, it is just a claim in metaphysics that contradicts the scientism methodology. One legitimate scientific question that may be put forward here – which is also a conundrum for someone who adopts this conceptualisation – is this: What is the meaning of a single absolute law (which can only be according to this method) being the one from which the manifestations of precision and fine-tuning in our universe are born out of? What is the interpretation of an unchangeable deterministic law being the one in whose light the constants that make the universe suitable for life are formed? Such a conceptualisation would make our very existence deterministic, which should be incredibly perplexing to anyone who adopts this view. Peter van Inwagen offers an example that reveals the problem – a mystery – associated with the view, which mandates that it be revisited for greater scrutiny and understanding: Imagine you have a large piece of paper. You draw a table with a thousand rows and a thousand columns. Starting from the top, you write every number in the π sequence (3.14159265369…) in order, until every cell has a number inside it. Then you assign a specific colour to each single digit and colour all the cells alongside that digit with the same colour. Imagine you then take a step back and look at the paper – it turns out to be a high quality drawing, something like the Mona Lisa painting. Would this not be astonishing and strange? However, you then remember that this was meant to be, i.e., that this image would appear if the π sequence was written in this manner. In spite of this, could it be possible that we accept this to be sheer coincidence by way of legal determinism? It would seem that this line of thought is not acceptable, or that this would be a rational explanation. In their classic pioneering paper, ‘The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world’, Bernard Carr and Martin Rees said, ‘However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences266 could be explained in this way, it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life.’267

After mentioning the point of view of those ‘hard-nosed physicists’ who believe in the determinism of these constants in this manner gripped by TOE, Richard Dawkins said, ‘Other physicists (Martin Rees himself would be an example) find this unsatisfying, and I think I agree with them. It is indeed perfectly plausible that there is only one way for a universe to be. But why did that one way have to be such a set-up for our eventual evolution? Why did it have to be the kind of universe which seems almost as if, in the words of the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, it “must have known we were coming”?’268

Furthermore, entertaining this sort of idea leads to the shutdown of scientific research under the excuse of ‘This is just how things are’, leaving no room to conduct any further investigation. Remember that atheists frequently lament theists for closing the doors to scientific progress269 as they consider the existence of Allah to be an explanation for natural phenomena. Therefore, this sort of idea assumes we will do the same: that when we crack this law, we will be able to explain every natural phenomenon in the universe with a single universal rule. The law itself will never be subject to investigation, under the pretence that it is deterministic and is not something one can escape from. Even if he sees the Mona Lisa like in the example above, he will claim that the absolute rule of the universe is the judge, and that is enough.

Note that the entire issue here is based on the problem that was dealt with earlier on. We proved that atheists do indeed have faith in an unseen future that science shall later on reveal. We referred to this as the ‘knowledge of the gaps’ or the ‘atheism of the gaps’. This position of theirs is a hopelessly idealistic viewpoint.

There was a lengthy discussion between Richard Dawkins and the atheist Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg. Dawkins discussed his answers to the argument from fine-tuning, and that it can be answered in one of three ways: 1) God is the one who set up these constants in this way – a proposal he obviously rejected; 2) leveraging the theory of the multiverse to explain this phenomenon; and 3) what he ascribed to Weinberg, that we do not have enough information to offer an answer to this, and that we should wait for future discoveries that will enable us to reach the TOE, which will ultimately reveal the answer. In light of that discussion, Dawkins admitted he had misunderstood Weinberg’s position. Weinberg noted: ‘But I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we’re in, that in the end we will not be able to explain the world, that we will have some set of laws of nature we will not be able to derive on the ground simply of mathematical consistency, because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it, and we will always be left with a question why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws and I don’t see any way out of that.’270

We leave the answer to this to Weinberg:

I mean it's not only a speculation. The theory would be speculative, but we don’t have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized, yeah. But it’s a possibility. But the only other explanation is that is not even an explanation because we don’t have a candidate theory. But the only explanation that seems to work is that this is just one of those things that varies from sub-universe to sub-universe, from Big Bang to Big Bang. In most of the Big Bangs, it’s much larger than what we observe. And in those Big Bangs, they go through because this energy drives the expansion of the universe depending on whether it’s positive or negative. In the universe that blows up so rapidly, there’s no time for galaxies or stars to form, or it crunches or re-collapses so rapidly again there’s no time after life to form, yes. So it has to be small for life to exist, and it’s about as small as it as in fact that’s interesting it’s not much smaller than it would have to be to allow life to arise…and it must be at least 1056, or if you think you have some idea about fluctuations in even shorter distances I think you would say at least 10120. In fact, that's a little disturbing.271

Alexander Vilenkin says, A tiny deviation from the required power results in a cosmological disaster, such as the fireball collapsing under its own weight or the universe being nearly empty…This is the most notorious and perplexing case of fine-tuning in physics. String theorist Leonard Susskind, a non-religious scientist, as is Vilenkin, writes in his article, Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant, that unless this constant was fine-tuned, “statistically miraculous events” would be needed for our universe to be life-permitting. He suggests that, in light of this, it is possible that an unknown agent set the early conditions of the universe we observe today.272

The British physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose went further:

[He] calculated that the odds of our universe having such low disorder at the beginning of time are 1 in 1010^123 power (one followed by a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeroes). This number is so large that if you wrote out all the zeroes it would stretch across the galaxy. You’re more likely to win 10,000 lotteries in a row – and get struck by lightning every time you won – than you ever finding a universe with low disorder at its inception. Atheist John Loftus agreed with the reality of fine-tuning. Citing the work of other physicists, he writes, “These examples can be multiplied, but the point is that ‘with a change in any one of a number of factors’, the ‘universe would have evolved as a lifeless, unconscious entity.’” Don Page of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, calculated the odds against the formulation of our universe. His exact computation was 10,000,000,000 to the 124th power, a number so large that to call it “astronomical” would be to engage in a wild understatement.273

Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist, says, ‘The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural “constants” were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life – almost contrived – you might say a “put-up job”.’274 He adds: ‘The cliche that “life is balanced on a knife-edge” is a staggering understatement in this case: no knife in the universe could have an edge that fine.’275

Just to paint a picture of how impossible any coincidental balancing by the aforementioned ‘knife-edge’ would be, imagine you throw a banana onto a very thin piece of thread stretched out in the air and the banana lands on it perfectly and balances. Afterwards you throw a spoon onto the banana and it balances vertically. Then you place an egg on top of that and it still balances vertically. Subsequently, you place a pen and it remains all in vertical balance, and on top of the pen goes a pin and it balances vertically, and so on. It is that impossible. Scientists offer many other examples to demonstrate the improbability of these sorts of numbers converging out of coincidence. For example, clarifying the impossibility of the most primitive of cells coming into existence by way of chaos and coincidence, Fred Hoyle said, ‘A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.’276

Astrophysicist Michael Turner said it would be like shooting an arrow from the edge of the universe to hit a target at the other end, with a margin of error of one millimetre.277 Astrophysicist Hugh Ross said that if we filled America with metal currency until the mound reaches the Moon, which is 380,000 kilometres from Earth, repeated the process for a billion other continents, coloured one metal piece in red and buried it under one of these mounds, and then we sent in a blindfolded man and asked him to pick out that red piece, the probabilities of him picking out that red piece is one in 1040.

278 Compare this figure with the aforementioned numbers to understand how improbable this would be as a coincidence. In fact, even expressing how remote a possibility it is would not begin to convey its implausibility.

Antony Flew said, The last of my public debates, a symposium at New York University, occurred in May 2004. The other participants were the Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder, author of best sellers on science and religion, notably The Science of God, and the Scottish philosopher John Haldane, whose Theism and Atheism was a debate on God’s existence with my friend Jack Smart. To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now accepted the existence of a God. What might have been an intense exchange of opposing views ended up as a joint exploration of the developments in modern science that seemed to point to a higher intelligence. In the video of the symposium, the announcer suggested that of all the great discoveries of modern science, the greatest was God. In this symposium, when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative intelligence, I said: “Yes, I now think it does…almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.” This statement represented a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with the principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life – of following the argument no matter where it leads. I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeder’s point-by point refutation of what I call the “monkey theorem.” This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet. Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages – but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the twenty-six letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter word is 30 times 30 times 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance out of 27,000. Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. “What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?” he asked. He continued: “All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, ‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?’ I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in ‘Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?’? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times – or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.[Now] the number of particles in the universe – not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons – is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to the 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips – forget the monkeys – each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just thinks the monkeys can do it every time.” After hearing Schroeder’s presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the “monkey theorem” was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.’279

Gerald Schroeder has a humorous example to demonstrate why the theory of coincidence to explain the natural phenomena is implausible. A man goes to the gambling capital of the world, Las Vegas, and enters a casino. He sits at a slot machine. He inserts a coin and pulls his arm away and the wheels start spinning. He hits the jackpot. He would most certainly be over the Moon, and those around him would probably be happy for him as well, and would congratulate him. Now, imagine this person felt it was his lucky day. He inserted a coin and hit the jackpot again. His joy would be indescribable. Now, pretend the same happened on the third, fourth, and fifth occasions: every time he is winning big, not just any small prize. It would be inevitable that after a few turns, his joy would turn into doubt. He would start thinking this is not possible, and that maybe there is something wrong with the machine, or that someone determined that he should win on every turn. Schroeder says, With the universe we did not win just one lottery. We won at the choice for the strength of the electromagnetic force (which encourages atoms to join into molecules). We won at the strength of the strong nuclear force (which holds atomic nuclei together; were it a bit stronger the diproton and not hydrogen would be the major component of the universe, and no hydrogen means no shining stars). Other winning lotteries were the strength of the weak nuclear force and the strength of gravity (which dominates the universe at distances greater than the size of molecules and clusters mass into galaxies, stars, and planets), the mass and energy of the big bang, the temperature of the big bang, the rate of expansion of the universe, and much more. Lottery upon lottery, and all winners. They have meshed to produce the wonderful world in which we live. By chance? Not if our understanding of the laws of nature is even approximately correct. To this observer of nature, our universe looks like a put-up job.280

The American mathematician William Dembski attempted to make an equation for improbable things, called the universal probability bound. The question he was attempting to solve was this: To what point can the degree of improbability stoop down to, below which a specified event of that level of improbability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance, regardless of whatever probabilistic resources from the known universe are factored in? In other words, at what point does an improbable occurrence no longer remain within the bounds of probability/improbability, but must be explained through the will of a willing power that chose for it to occur this way? Dembski deduced an extremely high value equation, by which it can be determined that something could not have occurred by coincidence. His proposal was one out of 10150. How did he come up with this massive number? He used the following data:

• The number of elementary particles that scientists have estimated is 1080.

• In order for matter to transform from one state to another, it cannot occur in less than plank time, which is an extremely meagre amount of time that makes an eye blink feel like ages in comparison. Plank time is estimated to be at 1045. By this estimate, it is possible that matter can transform in just 1045 of a second.

• The universe is approximately 14 billion years old, which means it is younger than 1025 seconds by millions of years.

• Based on this, for any physical event to occur in the universe would require at least a single particle to transform, which would be as long as the plank time. Let us assume that we want to ensure there is enough time for this event to happen out of coincidence – let us say that the age of the universe (or longer) is the timeframe for this to occur. This event would repeat itself 1045

times within one second. This would repeat itself over a period of time that is 1025 seconds, longer than the age of the universe itself. Therefore, 1080 × 1045 × 1025 =10150. 280 The Science of God: The Convergence Of Scientific And Biblical Wisdom, p. 27.

144

This means that any coincidental physical event that has the probability of less than one in 10150 must be impossible, even if we exhaust every last particle – and second – in this cosmos for this event to occur. Obviously, these numbers are huge compared to the actual numbers we feel would tell us that something must have occurred by design and not by accident.281 However, what are we to do with those who grant implausible possibility to coincidence? This is precisely one of the greatest problematic areas for atheists. A number of atheists have great faith in the supposedly high probability of an accident being the cause of fine-tuning. I believe this represents one of the key differences between theists and atheists. Although some believers might believe that some things may occur out of coincidence, their faith in the capabilities of accidents would still be highly confined to one-off events. This is even assuming they have the same definition of coincidence. Atheists, on the other hand, have a great faith in the probability of coincidence triggering creation. This comes across quite conspicuously in atheist dogmatic writings – rhetoric like: ‘How did the universe come about? By accident. How did life start? By accident. How did the laws and regulations of the universe become so finely-tuned? By accident’, and so on. For example, when Dawkins speaks about the principle of life, conscience, and understanding, he puts all of these down to accident. When Daniel Dennett wanted to explain the principle of conscience and understanding, he said, ‘…and then the miracle happens.’282

In fact, their belief in the powers of coincidence go well beyond that. Reflect on this example of Dawkins’s faith in the powers of coincidence in deed and act, which makes answering any question on the complexities of life and the universe look easy, and renders coincidence a plausible answer every time. In his book The Blind Watchmaker, he says, A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a miracle, because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn’t behave like that. I have just uttered the words “May I be struck by lightning this minute”. If lightning did strike me in the same minute, it would be treated as a miracle. But actually neither of these two occurrences would be classified by science as utterly impossible. They would simply be judged very improbable, the waving statue much more improbable than the lightning. Lightning does strike people. Any one of us might be struck by lightning, but the probability is pretty low in any one minute…283

Dawkins goes on to clarify his stance on the first example:

In the case of the marble statue, molecules in solid marble are continuously jostling against one another in random directions. The jostlings of the different molecules cancel one another out, so the whole hand of the statue stays still. But if, by sheer coincidence, all the molecules just happened to move in the same direction at the same moment, the hand would move. If they then all reversed direction at the same moment the hand would move back. In this way it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen. The odds against such a coincidence are unimaginably great but they are not incalculably great. A physicist colleague has kindly calculated them for me. The number is so large that the entire age of the universe so far is too short a time to write out all the noughts! It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the Moon with something like the same improbability. The conclusion to this part of the argument is that we can calculate our way into regions of miraculous improbability far greater than we can imagine as plausible.284

He repeated the same example and discourse in his later book The God Delusion.

285 Such words reveal the deep belief they have in things occurring by coincidence, and that it is possible for anything to occur spontaneously. Even the indescribably remotest of possibilities allows Dawkins to claim something is not miraculous or impossible; instead, he claims it is still possible so long as the data allow it to remain as such. When a person has this attitude and accepts it under the pretence that it is possible – even if its plausibility is highly unlikely – he would be prepared to accept anything. This is why Norman Geisler and Frank Turek use the apt description to title their book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. In a letter to The Economist international newspaper magazine, one reader symbolically used the same idea in a somewhat sarcastic letter he penned in response to a pro-evolution article that was published by the weekly periodical: ‘I am amazed at your faith in evolution (“The story of man”, December 24th [2005]). It far outweighs my faith in creation. My faith requires only one mechanism: God's love. Yours requires three: that something can come of nothing (the “Big Bang”), that rocks can spontaneously spawn living things (life from inorganic elements) and that genetic mutations can turn a flatworm into an Einstein. You win; there is no doubt that your faith far outweighs mine.’286

If we add this to the sceptical attitude that atheists have with basic rational concepts (as discussed earlier), what would then be the state of human cognition? Rational concepts would be doubted. Our experiences through analysing this universe would also be questioned. The scientific and intellectual scene would be extremely gloomy if that were the case. Thankfully, nobody ever applies such scepticism in any consistent way – this should be sufficient to highlight its deep flaw.

One piece of jargon coined by the biochemist Dr. Michael Behe at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania is ‘irreducible complexity’. He wrote this in his famous book Darwin’s Black Box, in a chapter titled after it. Irreducible complexity is the idea that complex composite phenomena that require component parts that work in mutual harmony must have been made as thus in one go; if any lagged behind in evolution, the entire system of such phenomena would have collapsed. This proves that there must have been a designer who fashioned these phenomena in one go. So that any biological system can function properly, it must have three elements to it:

1. All its constituent parts must be present.

2. All its constituent parts must be present simultaneously.

3. All its constituent parts must bond with one another in a precise and harmonious manner. The position purporting the universe to be an accident is on a very bumpy road before it could ever acquire these three conditions. This automatically should mean that there was a designer who fashioned these phenomena in the organised and precise manner that it did, and that they did not evolve through what atheists say are the blind laws of nature, random genetic mutations, or natural selection processes from primitive forms until they became the complex entities that they are. Such a position lends itself to reductionism and oversimplification, which contradicts the evolution theory that assumes that any complex biological system would have progressively evolved from simpler and simpler forms, going all the way back to its very first and simplest form. If phenomena lent themselves to such an oversimplification, it would automatically mean that they were all made in one go. Given this, the designer position is the more rational answer to the question of how we came into existence. In his book, Behe mentioned a number of 286 https://www.economist.com/letters/2006/01/19/on-devan-nair-american-poverty-the-death-penalty evolution-deutsche-bank-gay-marriage examples from the natural world for these phenomena. The most famous and most iconic example of irreducible complexity is bacterial flagellum. This bacterium has a molecular motor that spins around, which allows it to move around in liquid with great ease. Its tail is made up of 40 different protein parts – if any one of those was not present at any given time, the bacteria would have been rendered non-functional. This demonstrates that it is an irreducibly complex organism that could not have gone through evolution, but rather came into nature in one go. Systems like the bacterial flagellum would be most easily and rationally explained by having come into existence through the willing and choosing doer that designed them as such, not that they gradually evolved by way of natural selection or slow genetic mutation as per the basic Darwin model. This is just one example. There are many other examples. ‘For example, in 1998 the leading journal, Cell, featured a special issue on “Macromolecular Machines”. Molecular machines are incredibly complex devices that all cells use to process information, build proteins, and move materials back and forth across their membranes. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines”. In it, he stated that: ‘We have always underestimated cells…The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines…Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.’287 The cell is a world unto its own, brimming with systems and various mechanisms. Each has been made in a specific way and carries out its own task. In toto, these systems and mechanisms play a role in the life of this cell.

One concept that is close to the notion of irreducible complexity developed by Behe is specified complexity, proposed by William Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician. Specified complexity is a method of reasoning for the argument from design for the existence of a designer. It denotes that wherever in nature any specified complexity is found, it would then be impossible for it to have come about as an accident. Rather, there must be someone who specified it to be in its composite and complex manner. Dembski says, ‘A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.’288

Here are three letter sequences:

1. Dasjf fdafds sdhf dusduewpf bdf dfda.

2. The crazy fox jumped over the lazy dogs.

3. A b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b.289

Looking at this, one can conclude the following: In the first two examples, the letters appear to be compact, adjoined, and complex, because the letters therein are different, not repetitive, and not open to interpretation. The third example is noncomplex but repetitive. It is clear in the second example that there must have been a willing doer who sequenced the letters in that specific manner so that the intended meaning was conveyed. Language is not only about putting letters together; it comprises of placing the letters in a way that form words and linking the words up according to grammatical rules. Without this, they offer no meaning. The second example stands out from the first and third in this regard. So although the first appears to be complex, there is no specificity to it. We can conclude that the first was a composition of randomised letters without any particular will to offer any meaning through them. As for the third, even though it appears to be organised, its simplicity leads us to entertaining the possibility of it having come about through some rule (for example) without any specifying will behind it. It is only the second example that points to a knowledgeable and willing doer, as our innate predispositions and our human experiences would dictate to us. This was just an approximative example to the point that Dembski wished to point out in order to draw a distinction between what determinism and laws can produce, and what accidents, randomness, and indeterminism can produce; only the former can be said to have come about as a result of a designer. Therefore, whenever a complex and specific manifestation of nature shows itself, we should know that there was someone who specified it to be in that way.

When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helix of DNA, they were able to solve a mystery of life. However, it led to another mystery. The nature of the data present in the genetic code was a mystery that puzzled scientists. Many tried to explain the incredible amount of biological information embedded within cells through the narrow lens of the materialistic outlook on the universe that does not recognise any other explanation outside its remit. Indeed, it would appear to be difficult for scientism to explain this. Through their discovery of the make up of the genetic code, Watson and Crick were able to reveal a huge data mine inside DNA, which is expressed through four bases and four chemical letters: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). These four bases are organised into particular shapes, in order to store and disseminate the list of genetic instructions for making proteins and other enzymes for cells to remain alive. In 1955, Crick theorised that the chemical components in DNA work similar to the letters of a language in constructing sentences, or how code operates in creating computer programmes. In other words, just like how computer programmes are put together to undertake specific tasks, likewise this sequence is put together in the nucleotides to perform specific duties, referred to as programmed sequencing. Significantly, Dawkins admitted: ‘The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.’290 This was echoed by Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft: ‘Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.’291

Programme codes are based on the specific sequencing of the 0 and 1 digits that suffice to store data and play computer applications. And as Arabic with all its 29 letters is sufficient to compose sentences and convey meanings, DNA relies on a type of subtle series of the four nucleotides, or ACGT. These four bases, or four letters, are responsible for storing and transporting genetic information that deals with the presence and construction of special proteins. Based on this, programmed sequencing comprises not only of great complexity but also specific duty assignments. This leads to a greater question: How did this specified programmed sequencing come about? In other words, from where did this astonishing level of information come?

This is a hugely important question. It exposes the great problem facing materialistic ideologies in their quest to answer the ‘How did life come about?’ question. It seems that materialists would arrive at a wrong outcome, because – simply put – they are looking for the answer in the wrong place. Ever since the late 1920s, those scientists believed that it is possible to explain the first moments of life in accordance with processes that are not directed by chemical evolution. In the book The Origin of Life, that was published in 1938, Alexander Oparin presented an early theory of chemical evolution that comprised of the appearance of life through gradual changes that began with simple chemical solutions of organic matter during the early phases of Earth. Whereas Darwinism dealt with the interpretation of the root of this variety across living organisms and how multitudes of complex types evolved from simple forms, chemical evolution deals with the emergence of life and the first cells, or in more precise terms, the first chemical composite that was able to replicate itself. Since the late 1970s up to today, scientific theories on chemical evolution have been unable to explain the origin of life, let alone the complexity and specificity in the DNA bases that are necessary for a live cell. The Belgian chemist and physicist Ilya Prigogine, a Nobel laureate, said, ‘The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.’292

Professor Francis Crick said, ‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.’293

So that we can begin to comprehend the scope of the problem faced by the materialists here, and how complex the issue is for them, imagine you have a combination lock made up of four numbers – what is the probability of a thief getting the right sequence? With each number being any digit between 0 and 9, the probability of getting one digit right is one in 104 = 10,000. If we assume that each attempt would take him 10 seconds, he will need 15 hours to get through 5,000 tries. If we assume he does not repeat erroneous combinations, it would take him a maximum of 30 hours before exhausting all possible combinations, guaranteeing him that he would eventually get the combination right. Most probably, he would get the right combination before reaching 9,999, in under 30 hours. If we complicate this further and assume the lock has ten digits to it, the number of possibilities would be 1010 = a billion. Any attempt to get the number right accidentally would be very slow and possibly consume a lifetime. Let us now come to one gene that is responsible for creating a type of protein and for undertaking some other vital functions. This gene must be sequenced in an extremely precise fashion in order to create the required protein. The probability of fault therein is 1077 – only one would be correct. In other words, in order to access the code of this gene, one must get the ATGC correct out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0

00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possibilities. This is a number of gargantuan proportions. Just to put it into context, the number of atoms in the Milky Way Galaxy is estimated to be at 1065. This demonstrates how coincidence is a wholly inadequate explanation for these information codes.

Our human experience reveals that the source of any information must be a knowledgeable entity. This storage of a colossal amount of information in the nucleus of every human cell cannot be explained without a Willing Omniscient being who created and placed all of this code in our cells. This self-evident truth that aligns with the human fiṭrah is what led Francis Crick to offer a vision that would explain this phenomenon, or ‘miracle’ as he put it. He said in his book Life Itself that it is possible that a civilisation more advanced than us from space planted the first seed of life on Earth, and that it was responsible for the first programme in living beings. But the fact is that Crick did not actually answer the question; rather, he merely kicked the can down the road for someone else to answer it. How were those space civilisations found, if ever? Who were they anyway? Furthermore, Crick referred to space. With the assertions made by science that led him to this answer, he muddled the possibility of it being correct by opening it up the possibility of being falsified. It is clear that the motivator for such an answer is to maintain atheism as a viable ideology. The signs for what he observed are clearly indicative of a Wise and Omniscient Creator, but he was unable to acknowledge Him. Instead, he clinged onto his materialistic outlook on existence and the universe, and ascribed the whole thing to a higher species. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton noted: ‘Crick has also recently conceded that life may after all be very improbable and has turned to an interesting variation on the saltational alternative, the idea that life was originally seeded on Earth from space – the idea of panspermia.’294

The aspect of information signatures is not confined to the aforementioned framework. Rather, it is present in all of existence. Matter and energy alone do not explain the systems, mechanisms, and living orders that are in existence. Information represents a pivotal part in the emergence of all things in the universe in the immaculate manner that we find them in. This is indicative of a Wise Omniscient being who brought these worlds into existence by way of His perfect knowledge, power, and wisdom. For more on this issue, refer to the excellent book by Stephen C. Meyer titled Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. This book is very detailed in dealing with information signatures embedded inside cells. William Dembski, Winston Ewert, and Robert Marks co-wrote a scientific paper in 2015, which was published in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) journal. The name of the paper was ‘Algorithmic Specified Complexity in the Game of Life’. It sought to place a theoretical framework that would reveal the meaning of existence in nature. The manifestations of mastery that have been mentioned before reveal that this universe has a purpose to it. From this, we are able to detect wisdoms in things. This nature of the universe is indicative of Allah , Who did not create the universe and all that is in it in vain. Rather, He created it for great wisdoms and objectives. Bayhaqī  said, ‘When you visually ponder how this world is and think about it, you will find it to be like a built house with everything a person residing in it would be in need of. The sky is raised like a roof; the Earth is spread out like a carpet; the stars are clustered like lamps; precious stones are stored therein like treasures; the various types of flora have been prepared for eating, wearing, and other utilities; different animals have been subjugated for riding and are used for other advantageous purposes. Man is like the owner who was made entitled to it.

‘There is a clear indication here that the world is created by way of planning, determination, and organisation, and that it has a Wise Maker Who is Omnipotent and the All-Wise. I read this in the book of Abū Sulaymān al-Khaṭṭābī .’295

As for the proof of the second proposition (‘Mastery and immaculateness means there is a Wise and Omniscient Doer’), its proof is the principle of causality, which has been discussed in detail previously. Mastery and immaculateness mean there was a cause. That cause is an Omniscient Doer, from whom the act of mastery emanated, as manifested in what He masterfully made. I remember debating some youth who denied the existence of Allah. After a long discussion, they became content that there is a Higher Power over this universe, that this Higher Power is the cause of the universe coming into existence, and that He is ascribed with power. Had He not been this way, He would not have been able to be the cause of the world’s emergence. The discussion continued thereafter in proving and demonstrating that this All Powerful Mover was also Omniscient. I told them, ‘You have admitted that the existence of masterful making is suggestive of the power of the Maker. You should therefore also admit that masterful design means the omniscience of the Maker.’ I was taken aback when one of them objected that masterful construction is not necessarily indicative of knowledge, and that it may have occurred by accident. I offered them an example from my own personal life experience: ‘One day, I was staying with family. One of my daughters was with me. She was small. Because she was small, she was only able to hold a pen with a cylindrical grasp of her hand and scribble all across the paper. All of a sudden, she raised the paper and told her mother, “Mama, dolphin!” I turned around to see what really was a dolphin.’ I said to him, ‘Would it be possible for me to say, based on this drawing alone, that my daughter knew how to draw?’ He said, ‘It is quite possible.’ I said, ‘Alright. If I wanted to ascertain whether she was able to draw, and that what she drew was not an accident, I should have been able to at least ask her to repeat drawing the same picture a few more times. If she was able, we could have said she can draw; otherwise, her first drawing would have occurred by coincidence.’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Let us take the argument further. Let us say that the repeated mastery found all across the universe is indicative of the omniscience of the Maker.’ He agreed at this point. I then said to him, ‘Imagine if I saw my daughter fashioning a complex drawing of a house, clouds, Sun, trees, rivers, birds, etc. – would it be necessary for me to ask her to draw something else for me, or would these pictures be enough for me to know she is able to draw?’ He said, ‘They would be sufficient.’ I said, ‘So let us take this a little further and say that the repeated nature of masterful construction and composition across the universe suggest that the Maker has omniscience.’ The principle of causality reveals that these sorts of immaculate workings require the existence of a doer that is the cause of immaculateness, showing its effect therein. This is underscored by the fact that the probabilities of how manifestations of immaculateness come about are one of three: determinism, accident, or the will of an omniscient doer. For what we are discussing, it would not seem that it can be explained though nature’s ebb and flow, or legal determinism, as has been mentioned before. Likewise, it is not possible that this immaculateness came about by accident – also discussed before. The final possibility – that this came as a result of the will of an omniscient doer – is the only option that remains. I want to add a fictitious yet thought-provoking discussion between a sheikh and a person named Ḥayrān ibn al-Aḍʿaf (Confused, son of the Weakest). This is in Nadīm al-Jisr’s book The Story of Faith (Qiṣṣah al-Īmān). He  says: Sheikh: Now to the needles. Take this tablet and stick a needle in it. Then stick another needle in that hole. Tell me Ḥayrān, if a rational human being saw those two needles and asked about how the second needle was placed into the hole of the first, and then a human who is known for his honesty told him that a skilled person did this from a distance of ten meters and managed to hit the hole of the first needle, then another man also known for honesty said that the one who threw it was a little boy who was born blind and the second needle fell into the hole by way of accident, which of the two options would be the most likely?

Ḥayrān: I have no doubt in my mind that the first person is more likely. But considering the honesty of both, the possibility of the second (the random throw by the blind boy) cannot be ruled out. Therefore, one cannot firmly assume that the former is speaking the truth and the latter is not. Sheikh: So how about if the man sees a third needle in the same hole, will this indecision remain?

Ḥayrān: No, the probability of purpose would grow stronger than that of it being a coincidence, but the chances of it being on purpose still would only be a marginally stronger probability. Sheikh: So how about when a man sees that there are ten needles, each of them stuck in the hole one after the other, entering from exactly the same point. Will it increase the probability of this being intentional?

Ḥayrān: No. The accident probability would be so weak that it would be tantamount to non-existent. Sheikh: But if a person fitting the description of what the Qur’an says: ‘But humankind is the most argumentative of all beings’296, comes and starts debating what rational impossibility means and what customary impossibility means, then starts arguing that this is neither rationally nor customarily impossible, though he affirms that this – on occasions – would be a very remote possibility, our rational friend must then yield. Ḥayrān: The mind may yield, but the heart will still incline to believe that the intentional act is the most probable of the options here.

Sheikh: If we are to complicate the riddle further, let us say that the ten needles are numbered with lines. Each of them has a number on them, from 1 to 10. Without seeing what happened, we are told that the blind boy was given a bag containing these ten needles, which were placed at random. He had to put his hands into the bag to take each needle out in its correct sequence of numbers by accident, and then throw it at the tablet. The first would fall into the hole; the second would follow it into the same hole; the third into the same hole; the fourth likewise, and so on. All the needles stacked up behind each other into that hole according to their numerical value, and all of this happened by accident. If that argumentative friend of ours then came to prove that the probability of this all being a coincidental accident still exists, and that it is still logically possible, what would we say about this argumentative person?

Ḥayrān: I am sure that he would not be believed. The possibility of this being coincidental is so remote it is virtually impossible. Sheikh: Ḥayrān, when it comes to very large numbers, they are self evidently impossible.

Ḥayrān: I thought that this self-evidence came to us from our lived experiences of coincidental repetitions being a rarity.

Sheikh: No, this self-evidence – within the depths of our subconscious minds – is reliant on an inescapable mathematical rule.

Ḥayrān: What is this rule, sir?

Sheikh: It is the rule of probability, which states that the probability of a certain accident increases and decreases in an inversely proportional manner with the number equal to the other competing possibilities. Whenever the number of competing things decreases, the chance of success increases; whenever the competing choices increase, the chances of success decrease. If the competition is between two equal things, the chance of success would be half. If it is between ten things, the chances of success would be a tenth. This is because each choice has an equal chance of success – when there is, of course, no superiority for any one choice. To this extent, the chances of success between the competition lie in equal stead, even if they are a hundred or a thousand. However, when the numeric value increases exponentially, the chances of success would become non-existence, nay impossible. If a blind child by chance pulls out #1 the first time, we would say that he had a one in ten chance of pulling that number out. But if he pulled out #1 and #2 in succession, this would be a one-in-a-hundred probability, because all ten would be competing in the second draw, thus making it a competition between a hundred choices. If the blind child pulls out needles #1, #2, and #3 in succession, we would say that this is a one-in-a-thousand chance, and so on. If we assume that the child pulled all ten needles in numerical order, the chance of this happening would be one in ten billion…’297

Having concluded the discussion on the second rational indicator for Allah’s existence – the argument from systemisation and immaculateness – we now present the most salient objections that have been made to it. These objections have targeted both its propositions and its conclusion.

First objection: Mastery is just a projection This is a strange objection. I have come across atheists who reject the manifestations of mastery and greatness in this universe, all to varying degrees and under various pretences. Some are sceptical of whether the universe is masterfully made to begin with, believing that such a claim is just a personal projection on the cosmos. They claim that our reading of the universe offers us this illusion, even though it has no objective meaning in the universe. In other words, the mastery all around us does not necessarily mean that there was a masterful process of construction per se. For example, when we see the sculpture of a human, we would appreciate the nature of construction there. After all, we, looking on at this scene, are humans as well. If it were assumed that some creation never saw a human in its entire life, he might pass by the sculpture without noting any feature of mastery therein; he would probably think this is nothing more than a regular rock, or a rock that has been eroded somewhat, without having been the subject of intervention (i.e., sculpturing) by a willing actor. Similarly, if someone were to see the letters of a language and script that he does not understand, he might think that they were just random scribbles. Therefore, seeing any feature therein would be a projection onto them. I used to think that these sorts of views were confined to statements by philosophers on the peripheries – such as those by the atheist philosopher Baron d’Holbach (d. 1789) – and were not in circulation within modern atheist philosophy. It was not until when I read some of this in contemporary writings, as well as some discussions and encounters I personally experienced, that it dawned on me that such an objection is still in vogue. The fact is that this objection is very odd, for it comprises a gross obstinance and a bizarre error. In fact, the very examples brought here expose the error. The sculpting of a rock by a willing actor, and the set of letters and script belonging to a specific language, reveal mastery as an objective reality in these matters; cognition and knowledge is what leads to the discovery of this reality. So whatever masterful construct exists in the universe there is, it would carry on increasing our experiences and knowledge. This process of discovery will remain so long as experience and knowledge keep on giving. Such a form of thinking undoubtedly leads a person to negate all objective reality. If you are sceptical about whether a complex composition can offer knowledge, and you avoid this sort of conceptualisation under the pretence of the relativity of any such judgement, and that it has no objective reality to it, it will land you into becoming sceptical of everything around you, as it would be possible that everything is also just a projection and devoid of any objective value that is separate from you. This takes away any objective value from human conceptualisation, and instead refers it to mere relative cognition that is subject to doubt, which can lead the bearer of such a philosophy into a type of sophism. The truth is that these sceptics themselves would not behave in this way in their day-to-day lives, as it is diametrically opposed to any sound human fiṭrah, and also because its implications would lead to the destruction of any justification for discovering the world and interacting with it.

An important book for the New Atheists in the debate over the issue of the universe being precisely calibrated is by the atheist physicist Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. He by the way is also the author of God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, which is a key text in New Atheism. The concept behind the book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning is obvious from its title. It attempts to refute the prevailing notion that the universe is characterised by a high level of fine-tuning – even at the level of its cosmological constants and events – and that our existence would have been impossible were it not for this precise balancing. This notion is widespread across the works of many scientists, both theists and atheists. In fact, Stenger himself states, ‘Even atheist physicists find this so-called “anthropic principle” difficult to explain naturally, and many think they need to invoke multiple universes to do so.’298

The fact is that the list of people who believe in the fine-tuning of the universe is lengthy and comprises of many names, who have a variety of ways in expressing how the phenomenon of fine-tuning came about. These people are: Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek, and many others.299 In his book, Stenger selects a number of passages from scientists who express their amazement at this phenomenon of precise fine-tuning:

Let us look at a few quotations selected from the vast literature on the subject. Back in 1985, astronomer Edward Robert Harrison wrote: “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes, or design that requires only one.” Geneticist Francis Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project and at this writing directs the United States National Institutes of Health. In his 2006 bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins argues for the following interpretation of the data: “The precise tuning of all the physical constants and physical laws to make intelligent life possible is not an accident, but reflects the action of the one who created the universe in the first place.” Physician Michael Anthony Corey writes: “The stupendous degree of fine tuning that instantly existed between these fundamental parameters following the Big Bang reveals a miraculous level of micro engineering that is simply inconceivable in the absence of a ‘supercalculating’ Designer. Astronomer George Greenstein asserts: “As we survey the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or rather Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” And theoretical physicist Tony Rothman adds, “The medieval theologian who gazed at the night sky through the eyes of Aristotle and saw angels moving the spheres in harmony has become the modern cosmologist who gazes at the same sky through the eyes of Einstein and sees the hand of God not in angels but in the constants of nature…When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science to religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”’300

These are some of the citations that Stenger mentioned. There are many other statements from scientists of various branches that reveal how they are impressed by the finely-tuned nature of the universe. Some have already been mentioned previously; others will soon follow.

Stenger’s proposal focuses on a number of data points: He argues over how precise the calculations are vis-à-vis some constants, and that the margin of error is larger than what some researchers claim. However, this should not be a problem. Even if his calculations are right and others are wrong, the argument from fine-tuning would still be intact. If a man said, ‘There is a one-in-a-million chance to win the prize’, and someone else said, ‘Actually, the prize can be won if someone manages to pick out #1 or #2’, the possibility of these two options occurring would still be considered highly improbable in light of sheer coincidence. This is of course in relation to some of the calculations he mentioned. It should be noted that what is required here is an alignment between the cosmological constants and the various data points, so that the universe can fulfil the required prerequisites in order to come into existence and support life. The measure of whether the universe exists or not is not down to whether it is connected to one constant or another. In other words, it is not down to whether the scale of probabilities specific to it are broadened further and sufficient to achieve the goal, so to not render the possibility of picking out the required number a coincidence. Rather, what is required is that all the other values are met.

One idea he proposes is that the collapse of the entire cosmological system does not occur just because one constant changes. It is possible that one changes and it would not have an adverse impact on the rest of the system, so long as the other constants are properly conditioned to keep the cosmos afloat. In other words, it is possible that one constant possesses numerous values; however, the other constants would need recalibration so that they match up with this new change. The whole set of constants that captures life is not confined to a single set of constants in our universe; rather, it is possible to create other sequences of chains that are able to capture life. This broadens the scope for the chance of a chain coming as an accident, without the need for the process of fine-tuning being applied.301

The following observations can be made on this idea:

1. Even if this is true for some constants, it is not necessarily true for other cosmological constants or specific events. One of the requisite parameters for the existence of life is independent parameters. It would appear that even the slightest disruption to them would lead to the universe becoming unsuitable for life.

2. Creating numerous series of physical constants that are able to capture and secure life for the cosmos is faced by a problem: The number of possible series unable to sustain life are exceedingly more than those that are able to do so. In fact, there is no comparison. This objection does not answer the fundamental question here, which is this: How were these physical constants determined? The probability of one set of constants that can comprise of life, to the exclusion of the many other sets of constants that do not, is highly unlikely. This begs the question: Why was this set of constants selected and not any other?

3. The probability of all constants being captured by one series and becoming aligned in the manner required to support life is very low, compared to the probabilities of the physical constant falling short to support life, or falling short in a way that does not require the other constants to undergo the required change to maintain life.

In summary, the probabilities of fine-tuning and the balancing act in the required manner are astronomically small compared to rival possibilities – or in the words of Richard Dawkins: ‘But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive.’302

Stenger critiques the idea of restricting the forms of organic life to carbon forms. He argues that the notion of fine-tuning was only proposed to explain the suitability of the universe to sustain carbon-based forms of life. What prevents the possibility of other life forms that are not carbon-based but are, for example, silicon-based? If it is possible that we have life patterns that fall outside the carbon rule, the probabilities of such life emerging would still be intact, even if the values of the natural constants change from what they are right now. The most that can be said is that the constants of our universe are suitable for supporting carbon based life; were they to change, the universe might also be able to support different forms of life. To answer this objection, we do not need to enter into the detail of whether silicon-based life can emerge, or what timescales we should be looking at for the emergence of non-carbon forms of life. This objection is simply inadmissible in the circumstance that the universe is carefully calibrated. As mentioned before, those sets of circumstances have been calibrated so that the universe could survive after coming into existence, and so that it does not collapse in on itself and ultimately disappear. This is in addition to the cosmological balance the universe possesses in order to create stars and planets, which have a role to play in producing elements through chemical reactions. Some patterns within the cosmos have struck such a fine balance that it has not allowed the universe to become a soup of hydrogen or a stew of helium. Fine-tuning explains numerous issues to us, one of which is the birth of life. The most Stenger is attempting to do is to minimise the possibilities that are not in the interest of the universe, and to maximise the possibilities that are in its interest. However, the problem here is that even if we accept his thesis as accurate, the difference between the possibilities on both sides will still remain vast. This would uphold the legitimacy and standing of the question of fine-tuning and calibration. Imagine a person said, ‘The probability of this occurring is one in a billion billion billion billion billion’, and another says, ‘No, it is a hundred in a billion billion billion billion’ – one would think that the probability of its occurrence in either case is extremely low. One of the best critiques of Stenger that I have seen is the scientific paper titled The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life303 by Luke A. Barnes, published by the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. It is a lengthy critique of much of what is in Stenger’s book. The critique was so robust that Barnes ended up accusing Stenger of perpetrating many scientific errors. Indeed, Barnes uncovered many errors. This spurred Stenger to pen a 12-page response to Barnes called Defending The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning304, only for Barnes to reply on the Letters to Nature blog.305 I conclude that the dissertation of Barnes is decisively preponderant against Stenger’s thesis – for the following points:

1. Barnes deals with cosmology and has a number of published research papers on this area. This is a subject that is more aligned to our discussion than Stenger’s speciality, which is in particle physics. 2. On many occasions, Stenger expresses only his personal views. As for the scientific position that Barnes operates from, it is more widespread across scientific circles. 3. Stenger operates from a strange set of propositions. Take, for example, what he says when discussing the problem of precise calibration between electron and proton mass: ‘What is more, we can argue that the electron mass is going to be much smaller than the proton mass in any universe even remotely like ours.’306 What he is trying to say is that the small size of electrons compared to the mass of protons is natural and does not require any calibration. What is interesting is how he ended this sentence, revealing how badly he misunderstood the phenomenon of fine tuning, which is the entire point of the discussion. Obviously, it is not surprising that universes like ours have characteristics like ours, including the small size of electrons compared to that of protons. What is the point of discussion here is the question: ‘Why is it like this?’, which is not a limited comparison with universes similar to ours, but rather with the endless number of probabilities, as represented in dissimilar universes. This is the mystery, the solution to which Stenger unfortunately believes is simple through extant knowledge of physics, without offering assumptions from the genus of the multiverse (which will be discussed later alongside other things). Stenger’s position really does oversimplify the scope of the problem when asked for a natural and materialistic explanation for it.

4. Stenger adopts philosophical views that are very problematic. His scientific positions are not consistent or aligned with such views. This can cause a lot of consternation and doubt in anyone following him with regard to the true nature of his research and whether it drips of ideological preconceptions on his part. Take, for example, his discussion on the principle of causality: ‘Let’s consider premise (1). Is it based on empirical fact? Is it a fact that everything that begins has a cause? Obviously we haven’t observed the beginning of everything, so we can’t say that everything that begins has a cause. As the great Scottish philosopher David Hume (d. 1776) pointed out in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, even when we observe one event following another, we cannot conclude that a causal relation between the two exist.’307 Such a position should make anyone who adopts it abandon anything to do with science. To not operate from this axiom, and to instead dispute it, is to go against the scientific requirement of seeking out the natural causes of phenomena. In fact, he touched upon the issue of the possible mistakes that our senses fall into – he offers as an example: ‘The Moon is probably real.’308 He also mentions that space and time are only quantitative measures concocted by physicists that do not need any real existence.309 What also exposes his partiality to his materialistic view is that he states that the idea of the inception of the universe from aliens is more rational than the notion of a Creator.310 On his discussion on the cosmological constants, he says, ‘Any calculation that disagrees with the data by 50 or 120 orders of magnitude is simply wrong and should not be taken seriously. We just have to await the correct calculation.’311 This passage reveals the position of principle he is biased towards, which goes against the notion of fine-tuning. What it is really saying is that the calculations must be wrong. Why? Because if they are not, it would mean that the cosmological constant really is determined. In his paper, Barnes highlighted the deficiency in Stenger’s understanding of the issue, and that there is no real contradiction between the data and the mathematical calculations here.

5. In section 13 of his book, Stenger objected to fine-tuning. He did so by resorting to the computer programme he had made two decades prior, which he had named ‘MonkeyGod’. This programme can be found on his personal website. The idea behind it is to offer a type of narrative for the universe by playing around with four physical constants, in which it would be possible to create different virtual worlds with different characteristics just by retuning those constants. Stenger programmed it with a set of data that he believed to be necessary for the existence of life. The programme offers results on which virtual worlds can support life, versus the ones that cannot. Barnes thoroughly critiqued the results of this programme, stating, ‘We conclude that MonkeyGod is so deeply flawed that its results are meaningless.’312 One critique he presented was that the assumptions Stenger based life sustainability on were not taken from precise data, and that of the eight life-permitting criteria he relied upon, ‘three are incorrect, two are irrelevant, and one is insufficient. Plenty more are missing. Most importantly, all manner of cherry-picked assumptions are lurking out of sight, and the whole exercise exemplifies the cheap-binoculars fallacy. We’ll begin with the irrelevant. The length of a day and a year are not life-permitting criteria. I know of no fine-tuning article in the scientific literature defends such a limit, and for good reason – the origin and survival of primitive forms of life probably wouldn’t be affected by a shorter day or year. Plausibly, only larger organisms and ecosystems would be influenced…’313

I believe this is sufficient to give a picture of some of the problems in Victor Stenger’s objection. For more on this, refer to the dispute between the two men that I alluded to in the previous pages. There is also a critical dissertation by Robin Collins entitled as Stenger’s Fallacies.

One position that expresses a denial of sorts – though not a complete denial – of the argument from fine-tuning is the one that acknowledges that the universe is finely balanced, but that it is miniscule amid the expansive universe, the overwhelming majority of which is not suitable for life. They claim: ‘How is it accurate for us to say that the universe has been carefully and finely-tuned when 99.9999999999% of this world is empty and unsuitable for life?’ This is an objection I frequently heard from Christopher Hitchens. In fact, when Richard Dawkins, in his famous sit down in The Four Horsemen video, admitted that the argument from fine-tuning is the strongest argument of theists, Hitchens interjected and offered this same objection. Richard Carrier depicts the topic by saying, ‘In fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton).’314

There are two points that ought to be noted when answering this objection. Firstly, this way of presenting the objection is misleading. The idea of fine-tuning means that the universe we are in has life, even in spite of the probabilities of the existence of many other universes that are unsuitable for life, even if as small as a microscopic speck in a house. This is an extremely unique position to be in – by the very admission of physicists themselves, given the examples they offer. It is a position worthy of being recognised as such, the cause of which ought to be investigated. Consequently, the question here is not why there is a huge vacuum in the universe, but rather why life can be found in the universe in spite of the massive probability of it being unattainable. As thus, the fact that this level of fine-tuning exists – even if it is meagre compared to the rest of the universe – is sufficient to establish the required indication for the existence of God, even if this level of fine-tuning is not present in other places. It would be like a man ordering his children to organise and tidy up an extremely messy house and leaves. When he returns, he finds that a tiny part of the house has been tidied. Would it be possible to deny that this small part was not tidied by anyone, just because the rest of the house was still a disorganised mess?

Secondly, the fact that we do not know the wisdom behind the expansive universe is not a sufficient justification to relinquish our knowledge of the information on the existence of life in a minute part of this universe and overlooking it. In fact, some physicists mention that some important data for the existence of life mean there is a need for this wide expanse. For example, in a ‘Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot’ podcast episode titled 11 Responses to Fine-Tuning315, Luke Barnes mentions that for the universe to accommodate life in wider regions, its mass must increase there as well; if that was achieved, gravity would have to increase; if gravity increased, it would have meant that the crunch right after the Big Bang would have been accelerated. The issue therefore requires an investigation of the causes that are behind this huge expanse, and whether it has a net positive influence on the existence of life in our universe. The issue does not need to marginalise the complexity of the various parameters we need for the creation of a universe that can sustain life. Furthermore, the value of things is not measured in material dimensions. Though we acknowledge that the size of man compared to this awesome cosmos is insignificant, it is man’s spiritual element of purpose and meaning that makes him superior. The esteem and honour that Allah has given him does not prevent this universe, with all that is in it, from being created for his sake. The Arab poet said:

You think you are of a small body Yet the largest world is represented in you.

It is obvious that atheists see man in this derogatory fashion, as if he is nothing more than a biological accident. They view his ultimate abode as being that of a species that is inevitably heading to annihilation. He came from annihilation (non existence) and his destination is annihilation (death), all the while without possessing any objective value or purpose to live.

One dubious objection that attempts to throw doubt on the precision and finely tuned nature of the universe is that we have only experienced the universe we are in; therefore, we have no way of conducting a comparison between our universe and other universes in order to ascertain how masterfully – or not – they have been made. Victor Stenger says, ‘At the same time, I see no reason to try to imagine a universe with different “laws”, since there are no such laws that we have access to as humans. Barring revelation, all we know is what we observe, and the best we can do is build models to describe those observations.’316

The fact is that this objection demonstrates a degree of obstinance or ignorance vis-à-vis the nature of the mastery we are talking about – and an ignorance of the sheer number of examples of observable fine-tuning in our universe. On this, the physicist John Barrow said, Take a sheet of paper and place upon it a red dot. That dot represents our universe. Now alter slightly one or more of the finely-tuned constants and physical quantities that have been the focus of our attention. As a result we have a description of another universe, which we may represent as a new dot in the proximity of the first. If that new set of constants and quantities describes a life-permitting universe, make it a red dot; if it describes a universe that is life- 316 The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 234.

prohibiting, make it a blue dot. Now repeat the procedure arbitrarily many times until the sheet is filled with dots. What one winds up with is a sea of blue with only a few pinpoints of red. That is the sense in which it is overwhelmingly improbable that the Universe should be life-permitting. There are simply vastly more life-prohibiting universes in our local area of possible universes than there are life permitting universes.317

In fact, it is self-evident that the possibility of observing mastery is not necessarily dependent on whether or not a comparison can be conducted between it and chaos, just in order for us to learn whether what is in front of us is masterfully designed or not. Mastery is a state that can be recognised in most instances without knowing what the opposite of it would look like. Generally speaking, such a train of thought shuts down the door to scientific research on the cause behind these constants in the way they are. A person of such a mentality would say, ‘It is as it is and that’s it.’ In fact, this type of thought process shuts down any possibility to convince the other side of the existence of Allah , as it might invoke the notion that this matter is extant in our universe, and we cannot come across other universes to verify how exceptional or unique our universe is. For instance, if we discover that the human genetic code has ‘Made by Allah’ imprinted onto it, it would be probable that this opponent will even dispute that is the case. There would be no way to know whether this is an exceptional matter that could have only come from an Omnipotent and Willing Doer, or whether it is natural for the universe that we are living in.

Closely linked to this objection is the weak anthropic principle, which in itself is the oddest and flimsiest of all atheist theses, even though it is quite widespread. As mentioned before, the anthropic principle is the notion that a degree of calibration in this cosmos is necessary for the emergence of man, without which we would not have existed. The question on the back of this would be: So what caused our universe to be as it is? As for the weak anthropic principle, it is confined to a small part of the principle without entering into the maze of questions that would ensue as a result. It says this: Had the universe not been calibrated in the precise manner it has been, we would not have come into existence to speak about it. In other words: Because we exist, the universe must have been finely-tuned for us to exist. Consequently, the probability of our existence in a universe that allows us to live is actually 100%, and it is therefore not surprising or questionable at all why we came into existence. John Leslie highlights the problem of this objection through this example: Imagine a man was presented for execution. When he was brought to the gallows, and before his eyes closed, he saw a hundred expert snipers in front of him, all of whom had trained their rifles on him. He shut his eyes, and then heard the sound of fire as the rifles were shot. He held his breath as he thought he was about to die, but he felt nothing. He felt his body, and noticed he had not been impacted by even one bullet. Is it possible that this could have occurred by accident? Note that the snipers were experts, and it is highly unlikely they could have all missed. He started to think: ‘Perhaps they conspired not to kill me, or perhaps someone bribed them all to miss, or perhaps there was some other reason.’ The blindfold was removed from him. It turned out he was among a hundred other people, and the number of people to be executed was 101. Of course, in this case, one would still be alive.318

The rational position on this would be to find out the cause of why he was not killed. However, as per the objection of the sceptics, there is no need to be surprised that he is still alive and that all bullets missed him, because he would have been dead had he been hit. This is the problematic point of this overly simplistic train of thought: We must not be surprised at that huge number of probabilities in the face of the precise calibration of the cosmos, because you are there to see it. It would be just like a man who won at gambling a thousand times in a row – if we ask how he won all this money in this manner, would it be convincing to say, ‘He won this money because he won the game every time he played it – had he not won the game, he would not have won it’?

The fact is that this type of objection is evading the quite legitimate question of why this weak possibility for the finely balanced universe being the way it is was found, in comparison to the infinite probabilities of imbalanced universes. Martin Rees said, ‘One hardheaded response is that we couldn’t exist if the laws had boring consequences. We manifestly are here, so there is nothing to be surprised about. I’m afraid this leaves me unsatisfied. I’m impressed by a well known analogy given by the philosopher John Leslie...’319

These are the most salient objections to the concept of the universe being finely-tuned. I would think most people would not dispute this. Both sensory instinctiveness and scientific facts suggest it. Had our universe been devoid of any effect of fine-tuning, it would have been substantially different from what it is. In fact, we would not have been here to discuss this difference to begin with.

Objections here are based on the notion that the manifestations of mastery and immaculateness in this world do not necessarily mean that they emanated from an Omniscient, Willing, and Omnipotent Doer. These objections assert that it is possible that these manifestations came about as a result of natural and material causes instead. If we look beyond the issues of coincidence and determinism as two suitable answers to explain this phenomenon of the universe’s intricacy for the reasons outlined before, we will see there are many proposals by atheists to explain this mastery. These alternative proposals represent the most significant objections, with some of them being outlined below.

This theory dominates biology. In fact, its influence stretches to multiple ideological and cognitive branches. Highlighting the nature of the contemporary Western cultural identity, Dr. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Masīrī stated it is ‘Darwinist modernism’. The best representation of evolution that opposes the idea of intelligent design built into living beings is the thesis offered by Richard Dawkins in his book Climbing Mount Improbable. The thesis goes like this: Imagine we are on a high mountain. One side is extremely steep and cannot be negotiated. The other side is somewhat steep but not enough to put people off from walking up to ascend to the summit. We can therefore try to reach the summit from the extremely steep side even though it is shorter, or we can ascend from the other side in easier fashion. However, we would need to take the longer route to reach the summit. In this example, let us assume that the complex biological systems are the summit – the possibility of reaching these systems from the short way is very hard, because any gradual self-composition of such systems would be impossible. However, these systems can self-compose through natural selection by way of retaining those characteristics that will ensure their survival and allow them to evolve to the next phase, and likewise for future steps – step by step – until we reach the summit.

I remember discussing this once with some youth who had been influenced by atheism. One of them raised an objection that was so brazenly inspired by the above argument. After a lengthy discussion, he admitted that coincidence is not suitable as an explanation for the manifestations of complexity, composition, and mastery in our existence. He said to me, ‘The complexity we see today in the universe and living beings could not have really come into existence simply in one go out of coincidence. However, what if all of this in the beginning was simple, but then with the passing of time, evolved until it became what we now see to be complex compositions? It would be impossible that man, for example, just left the water in one go because of random chemical reactions; however, that a cell left by chance would be more plausible, which then started to gradually evolve until various living beings – including man – emerged.’ Away from debating the details of whether there ever was a simple cell, how plausible it was for existence to appear as an accident, or that it was the beginning of all life, the basic idea of evolution is very clear. The ‘Dangerous Idea’ (as expressed by Daniel Dennett in the title of his book) of Charles Darwin’s theory is that complex systems can gradually emerge over a lengthy period of time – it is not necessary that they come into existence in one go.

This is not the place for a detailed discussion on Darwin’s theory or the objections that can be laid at some of its details. This would require an entirely separate piece of research, as can be appreciated by anyone who has some interest in this issue. What I want to focus on is to scrutinise the connection between this theory and the concept of Allah’s existence. In other words, does this theory really comprise of a reasonable objection against the notion that mastery and immaculateness are indicative of the existence of Allah ? Perhaps I can summarise this issue into the following points:

1. Is there an inherent correlation between Darwinism and atheism? This is a point of contention in Western discourse. I have seen a lengthy documentary on this, as well as a discussion between Kenneth Miller and Ursula Goodenough titled Does Evolution Imply Atheism?, and a number of books. Richard Dawkins insists there is a link between the theory of evolution and atheism. In fact, he asserts that his journey of atheism began through the theory. However, is that correlation really so? It would appear that there is no necessary link between the two. We see that there are many theists who also believe in evolution. In fact, Darwin himself was not an atheist when he wrote his seminal work on evolutionary biology, On the Origin of Species. As thus, the theory per se was not a cause for him denying Allah; rather, his atheism came about later in his life when one of his daughters died, through which he became gripped by the problem of evil and divine justice. The question must be restated: Is this sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is no actual correlation between the theory of evolution and atheism? In other words, are evolutionary theists prey to scientific contradiction? Or is the presence of theist evolutionists sufficient to show that there is no link between the two? It would seem to me that there is no link, though not because such people exist or even at a theoretical level, but rather because there is no rational block which prevents someone from believing in Allah and also believing in the theory of evolution. This can be clarified further in the next point.

2. Darwinism focuses on biological systems. Though these systems are manifestations of mastery, or as Dawkins puts it in his book The Blind Watchmaker: ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a 170

purpose’320, design per se is not the point of dispute here. What is the point of dispute here is whether design merely gives the impression of purpose, or whether it was indeed designed for a purpose? Whatever the case, the signs of mastery, brilliance, immaculateness, and magnificence go well beyond the field of biology. Darwinism has nothing to do with those other fields, even though some – with clever rhetoric – may like to interpolate Darwinism into those subject areas as well. For example, the universe constants, the laws of physics that organise it, the circumstances of its very first moments, the quantities of matter, and other things that are formed in it have no bearing on the theory of evolution at all. Darwinism is unable to offer an explanation for these issues. The most that can be said, even if it were true, is that Darwinism offers an explanation of a limited space in science, not the entirety of existence. In spite of this, Darwinism does not negate the role of God, even in the biological space, as will be discussed momentarily. This is why it was quite the exaggeration on Richard Dawkins’s part to subtitle his book The Blind Watchmaker with: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.

3. It is rationally possible that this theory is part of the method of Allah  in the process of creating, and that He  used evolution to create various genera and species. Though the creation of Adam  has been decided by scripture insofar as Islam is concerned, it remains rationally possible that other living beings – in both the animal and the plant kingdoms – were created in this manner. I cannot see anything in the religion that would prevent the notion of evolution for these two kingdoms. However, it should be pointed out that just because something is possible, it does not mean it actually occurred, for that would require evidence and reasoning in order to demonstrate its veracity and real-life applications – evidence I do not see forthcoming. To the contrary, what I do see is that the theory of evolution has many holes in it, and is in a serious quandary. I once again excuse myself from delving into these details and objections, as that would be too lengthy for a discussion; such a topic should be dealt with in a standalone book. However, I should quickly mention some of the more salient objections.

One humorous objection is what the agnostic David Berlinski mentioned:

The interesting argument about the whale, which is a mammal after all – it belongs to the same group of organisms as a dog, a human being, a chimpanzee, or a tiger – the interesting argument about a whale is that if its origins were land-based originally, then we have some crude way of assessing quantitatively – not qualitatively – but quantitatively the scope of the project of transformation. The project is very simple – let’s put it in vividly accessible terms. You’ve got a cow. You want to teach it how to live all of its life in the open ocean, still retaining its air-breathing characteristics. What do you have to do from an engineering point of view to change the cow into a whale? This is crude, but it gives you the essential idea. Now if the same question were raised with respect to a car and you asked what it would take to change a car into a submarine, we would understand immediately it would take a great many changes, the project is a massive engineering project of redesign and adaptation. Well the same question occurs with respect to that proverbial cow. Virtually every feature of the cow has to be changed, has to be adapted. But since we know that life on Earth and life in the water are fundamentally different enterprises, we have some sense of the number of changes. You know, anytime a science avoids coming to grips with numbers, it’s somehow immersing itself in perhaps an unavoidable but certainly an unattractive miasma. Here’s a chance actually to put some numbers on calculations. We’re not talking about genetics – we’re talking about simple numbers. The skin has to change completely – it has to become impermeable to water. That’s one change. Breathing apparatus has to change. A diving apparatus has to be put in place. Lactation systems have to be designed. The eyes have to be protected. The hearing has to be altered. Salivary organs have to be changed. Feeding mechanisms have to be changed. After all, a cow eats grass; a whale doesn’t. As I say, I’ve tried to do some of these calculations. The calculations are certainly not hard. But they’re interesting because I stopped at 50,000 – that is morphological changes. And don’t forget these changes are not independent – they’re all linked: if you change an organism’s visual system, you have to change a great many parts of its cerebellum, its cerebrum, its nervous system. All of these changes are coordinated. So when we’re talking about an evolutionary sequence such as this, what’s interesting about the cow-to-whale transition – and I’m just using this as an easily accessible idea – what’s interesting about the cow-to-whale transition is that we can see a different environment is going to impose severe design constraints on a possible evolutionary sequence. How are these constraints met if they’re roughly 50,000? If they’re two million constraints, how are those meant? And what does this suggest about what we should see in the fossil record? To my way of thinking, if Darwinian hypotheses are correct, it should suggest an enormous plethora of intermediary animals between say ambulocetus and the next step. That won’t solve all problems – one wants to know what’s directing this change, if anything. But at least it will put it in the ballpark of a quantitative estimate, which is hardly ever done.’321

The problem here is that fossil records are not helpful in putting together the missing links in between what the evolution theory describes as first forms and evolved forms. This is a major flaw in Darwinist theory. Of course, Darwinists will show some intermediary links and claim – for example – they have found ten of them. However, this is an extremely meagre number compared to what should have actually been discovered for what is such a critical question. Where are the rest of the intermediary links? It is like someone who takes a daily photograph of their child for several years, and then makes them into a motion video so the gradual changes in the child’s face and body can be seen as a time lapse. It would not be problematic if some pictures here and there were missing, as the gradual nature of change would still be reflected in the final video album. This is exactly what should have happened with the theory of evolution. Fossil records are tantamount to a series of images that showcase the gradual evolutionary process. The problem here is that the quantity of preserved ‘images’ is far less than the number of images that have been identified, thus rendering the lost links to be the rule, not the exception to the rule. This problem led the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould and the palaeontologist Niles Eldredge to propose an evolutionary model that is based on the notion of sudden jump phases, which they named ‘punctuated equilibrium’. It states that evolution does not continuously occur over a long period as is widely understood, but rather in a series of ‘jumps’ over short periods of time which are then punctuated by lengthy periods of stability – or stasis – of the species. They argue that fossil records have not recorded a gradual change because of this ‘lengthy stasis and rapid evolution’ cycle. In this model, it would be possible for evolution to take place from point A to point Z in a series of leaps, with the window of actual evolution being extremely narrow, as opposed to the conventional view of evolution. Though this solution answers one question, it opens up a can of worms and introduces greater problems, all of which explains why this model of evolution has not gained wider acceptance. In fact, Gould himself retracted his view towards the end of his life.

Another problem is in relation to macroevolution, which is evolution of taxa above the species level (like genera, families, orders, etc.). Evolution denotes change over a specific period of time, which can occur in one species. For example, dogs can change and adapt their size, length, shape, colour, and other features. This may also potentially include dogs evolving out of ancient canids, thus diverging from the wolf species. Such evolution is referred to as microevolution, which can be observed. This is not as problematic, and the conditions and tools to bring about this type of evolution are known. What is problematic is the evolution that suggests the ‘aquatics → semiaquatics → reptiles → mammals → birds’ evolution model. In the Darwinist model, humans are said to have evolved from aquatic forms. The problem here lies in the notion that humans share a common ancestor with flies, plants, and even bacteria, as they are all part of the evolutionary tree that is branching out. The theory postulates that such large-scale evolution was a result of slight changes over millions of years. What was the probability of this evolution? What were the conditions that pushed a class of living beings out from one genus into another? This is something that Darwinism has not coped well with, as the problem lies in whether such a series of changes ever occurred for all living creatures. The evolutionist Gerald A. Kerkut makes a distinction between what he calls the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and ‘Specific Theory of Evolution’. The latter is in relation to new phyla; the former is about how different phyla go back to a common root. Asserting that the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ is just a hypothesis, he says, This theory can be called the “General Theory of Evolution” and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla [major divisions of living things, of which there are about 80, including microbes]. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.’322

So we can start to comprehend how difficult it would be: the creation of an entirely new species does not require re-engineering information from the genetic code or even triggering random change therein, which would on most occasions be harmful. Just the evolutionary journey of microbes to man requires the concoction of new and complex data mechanisms that can create muscles, bones, cells, nerves, etc. The genome of a single fundamental microbe contains around 500,000 nucleotides; the genome of a human comprises of 3 billion nucleotides. This tells us that the scope of information generated inside the genome is massive. This leads to the next question: Where did this information come from?

In 1980, a group of the most important evolutionists in the world came together at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. In the Science magazine’s report on the conference, Roger Lewin wrote, ‘The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.’323

It is therefore quite misleading for Darwinists to object to others by telling them, ‘As you do not believe in evolution, stop taking medicine.’ This is misleading because evolution comprises of an acceptable form (microevolution) and one that is the point of contention (macroevolution). For example, the evolution inside bacteria that makes future versions of it more resistant to antibiotics – which requires doctors and scientists to develop antibiotics to combat new strains of bacteria – is not part of the discussion at all. Rather, the point of contention is whether humans and bacteria have a common ancestor. • There is a distinction to be made between microevolution and macroevolution. The former can be acceptable, whereas the latter is fraught with problems and has a long way to prove itself. It seems that the theory of evolution is propelled by the fact that it has taken some preliminary steps to start explaining the complexity of the universe; however, it is far from reaching the summit. This is similar to training horses to jump over obstacles. A horse would be first trained to jump over a low obstacle; then it would be raised slightly, then further, and so on. However, there would come a height threshold which it would not be able to negotiate.

• If we understand that one driver of Darwinist evolution is random mutation, the issue becomes infinitely more complex, because evolution would then most definitely be reliant on accident – a fact which Richard Dawkins attempts to conceal by magnifying the process of natural selection. Natural selection is how the suitable characteristics of a living entity survive. However, how these characteristics emerge to begin with is the job of genetic mutation, which is how modern Darwinism sees it. Genetic mutation is absolutely random and coincidental. Beneficial mutations can occur and they would be to the advantage of the living entity; however, such mutations are rare compared to harmful mutations, or neutral mutations that have no impact. Even if these beneficial mutations bring about a new characteristic, the living entity hosting it must be in a specific environment that is suitable for the mutations to flourish. This increases the difficulty of it emerging just by chance. We therefore have two accidents in practice: the coincidence of the new characteristic emerging, and the coincidence of this characteristic being suitable for the needs of the living entity. As thus, the claim that evolution always has an upward trajectory is incorrect, as it can go the opposite way as well. In any case, evolution always occurs in minute steps.

Interestingly, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins describes an experiment he had done with a computer:

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence “Methinks it is like a weasel” (from Hamlet), and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence? The sentence has 28 characters in it, so let us assume that the monkey has a series of discrete “tries”, each consisting of 28 bashes at the keyboard. If he types the phrase correctly, that is the end of the experiment. If not, we allow him another “try” of 28 characters. I don't know any monkeys, but fortunately my 11-month old daughter is an experienced randomising device, and she proved only too eager to step into the role of monkey typist. Here is what she typed on the computer:

UMMK JK CDZZ F ZD DSDSKSM S SS FMCV PU I DDRGLKDXRRDO RDTE QDWFDVIOY UDSKZWDCCVYT H CHVY NMGNBAYTDFCCVD D RCDFYYYRM N DFSKD LD K WDWK JJKAUIZMZI UXDKIDISFUMDKUDXI She has other important calls on her time, so I was obliged to program the computer to simulate a randomly typing baby or monkey…’324

He went on to say that he wrote the sentence in Pascal instead of BASIC, which he managed to do so in 11 seconds only. The reality is this experiment has no worth in expressing how the theory of evolution actually is. The computer programme has been pre-set to reach an intended target, and therefore it situates the letters in their correct places on each try, coming closer and closer to the correct answer with the number of attempts it has, until it reaches the correct answer. As for the blind watchmaker, he does not have a goal to begin with. This renders the programme useless in uncovering the power of natural selection over randomness vis-à-vis the development of genera and the creations overall. It is strange that Dawkins himself admits that this experiment is dangerously misleading in a number of ways, one of which is: ‘Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection...’325

• Obviously, the series of objections to this theory can continue. One such objection is the dilemma of the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian Period is when a number of complex species suddenly appeared, as if they were planted there without having evolved from any primitive forms. This is a famous objection that is acknowledged by atheists, starting from Darwin himself, followed by other evolutionists after him. One of the best books I have studied for this issue is Steven C. Meyer’s Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. The problem deepened when it was revealed that the complexity of those living organisms at that time – compared to those before them – would mean implanting a lot of genetic information into the genome dedicated to the creation of new body plans; it would seem genetic mutations alone could not have spurred the level of required information. The book sparked debate and attracted various responses, including Debating Darwin’s Doubt: A Scientific Controversy That Can No Longer Be Denied by David Klinghoffer.

• Another objection is the problem of evolution’s geological timescale. In other words, Darwinism has a problem with explaining many of the highly complex phenomena, such as the emergence of understanding, conscience, instincts, etc., how the explosion of cell information matches up with Darwinist randomness, how manifestations of irreducible complexity are to be explained, as well as many other matters.

I really do not want to go further into discussing Darwinism. As you can see, it can become a lengthy discussion very quickly. What I wanted to do here is to throw in a flavour of the various problems facing it. Generally speaking, whether the theory is correct in itself or is proven to be demonstrably false, the matter has no connection with denying the existence of Allah . All what Darwinism offers is an explanation of the mystery of life – it does not offer a full answer to this question. Forget the point of mastery and immaculateness in the universe – even the very question of how life came about is outside the remit of Darwinism. Any explanation on life it can offer – which would be in biology, and assuming the explanation is correct – does not automatically have to be in opposition to the existence of Allah, for it is possible that it is an acceptable view and is part and parcel of Allah’s creation process. In the Islamic conceptualisation, the connection between the natural laws of the universe and the acts of Allah  is evident. Muslim rationality does not see any contradiction between, for example, Allah causing rain and the water cycle, for it is Allah who determines cause and effect in nature. I conclude this point by reiterating that one of the biggest drivers for many atheists who want to cling onto Darwinism, and their narrow minded attitude when hearing any opposing view or objection to it, is that it is born from a materialistic outlook, through which everything in the cosmos must be explained. The viewpoint of the cosmos from which atheists operate is that which restricts them to natural materialistic causes, such as how to explain the inception of life and the variety therein, even if some part of it is explained by randomness or blind nature. They do this in order to escape the problem of admitting to the existence of anything outside their narrow materialism. This is a biased position that causes real problems in one’s sincerity to the search for the truth in these matters. An example of this is what one of them said: ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’326

The fact is that the acceptance of Darwin’s theory in the case of most of its proponents is not necessarily because of the various proofs that support it, even though they obviously have a role to play for them to adhere to the theory. It is rather because the theory offers a natural and materialistic option to explain the variety in the creation and the genera. Therefore, if we assume that the theory is offered without any evidence, we will see that many would even then accept it as the sole plausible materialistic model that explains the diversity in the biological world we see. If the world is then observed through the lens of Darwin, it is inevitable that some imagery and scenery would be picked up on and treated as evidence for the accuracy of the theory, when in fact that is not necessarily the case, as there might be other explanations for those phenomena if and when we take off those tainted glasses.

Add to this the fact that this issue is one of hot debate in Western society and in the public domain. It has progressively gotten worse and created bigotry all round, so much so that there is a huge amount of propaganda on all sides that has resulted in a loss of the scientific balance required when discussing this issue. It has become like science’s version of the untouchable holy chest.327 The position of anyone from the opposition is described as anti-science, and bearers of such views are accused of backwardness. For many – even in Western society – it has become difficult to critique this. This is the observation of researchers like the biologist Jerry Bergman in his Slaughter of the Dissidents trilogy of books. Bergman is one of the people listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in the Midwest, and Who’s Who in Science and Religion, published by Marquis. The 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed can also be seen, which reveals the intellectual oppression exercised by the academic establishment against those who oppose Darwin’s theory in Western society.

For example, Richard Dawkins is known for being extremely assertive and making bigoted statements in favour of evolution, so much so that many of his proclamations go far beyond science and into dogma and ideology. This has severe repercussions on his outlook on the universe, life, and existence. He famously said, ‘It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).’328

Is this level of confidence in Darwin’s theory the result of impartial scientific research? Or does it reveal his blind faith in the theory, well beyond what is dictated by their interpretation of science? In his book The God Delusion, he said, ‘This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.’329

What does Dawkins actually want to convey through this passage? In one of his discussions, the interviewer and former religion affairs correspondent at The Times Ruth Gledhill asked him, But was there not, in his mind, a tiny possibility that one of these future physicists could discover God in one of these dimensions?’ Dawkins: Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine. Gledhill: Why not call it God? Dawkins: I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.

Gledhill: OK, but what would ‘it’ be like?

Dawkins: I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.

When you read this, you cannot help but doubt whether you are actually reading the words of the most infamous and hardcore atheist. Yet, he goes on to say, ‘But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.’330 Dawkins had similar things to say in the Expelled documentary.

As you can see, such a statement is far removed from the spirit of empirical science and exposes a blind faith in Darwinism, not only in relation to the observable universe, but existence itself. There cannot ever be a way to acquire a thinking mind unless it is through a slow and gradual route. If Dawkins wants to criticise theists for their faith in the notion of a Creator, he should know that he too has a similar faith-based bias in favour of Darwinism. But there is no need for us to make deductions from his statements – we can take his own explicit words. On BBC Radio 4, Fi Glover asked him the annual edge.org question, What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?

Dawkins: Well, my response was about Darwinism, which is my own field. Darwinism is the explanation for life on this planet, but I believe that all intelligence, all creativity, and all design anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe. That was my response.331

This answer, as you can see, exposes how much Dawkins exaggerates Darwinism, and that he has a healthy dose of blind faith for its power and influence. His position on the existence of the Creator goes back to this very deep faith in Darwinism on his part, not to scientific fact. In spite of his extreme partiality towards Darwin’s theory, it is strange to see Dawkins adopt what is a surprisingly cool attitude – which may even come across as borderline sceptical – to Darwin’s view in one of his books. He said, ‘Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the twentieth century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.’332

Is the person who said this really the same as the one who made all those previous emphatic statements? Why then are those statements stated in such an unequivocal manner? It would appear though that this somewhat nuanced passage has been superseded by the more emphatic statements he made, which treat Darwin’s theory to be settled scientific fact – or even a theological issue that ought to be believed in even without any evidence.

This is just one model of atheist dogma, and their materialistic faith in the unseen. There are many other examples of this, such as the belief of many atheists that the universe is pre-eternal, and the multiverse or parallel universe theory, etc.

This objection is based on the notion that our universe is not the only universe in existence, but there are rather an infinite or an immeasurable number of universes. This large number of universes would explain how our universe is precise and finely turned, without the need to assume there was a willing doer who created our universe. In other words, within the gargantuan number of universes, there is bound to be one which is conditioned perfectly for us. It is like the lottery: The chances of a person winning the billionaire prize is extremely low; however, the chance of at least one person winning is high. To clarify their view further, they offer this example: Imagine a man was presented for execution. When he was brought to the gallows, and before his eyes closed, he saw a hundred expert snipers in front of him, all of whom had trained their rifles on him. He shut his eyes, and then heard the sound of fire as the rifles were shot. He held his breath as he thought he was about to die, but he felt nothing. He felt his body and noticed he had not been impacted by even one bullet. Is it possible that this could have occurred by accident? Note that the snipers were experts, and it is highly unlikely they could have all missed. He started to think: ‘Perhaps they conspired not to kill me, or perhaps someone bribed them all to miss, or perhaps there was some other reason.’ The blindfold was removed from him. It turned out he was among a hundred other people, and the number of people to be executed were 101. Of course, in this case, one would still be alive. This is the view Stephen Hawking proposed in his book The Grand Design, which he co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow. It reads: ‘The fine-tunings in the laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple universes. Many people through the ages have attributed to God the beauty and complexity of nature that in their time seemed to have no scientific explanation. But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.’333 It is also the central idea that Dawkins relied upon in his book The God Delusion as he responded to the theists’ argument from fine-tuning.

The multiverse theory is in fact an umbrella term for various models, all of which are hotly contested in the scientific community. However, all agree for now that these are all merely quantitative assumptions that have no evidence in terms of how it is actually is. These models are as follows:

• The cyclic model or oscillating model This was touched upon earlier on in the first rational argument. It proposes that the universe explodes and expands to the farthest limit possible, then it collapses on itself (or crunches), and the process is repeated. In each iteration, the universe has different universal constants in which these numbers can experiment their attempts at creating life – a process that goes on and on. This is because the number of times this can happen is limitless, so the desired numbers that would be conducive to life would inevitably come. This model has a number of problems. The very idea of oscillation is not acceptable, especially in light of Vilenkin’s views that assert it is impossible for the explosion-crunch process to continue from pre-eternality into infinity – the universe must have a definite beginning, as discussed previously. Even if it is assumed that this model is accurate, it would run into problems with the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy can only increase. The universe begins with order; as it expands, it would switch to greater entropy. When the universes crunches, it would not return to the same level of order that it previously had, but rather to a lesser degree of order. When the next explosion occurs there will be less order, meaning life would be even more improbable. In fact, if entropy was to continue to increase as per the implication of the oscillating model, the universe would reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium – something that has obviously not yet occurred. • The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics In quantum mechanics, this is what is known as quantum superposition. For example, as an electron spins, it cannot be determined in which direction it is spinning. As per quantum superposition, both are possible unless we start observing it very closely. It is only upon closer observation that we can ascertain which direction it is spinning in. The point here is not to discuss this specific issue of electrons as much as its connection to one of the proposed models for the creation of multiverses. Hugh Everett was the one who first proposed this model. He said that at the time of observation, the universe is divided into two: in one universe, the electron spins one way; in the other, the electron is spinning the other way. It would seem that this model has nothing to offer to the question of how the universe is so finely tuned. Whereas the multiverse theory proposes that there are an infinite number of universes and one of them must be conditioned perfectly for life, the multiverse in Everett’s suggestion – even though it does create multiple universes – is governed by the same set of rules and constants. Therefore, this model does not really offer any answer to the question.

• The inflation model This theory deals with the problems of the traditional Big Bang theory, or as Stephen Hawking put it: ‘Inflation explains the bang in the Big Bang.’334 This position has won some respect among the ranks of modern scientists, though it is not a matter of scientific agreement. In brief, it postulates that just after the Big Bang, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion (inflation), so that it expanded in just a tiny fraction of a second from an initial mass of 10-25 to 10 metres long, after which the universe started to expand less expeditiously. After that, the traditional model of the Big Bang’s expansion took place. In other words, the universe expanded by a factor of 1035 in 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second. To be able to comprehend how fast this was, Hawking gives the following example: ‘It was as if a coin 1 centimetre in diameter suddenly blew up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.’335 This idea was further developed later on, where it was added that this phenomenon endlessly repeats itself in various parts of the cosmos; every time it occurs, it produces a fresh list of constants. This model and the objections to it have been mentioned during the discussion on Andrei Linde’s theory. What concerns us here is that even though it theorises a multiverse, with each universe possessing its own physical constants, this model will fail – as some see it – to offer the required number of universes that would make it possible for it to create the accidental lucky universe. • String theory This theory states that all matter in all forms is ultimately replaced by one dimensional objects called strings, which are – unlike zero-dimensional elementary particles – one-dimensional extended entities with lengths of 10-33 cm. These strings vibrate, and determine the substance of things, namely protons, photons, quarks, etc. Because these strings are found in multi-dimensional spaces (the three spatial dimensions as well as time), they reach ten-dimensional spacetime or even more in some models. Based on this, the forms these strings can assume is approximately a huge 10500. Each model can make a universe in its own fashion, in which strings would be different to other universes. • Parallel universe This was proposed by Max Tegmark. It considers each probability to be in actual existence in any one universe. So when a six-faced dice is thrown, there are six universes with each number showing up in the six universes. In a similar fashion, any possibility you can think of would be represented in the number of infinite and parallel universes. It does not seem to me that physicists deal with these theories with the seriousness they are dealt with on television and in sci-fi movies. In brief, it can be said that the idea of the multiverse has become the last resort for many atheists to cling onto when they are confronted with the fine tuning argument and the fact that this universe has been masterfully and immaculately created. As the philosopher Neil Manson put it, it is ‘the last resort for the desperate atheist’.336

This can be discussed in light of the following points:

1. Everything that has been mentioned is just random estimates from physicists. It is not based on any actual empirical data. In fact, these estimates are unable to offer any forecasts on future science. Most of those who make such claims admit that there is no material evidence that there is another universe different from the one we live in, let alone the concept of an infinite or quasi infinite multiverse.

Even though Martin Rees preferred the theory of the multiverse over intelligent design, he admitted that the multiverse theory is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and that his inclinations were merely based on instinct.337 In fact, in a footnote on how the multiverse theory is a suitable way to explain why our universe is well tuned, Richard Dawkins himself said, ‘Susskind gives a splendid advocacy of the anthropic principle in the megaverse. He says the idea is hated by most physicists. I can’t understand why. I think it is beautiful – perhaps because my consciousness has been raised by Darwin.’338

Paul Davies clearly states that only a minority of scientists – albeit a growing one – supports the multiverse theory: ‘A minority of scientists, but a growing one, now support the multiverse theory in one version or another.’339 Under the section heading ‘Many Scientists Hate the Multiverse Idea’, he said, ‘Nevertheless, the backlash against the multiverse idea has been fierce. Prominent scientists and commentators have used words such as fantasy, virus, and intellectually bankrupt in their denunciations. Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor at Princeton University, finds the entire concept so distasteful that he has simply closed his mind to it: “This is a dangerous idea that I am simply unwilling to contemplate”, he has declared.’340

A thought-provoking panel session titled Multiverse: One Universe or Many?

at the World Science Festival in 2013 brought together a number of scientists, including Andrei Linde, Alan Guth, Neil Turok, and Andreas Albrecht. In this discussion, Turok said, ‘The multiverse is certainly in our minds. Whether it is in reality is for me a very open question. What I would say is that the evidence from last year from the Large Hadron Collider in discovering the Higgs boson goes strongly against the multiverse. Instead, most theorists were expecting more than one Higgs boson, lots of other particles, and lots of complications. Instead, the Large Hadron Collider found just one Higgs boson with amazingly simple properties – properties which indicate that perhaps we can trace what happened to the Higgs field all the way back to the singularity itself, and they point to extraordinary simplicity in that singularity. Likewise, the Planck satellite is showing us a far simpler pattern than what the inflationary models in general were predicting. Inflation isn’t really a theory. It is a vast collection of models. And the vast majority of those models have ruled out by the data. So I would say the universe is giving us a glimpse of extraordinary simplicity and beauty in its structure. What we need now are series of principles and mathematics which explain the simplicity we see. The multiverse is all going in the wrong direction.’341 Likewise, in Richard Dawkins’s meeting with Steven Weinberg, Weinberg said on multiple occasions that the multiverse theory is just an estimate at best.

The issue is further complicated given that many physicists admit they do not have any way of empirically verifying that those universes existed at inception, even if they indeed do exist now. They add that the most that theoretical physics can offer in this space are mathematical theoretical models only, without any material evidence. This clearly reveals that, when atheists are asked point blank about the natural and empirical evidence for the existence of the multiverse, they fall completely flat and are unable to answer. Paul Davies makes a note on this issue, as he reveals the ‘faith’ aspect of this view: ‘Of course, one might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.’342

2. If we look carefully at the choices offered by physicists that postulate an infinite number of universes to deal with the fine tuning problem, we will find that they are based on preconceived notions, as well as guesswork built on other guesswork. The idea of inflation is not a point of scientific consensus. In the panel discussion Multiverse: One Universe or Many?, in which theory pioneer Alan Guth and multiverse theory developer Andrei Linde participated, there was an admission that there are many problems with the theory, and that it is unable to offer any future discoveries in science. In fact, there was a difference of opinion on whether the multiverse theory is accurate to begin with. You could detect the scope of the difference among the panellists in their facial expressions. Similar to the theory of the multiverse is the issue of strings, which is just guesswork and an attempt at a mathematical model for the universe without any real evidence backing it up in actuality. This is why there is a wide divide in the physics community over this theory: some accept it; others reject it; others have still not decided either way. This issue was dealt with in the panel discussion, in which Neil Turok said, ‘I would answer it by saying that this claim that string theory predicts a multiverse 10500 or more different possible universes is based on very strong approximation. It’s very unproved. None of these universes that have been constructed – and they’ve only been partially constructed – there’s no mathematical proof they make sense…I think that’s very hard to disagree with. But none of them is a dynamical universe. Each one of them at the very least has a singularity as bad as the Big Bang singularity we’ve always talked about. And none of these who study these universes have resolved that singularity. So none of them make mathematical sense.’ Albrecht reacted by saying, ‘I’ll pick up on that. You have 10500 of something, but each one of these somethings is generating the multiverse on its own in this picture, and there are serious problems just with the one of those multiverses. Having 10500 or more doesn’t fix anything. And the problems are that you can have infinitely many pocket universes…you can’t even count them up, so you can’t tell what you are predicting which is more common than something else. And in particular, I feel the technical question is how you even do probabilities, so someone mentioned Las Vegas betting somewhere earlier in the evening…The way people use probabilities to cope with these multiple eternally inflating universes – you couldn’t run a casino on that, they’re not solid use of probabilities. Everyone’s still ripping, scrambling away, trying to get it to work, just for what? Having 10500 is even more confusing.’ Guth admitted there was what he described as a ‘measure problem’: ‘The basic issue is that everything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times, which means that if you want to say that type of event is more common than another type of event, it’s hard to compare them if they’re each happening an infinite number of times. So that is a problem which I have to agree…’343

One interesting work that critiques string theory is the book by Peter Woit called Not Even Wrong, which is named as such since it represents the resentment this notion faces. Another book is The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin. David Berlinski has a sharp critique of the theory in his book The Devil’s Delusion.

When the edge.org website put its annual humorous question: ‘What Scientific Idea is Ready For Retirement?’, Frank Tipler replied, ‘As it was in the beginning of modern science, so it should be now. We should keep the fundamental requirement that experimental confirmation is the hallmark of true science. Since string theorists have failed to propose any way to confirm string theory experimentally, string theory should be retired, today, now.’345

In fact, the famous atheist Lawrence Krauss is one personality that rejects this assumption. He has offered a stinging critique of the multiverse theory on a number of occasions. He has a discussion with the famous physicist Brian Greene on this subject. The wider problem with this hypothesis is that it is presented oftentimes as conclusive scientific fact and has become accepted in scientific circles. If one reads what has been written in popular science on the topic, or information that is received via documentaries or public lectures, they will notice the unequivocal language employed that defies the required scientific nuance. They present the issues they seek to disseminate to be the gospel truth, not just theories, assumptions, or mere guesswork, even though they have not been settled as such in science itself. During debates, atheist scientists leverage this to present their theories as scientific facts, as if they have been agreed upon in science. The fact is they have clung onto these estimates only because of preconceived ideological biases that push them to refuse both accepting a supermaterial creator and leaving their narrow materialistic outlook on existence. Clifford Longley said, ‘The [anthropic-design argument] and what it points to is of such an order of certainty that in any other sphere of science, it would be regarded as settled. To insist otherwise is like insisting that Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare because it might have been written by a billion monkeys sitting at a billion keyboards typing for a billion years. So it might. But the sight of scientific atheists clutching at such desperate straws has put new spring in the step of theists.’346

3. One problem that the multiverse theory triggers is that the creation of the multiverse requires some fine-tuning. This immediately leads to the question: Who tuned the mother universe, from which the multiverse was born? Paul Davies writes:

The multiverse theory certainly cuts the ground from beneath intelligent design, but it falls short of a complete explanation of existence. For a start, there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse. The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its lawlike order. Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation at all, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better.347

The philosopher Robin Collins says, ‘In all currently worked out proposals for what this universe generator could be – such as the oscillating big bang and the vacuum fluctuation models… – the “generator” itself is governed by a complex set of laws that allow it to produce universes. It stands to reason, therefore, that if these laws were slightly different the generator probably would not be able to produce any universes that could sustain life.’348

Regarding inflation theory, which has been proposed as an explanation for the multiverse, Stephen Hawking said, ‘The problem is, for our theoretical models of inflation to work, the initial state of the universe had to be set up in a very special and highly improbable way. Thus traditional inflation theory resolves one set of issues but creates another...’349

4. The problem associated with this multiverse thought pattern is that it conditions the mind to resort to that answer whenever an inexplicable problem transpires. This is especially the case in some physics circles that have a favourable view of the multiverse by accepting the infinitely splitting universe model as proposed by Max Tegmark and others, which ultimately renders any possibility to be occurring in actuality.

Imagine a person has a bet with someone. He chooses a number on a dice, throws it, and it lands to match the number. There was a one-sixth probability of that occurring. The same number was chosen and the same result appeared when he threw the dice. They assumed the outcome is reasonable, as it happened by chance again. Now imagine that this process was repeated a hundred times and on every occasion, the dice landed on the same number – would the coincidence argument work anymore? In light of the multiverse theory, this should be perfectly possible and not surprising at all. If the person accuses the thrower of cheating, he can simply turn around and say he did not cheat at all. He could say, ‘It just so happens that we are in the universe where this was supposed to occur.’ This thought process leads us yet again – just in a more long-winded way – to the high powers of chance. No matter how remote the probability of something is, it would need to occur in one universe within the multiverse. There is nothing to stop that universe being our universe. Based on this, whenever we are uncomfortable with the idea that something occurred by accident, even if we believe it to be so mathematically, and even if we know of the incredibly low probability of it ever occurring by chance, it should still be considered feasibe and possible according to the notion that our universe was meant to host that improbable event. This is exactly the idea proposed by the pro-multiverse theorists, who use this theory to explain any improbable occurrence in our universe, without which life – according to them – would not have been possible. The mindset that accepts this metaphysical idea shuts down all routes to the possible demonstration of the existence of Allah , because whichever proof vis-à-vis immaculate design is presented to them, it can be batted away using the stick of the infinite multiverse. As thus, what is the point in ever investigating improbable events in our universe, or making deductions from them? Highlighting that this problem is a real issue, and that it has an impact on the entire discussion on the existence of the Divine, look at this segment from the debate between Dan Barker (atheist) and Trent Horn, titled God: Supreme Being or Imaginary Friend?:

Horn: Can you give us a hypothetical example of something that would falsify the statement ‘An evidence for God that does not conform to this pattern, we don’t know the explanation for x, therefore God exists’, because you said I just proposed ‘God of the gaps’ arguments. I’m curious what kind of evidence doesn’t conform to this pattern. ‘We don’t know the explanation for what we observed x, therefore God.’ Could you give us an example that does not correspond with that?

Barker: Yeah. The Bible is very clear that all things whatsoever you shall ask for in prayer believing, you shall receive. The Bible says that, and you faith is based on that book. That’s pretty clear – all means all. So evidence for me would be if you were to ask God for something we couldn’t possibly know. Here’s a wild example. If you were to pray to God and you told me that God told you that tomorrow at 12:43:16, an asteroid from the south-south-west at an 83° angle would strike your house… Horn: I see where you’re going. What you’re saying is that we don’t know how you predicted how that asteroid landed there, therefore God. Barker: I wouldn’t say ‘therefore God’; I would say you have some good evidence.

Horn: For what?

Barker: For this God you believe in.

Horn: But how would you know it isn’t something natural we haven’t discovered yet?

Barker: Because how would you explain it? Horn: How would you explain it!? I don’t know! How would you explain it!?

Barker: If you’re asking for evidence, you would need something like that… (A few moments later)

Horn: I guess I have something interesting with the multiverse. You said it could be infinite.

Barker: No. We know that it is at least one. That is all we know right now. Horn: Alright, because you need a lot of universes right? It can’t just be a billion because that won’t give you huge numbers. But if it was infinite, here’s the problem. In infinite multiverse, will there be one universe where you naturally predict a meteor strike?

Barker: There would be a universe in which someone would get struck, that’s right.

Horn: So there would be no way to know if it was God or if you’re just in the multiverse?

Barker: But I would accept it as evidence in that universe.

Horn: But how do you know it’s God and you’re not in the infinite multiverse?

Barker: In that case, I would just say I would accept that as an evidence for God, it might be wrong – not as proof – but I would accept it as evidence in that universe.350

This discussion reveals the scale of the problem. Imagine if one of these atheists who believe in the infinite multiverse and that all possibilities one can envisage are represented in the multiverse, and he witnessed a miracle of God that occurred at the hand of one of His Prophets. In response, he would immediately retort, ‘I don’t know. Perhaps it occurred as an accident because I was in the universe where this accident occurred.’ What was quite remarkable was that Barker admitted – in spite of pressure from self-evident truths and what his own fiṭrah would have been telling him – that what he mentioned was enough to convince himself. This is notwithstanding the fact that his probabilities – in my estimation – are numerically far more than the probabilities of those universe standards and constants being set in place by an external entity. In critiquing the multiverse theory, David Berlinski said, ‘There are universes in which the electron continues to follow some law, and those in which it does not. In a Landscape in which anything is possible, nothing is necessary. In a universe in which nothing is necessary, anything is possible.’351

5. So long as their claim is based on guesswork, where then would the processing of the differences between the multiverse stop at? Why should we limit ourselves to, for example, the differences between their constants? Why can there not be variation in the laws of physics as well? Why can this difference not be inside the particles of those universes? In fact, why is the process not regularised across the board and the entire raft of probabilities vis-à-vis difference is opened up for debate? This has actually been proposed in, for example, the model offered by Max Tegmark, namely that there are repetitions of ourselves in each universe we can possibly be in, as well as multiple universes in accordance with each possibility in our lives and each choice we can make. This means that the most belligerent of atheists in this universe would be a Muslim theist in another universe, a Christian in another, an apostate from Islam in another, a claimant of divinity in another, a crazed madman in another, and so on. This situation resembles a sci-fi movie more than it does reality; in fact, it is exactly that. Alan Guth, Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and pioneer of cosmic inflation theory, said, ‘Essentially anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternatives which means that superimposed on top of the Universe that we know of is an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley is still alive.’352

Elsewhere, he said, ‘In a single universe, cows born with two heads are rarer than cows born with one head’. But in an infinitely branching multiverse, ‘there are an infinite number of one-headed cows and an infinite number of two-headed cows. What happens to the ratio?’353

Vexed by this idea, Paul Davies said, ‘But even if you need not fear an encounter with a duplicate you, the very notion that there could be not just one, but an infinity of identical copies of you, leading identical lives (and infinitely many others leading similar but not identical lives) is deeply unsettling. Even Tegmark admits that his gut reaction is to find the idea “strange and implausible.”’354

What shines a light on these people getting carried away with this sort of ‘hypothetical physics’ behaviour is that some scientists have started to think seriously about the following question: Are we connected with our minds to a universal communication tool that allows us to live in a virtual world though our consciousness? Or are we interacting with actual objective reality? Is our state like the one described in the famous American movie The Matrix? Paul Davies mentioned that one implication of accepting the infinite multiverse is one would accept fictitious universes that give the illusion that they are actual universes. This obviously leads to the problem of how probable it is for us to ascertain that the universe that we live in is real and not fictitious or virtual.355 In fact, we can take the idea of the virtual world further, because some actually do say that we ourselves are simply virtual beings, and that we do not have any real actual existence but are rather the result of a programmer who programmed us on his/its computer, and placed us in this virtual world through his/its computer. He/It programmed us in such a way that we feel we exist without ever knowing that what is around is not real. This ‘position’ would make our existence like an evolved version of the PC game The Sims that adolescents play, where advanced civilisations are built on computers from the comfort of their bedrooms. It is therefore quite surprising to see that New Atheists believe these sorts of fantasies to be more rational than believing in a Lord Who created. Even though New Atheists do not explicitly state that we are living in a Sims like world, they nonetheless cannot falsify it and in fact consider this game-like experience to be congruent with scientific knowledge. The door for them is open to these sorts of ideas. This uncovers the great danger of getting carried away with any and every wild idea or fantasy that the mind can conjure up. It also highlights the very high price man pays – his humanity itself – when dabbling with these sorts of thoughts. Such thoughts can take a person down a rabbit hole and force him to adopt endless sophistry at the price of actual cognition and knowledge. In fact, it renders his entire life into a pointless mess of nihilism, irrationality, and chaos. No aspect of his life would ever be free from such meaninglessness. For example, ethics would have no point in a virtual world – would a virtual life possess any real value that would stop a person from violating ethics?356 It is indeed a strange proposition. What is disconcerting is that many atheists are, on these issues, prepared to jump into the believers’ category, all to save themselves from acknowledging their Lord and Creator. When man does not hold fast onto what he knows from his own rational self-instincts, and his innate and necessary feelings, he would no doubt slip up at these doubts and fantasies. This is why I consider it incumbent for a person to adhere to the instinctive and innate imprints on one’s soul, and to make that the blueprint by which one lives. If someone ignores that blueprint or tears it up, the price for such a deed would be extremely high – it will quite literally cost him everything. On the sophistic questions, causes, and their link with the truth and its evidence, Ibn Taymiyyah offers this brief yet graceful passage: ‘Realise that there is no truth or evidence that cannot be subject to sophistic doubts. Sophism is either about a corrupted mind or obstinance from accepting the truth. Neither have a rule to pin them down; rather, it would always be down to the corrupt fantasies and stubborn denials of the truth that come into the souls.’357 He spoke the truth indeed, .

6. This idea offers an overly difficult solution in interpreting the cause of composition and complexity in our universe. This contradicts Occam’s Razor, the famous scientific problem solving concept, which means that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, or that the simplest explanation is usually the best one. It would therefore seem to be absurd to claim a huge or infinite number of universes to explain one universe. What is interesting is that in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says, ‘The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable.’358 If each universe is really simple as he says, and given that our universe is obviously part of that multiverse, then what was the need to claim the multiverse just to explain our simple universe? This is because each universe in the infinite series of universes would not be simple, but rather complex. Each would require its own explanation. Therefore, to offer the multiverse as an explanation for our universe is absolutely pointless. This is especially given Dawkins’s insistence that they are not complex in the way that led Paul Davies and others to seek a clarification on the nature of the operation that results in the creation of multiple universes, which would also be in need of some degree of fine-tuning. In addition, let us assume that each universe in its own right is simple – would it then be correct to say that the multiverse in toto is not complex? Imagine there is a large machine. Each constituent part of the machine is simple. When these parts are put together to form the machine, would it be proper to claim that because these parts are simple, the machine is also simple? Imagine if a person claimed that man with all his living limbs is simple, because if we reduce him to his basic elements, we can say that these basic parts are simple, and therefore man is simple. It is clear that there is a fundamental error here. Obviously, his statement, ‘if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable’ does not make much sense. What exactly is the scope of probability being compared to here? How can he know how probable the infinite multiverse theory is compared to the single universe? These are some of the objections to the multiverse theory and its suitability in explaining the phenomenon of mastery and consummate construction of the universe. Enthusiasts of this issue should avail themselves of the following books in order to learn further objections: The Goldilocks Enigma, Big Bang, Big God: A Universe Fit for Life?, The Devil’s Delusion, God’s Undertaker, God and Design, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, and others.

This objection is based on analogising the manifestations of mastery proving they constitute the doing of an Omniscient and Willing Doer to that of man’s deeds. As theists, when we see something in nature that is masterfully made, it would automatically come into our minds that this was the making of a doer. If we are unable to ascribe this making to a human, we would automatically ascribe it to some other doer. This objection states that this analogy is incorrect. Our observation of man’s masterful work is what suggests to us that his making is to be ascribed to him. As for nature and the universe, we have not seen how they were made, nor did we see how the manifestations of mastery took shape therein. Therefore, we cannot pass judgement on what we were not there to witness.

Though this objection is relatively ancient, the one who systemised it is David Hume via his typical scepticism vis-à-vis the principle of causality. This scepticism has been imbibed by atheist thought to a large degree, giving rise to a plethora of problems. Hume commented extensively on this objection, especially in his book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. The presence of this objection among atheists has become increasingly conspicuous, especially when they debate proponents of intelligent design or creationists. They claim that masterful construction in itself does not necessarily mean that a selective maker exists. This delusion that we sense in ourselves comes from observing the masterful makings of man, so it appeared to our minds that the will of a doer is the cause of mastery. This is a non sequitur. This is why we find one angle of objection made on Paley’s famous watchmaker argument to be that it is improper to analogise mastery in the universe to mastery in a watch. Though the construct of a watch is from a willing maker, this does not have to be the case for the universe. The most that can be said is that some manifestations of mastery can be ascribed to a doer – with the condition that it be as a result of observation and induction. Our judgement that watches have a maker is based on seeing the first watch being made, the second watch being made, and so on. As for the universe, we cannot see or comprehend that it has a maker, let alone comprehend that the maker may have made a second or third universe. Therefore, it is not proper to jump to this sort of conclusion – i.e., that the universe has a maker – based on the fact that both the universe and watches are masterfully constructed. This objection surfaced during the debate between Dr. ʿAmr Sharīf and Bassām al-Baghdādī on the Misr 25 satellite channel, moderated by Eng. Fāḍil Sulaymān over three episodes. Eng. Fāḍil picked up a glass in his hand and asked Bassām, There is this glass in front of you. Is its existence not evidence for the existence of a maker who made this glass?’ Bassām: We know that this cup exists and we know the factory that manufactured it. Have you seen what made the universe that we are in? Have you seen other universes to compare this one to them?

Eng. Fāḍil: No – you have not understood my question. I am asking you, Bassām, that if you do not know the factory in which it was manufactured, would the mere existence of the glass still not be evidence that it has a maker?

This reveals the yawning chasm between atheists and theists in the epistemology of theology. The cause of this difference is that theists rely on the self-evident, fiṭrah-driven concept of causality, whereas the atheists deny this principle and make it an issue of inductive reasoning. The problem is that it is part and parcel of an inductive reasoning process that can sometimes not work; in fact, in atheist philosophy, something can come out of nothing; therefore, even in the watch example, a man can use the same polemic and say, ‘The fact that watch X has a maker, watch Y has a maker, and watch Z has a maker does not mean that watches A, B, and C also have a maker.’ This is exactly what many atheists inferred from David Hume’s words and took ownership of its theory, even though in practice they are compelled to adhere to what their own fiṭrah dictates to them. I will not repeat what has been already reiterated about the danger the denial of the principle of causality has on human cognition and the multiple epistemic problems it leads to, leaving even the atheist unable to escape them. In fact, atheists are unable to adhere to their view in practice. It is utterly arbitrary to dispense with this principle on the excuse that sense experience and induction alone will suffice. This would truly be the gateway to ultimate scepticism, not only in this issue, but in all knowledge. It is methodologically incorrect here to be duped into thinking that the view of theists was negotiated by some form of like for-like analogy. The fact is this was not an analogy to start with, but rather the general application of the instinctive and rational concept that dictates that merely noting something’s masterful construct would denote that there is a willing and omniscient Doer behind it. This is the case even if it is assumed that we do not know the exact nature of this Doer and the attributes He possesses.

Here is some further information relevant to the nature of this objection:

1. Imagine we come across something that is constructed, and we know that man has made something like it or something similar to it. Can we believe that this constructed item too is from the makings of man? Would it not be possible that this specific item could have been made by another entity? If the answer is in the affirmative, then does our lack of knowledge of the nature of this item make it proper for us to reject that this was made? Do we have the power to comprehend that there must have been a designer for this item, even if we do not know the precise nature of this designer? I would believe that an atheist would stick to the line that Bassām held, which is the theoretical denial of this issue. This is extremely problematic. Imagine we found a watch on another planet – will we say that this watch denotes that man has reached that planet? Shall we say at the very least that a choosing maker reached that planet? Or do we say that we do not know of any man who has reached this planet? Based on this, can we not claim that this watch has a designer? I would expect an atheist’s answer to be strange indeed when assessed by our cognitive and innate understandings.

2. The fact is that atheists do not – in practice – adhere to their own theoretical assumptions that they aver in the context of casting objections against the existence of Allah. What further underscores this problem is that scientists adhere to the foundation of masterful construct in multiple cognitive fields as a tool that reveals the existence of a choosing doer. NASA’s (now defunct) project SETI was founded precisely on this idea, which was the search for signals of intelligent extraterrestrial life. The project assumes that we can filter out intercepted signals, and that we can understand what is random and deterministic versus what came from a choosing doer. Imagine if we picked up a real and unique signal – could we then claim that this was random or accidental because it is something we are unaware of? Could we really have given the excuse that this signal does not in any way reveal the existence of the one who sent those signals? The fact that these merely resemble man-made signals should not validate for us the belief that aliens sent those signals. We have not seen any life beings in space that would have sent these sorts of signals for us to pass judgement. I believe this is the scientific stance to adopt, though I do believe that the atheist methodology of denying the teleological argument in favour of the Creator operates in the same way.

First objection: Who set the standards?

The person I have heard repeating this objection the most is Richard Dawkins. This objection forms the central argument in his book The God Delusion. In brief, this objection states that if God is the One Who set the standards of the universe, then who set those standards in the first place? In other words, if God created the universe in the consummate manner that He did, then who created God? At its core, this objection is based on the famous atheist question – ‘Who created God?’ We have discussed it in detail, in the section of the argument from creation that denotes the existence of Allah . It contains answers to many elements of this objection. The nature of this objection that Dawkins raises is in fact an evolved version of the objection that he adopted elsewhere, which was his objection to the argument from the systematic nature of the universe and its masterful construct. If the question ‘Who created God?’ is a central objection to the argument from creation, then a central objection to the argument from the systematic nature of the universe and its masterful making is ‘Who tuned the Tuner?’ and ‘Who designed the Designer?’ This evolution in the argument carries an additional objection on top of the ‘Who created God?’ question, as Richard Dawkins puts it: ‘God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain.’360 The point he wants to make from this objection is that if we want an explanation for the composition and complexity that is present in the masterful construct of Allah, then Allah Himself is far more composite and more complicated than the universe; therefore, we are only adding further complexity by assuming that Allah exists as a solution to the problem that is less complicated than the proposal that He exists. Dawkins landed himself into a number of dangerous errors:

1. It is clear that Dawkins operates from a corporealist conceptualisation of God, in which he assumes that the Creator should be of the same genus of this created world. This is why he is prepared to depict God with ambiguous phrases such as ‘composite’ and ‘complex’, when in fact God is far above this material existence. There is absolutely no comparison between His essence and the rest of His creation, as Allah says of Himself: ‘There is nothing like Him, for He alone is the All-Hearing, All Seeing.’361

2. Dawkins commits a comical error where he thinks that introducing God as an answer to the question of the systematic nature of the universe and its masterful making is a composite and complex answer. This is not the case at all; in fact, it is the most obvious and simplest of all answers. It appears that Dawkins has conflated two issues:

a. That which is in relation to the essence and entity of God.

b. That which is a plausible explanation for the phenomenon under discussion.

It might be the case that the entity that is being explained is complex in and of itself. However, in spite of that, it is still the best possible explanation for the phenomenon. Take this as an example: A man goes into a cave and finds writings or inscriptions etched into its walls. His mind immediately thinks that there must have been someone who lived in this cave and wrote those writings and sketched those drawings. Is this not a rational answer that does not comprise of any complexity? We can still accept that the actual person who etched those writings or drawings is more complex to pinpoint and identify than the suggestion that these etchings are from a person. 3. The previous issue underscores that most people believe in the existence of God. This suggests that for the universe’s masterful making God is the most obvious, easiest, and acceptable answer according to most humans, as opposed to the concept supported by Dawkins, who claims that this answer brings about further complexity. Had that been the case, most of humankind would not have reached the theist conclusion. It is this answer, with its simplicity and innateness to humans, that led to its spread on a mass scale.

4. This underscores that whenever a suitable answer is found to a question, it is not necessary that people abandon it just because they were confronted by a new objection. In the previous example, imagine that a person rejected that there was a person who etched those writings in the wall of the cave just because he does not know his name, which tribe he came from, when he was alive, when he was in the cave, and so on. Would such an attitude be acceptable?

5. The view adopted by Dawkins to deal with the problem is in reality far more complex than the answer offered by theists to deal with the question of the universe’s masterful making. Dawkins proposes the multiverse as an answer to the question. There is no doubt that to suffice on one entity to answer the question is superior to the assumption of a huge, possibly infinite, number of entities. It is interesting that Dawkins believes that his choice of answer in solving the question is the simpler option and more plausible. In my estimation, this is sheer obstinance on his part – he is clearly motivated by a materialistic outlook that is propelled by his preconceived bias. He believes that it is more plausible that some adolescent teen living in a higher human civilisation made us through an advanced computer programme and created these virtual worlds for us, which means that we are mere virtual beings without any real existence. Therefore, it is not surprising at all that he has these biases against the idea of faith in the existence of God, which happens to be far more congruent with human nature, human predisposition, human knowledge, and human partiality to religiosity. Denying these bases leads to the complete destabilisation of the fundamentals upon which knowledge, science, and a coherent moral philosophy are founded. In fact, without affirming His existence, there is no credible alternative for us to acknowledge that we as human beings are objectively present and are in existence.

In brief, the thought process behind this objection is this: ‘Assuming, arguendo, that the proof does indeed point to the existence of a willing doer that made the world in the masterful manner that we see, who told you that it is God?’ This objection was dismantled when we discussed the argument from creation. The actual point of contention with atheists is whether the universe was created by a willing doer or not. If it is affirmed that this entity exists, it would be possible to safely assume that it is Allah, and that the argument from the systematic nature of the universe is indicative of some of Allah’s attributes. In fact, the evidence for this is extremely clear, for it guides us to the fact that this willing doer has the characteristics of will, power, knowledge, wisdom, life, mercy, and other attributes that are typically associated with Allah. I conclude this point by clarifying the nature of atheist logic when dealing with these types of issues by pointing out that they are composed in such a complex manner that disallows atheists from ever considering any argument in support of the existence of Allah. One Arab atheist states that had he even seen God and embraced Him, that would still not prove that He is the Creator of the universe; were He to create something in front of us, ‘that would still not be proof that He created me’. That is the type of stubbornness that reveals the chasm between us and them, which is virtually impossible to be bridged when discussing this topic with these types of people. After all, guidance is in the Hand of Allah  – He guides whom He wishes and He leads astray whom He wishes.

And with this final objection, we end this section and come to the conclusion of the book.