Lokacin da aka wallafa hotunan Pluto da NASA's New Horizons ta ɗauka, mutane da yawa a intanet sun bayyana ra'ayinsu da cewa: "NA SON KIMIYYA!" da kuma yadda kimiyya take abin mamaki, abin burgewa da abin yabo. Babu wani abu da ba daidai ba a cikin son kimiyya ko kuma ƙaunarta. Sai dai, shin mutane sun gane cewa kimiyya ba ta halicci Pluto ba? Cewa kimiyya ba ta da wata alaƙa da wanzuwar Pluto?

When the NASA New Horizons pictures of Pluto were recently published, many people online reacted with declarations of: “I LOVE SCIENCE!” and of how amazing, awe-inspiring, and praiseworthy science is. There is nothing inherently wrong about appreciating science, loving it even. But, do people realize that science did not create Pluto? That science has nothing to do with the existence of Pluto?

Kuna iya tunanin cewa wannan al'amari na mutane suna bayyana son kimiyya ba shi da alaka da shirki kuma babu cutarwa a cikinsa kwata-kwata. Kuma a mafi yawan lokuta, zan yarda da hakan. Amma a yanayin al'adunmu, inda mutane ke ƙara barin addini, suna zama masu shakkar wanzuwar Allah ko masu musun Allah, kuma gabaɗaya suna musanta muhimmanci da ikon Allah, waɗannan maganganu ba su rasa wata ma'ana mai zurfi ba.

You might think that this phenomenon of people declaring their love of science has nothing to do with shirk and is absolutely harmless. And in many cases, I would agree. But in our cultural circumstance, where people are increasingly leaving religion, becoming agnostic and atheist, and generally denying the relevance and power of God, these statements are not without a deeper significance.

Insanity ilimi ce! Ina nufin cewa, ko da yake akwai maganar Allah mai daraja, ba za a iya kwatanta ta da ita ba. No wait, that's not a faithful translation. Here is the correct translation: Ga kowane mutum, abin da yake ji idan ya ga abubuwan ban mamaki na yanayi shi ne mamaki, da rashin iya magana saboda girman kyawun duniyar halitta. Haka kuma, dan Adam a dabi'arsa yana jin cewa akwai wani mai iko da ya halicci wannan kyau, cewa bai fito daga babu ba, bai halicci kansa ba, sannan yana yabawa da godiya ga wannan mai iko. Ga wadanda ba su yi imani da Allah ba, wadannan ji na dabi'a dole ne su sami wurin da za su nufa. Don haka mutane suna karkatar da yabonsu zuwa ga kimiyya ko "Uwar Yanayi", da sauransu. A fili suke cewa, ba su yarda cewa akwai wani mahalli ko ubangiji na Uwar Yanayi ba. Kuma ba su yarda, kuma ba za su iya yarda, cewa kimiyya ce ke da alhakin halittawa ko kiyaye al'amuran halitta ba (domin kimiyya ba ta da iko ko nufi, bayan haka). To ta wace ma'ana ya kamata ganin Pluto ya jawo irin wannan farin ciki, murna, sujada, zumudi, da soyayya ga wani ilimi na mutum? Ko kuma a fadi haka: idan mutane suna nuna irin wannan soyayya da godiya ga kimiyya saboda iyawarta ta samar da hotuna ko gano cikakkun bayanai game da duniyar halitta, to me za a ce game da Mahaliccin wadannan cikakkun bayanai da abubuwan da hotunan ke nunawa?

The universal human response upon seeing the sublime wonders of nature is to be in awe, to be dumbfounded with the splendor that is the natural world. Also, universally it is human to feel that someone, some agent, is responsible for this splendor — that it did not just come from nothing, that it didn’t just create itself — and then to praise and appreciate that agent. For those who do not believe in God, these involuntary sentiments have to be directed somewhere. So people divert their declarations of adoration to science or “Mother Nature,” etc. Obviously, these people do not believe that there is an actual entity or deity of Mother Nature. And they do not and could not believe that science is responsible for the creation or preservation of natural phenomena (science does not have agency or will, after all). So in what sense should the sight of Pluto elicit that kind of glee, joy, adoration, excitement, and love toward a man-made academic discipline? Or put another way, if people show this much love and appreciation toward science for its ability to produce images of or to discover details about the natural world, then what about the Creator of those details and the objects of those images?

Yaya wauta da rashin hankali yake ga mutane su yabi kimiyya saboda abin da suke gani a cikin duniyar halitta, wato a zahiri suna yabon hankalinsu, ba tare da sun amince aƙalla, ko kuma su tabbata ba, cewa akwai yiwuwar Mahalicci? Za ka iya tunanin wani mutum da ba ya nuna godiya ga halitta. Ka nuna masa hotunan Pluto, ka kai shi ya ga faɗuwar rana mafi kyau, da sauransu, sai ya ce, "To me? Mene ne abin al'ajabi a ciki? Waɗannan ba abubuwa ne masu burgewa ba." Wannan zai zama hali mafi daidaito a hankali. Haka kuma, daidai a hankali zai kasance a yabi a kuma ƙaunaci Pluto kansa. Kuma wannan shi ne abin da bautar halitta ta kasance a tarihi. Ba daidaituwa ba ne cewa duk duniyoyin da ke cikin tsarin hasken ranar mu suna da sunayen allolin Girka da Roma. Amma tunda, bisa ga ra'ayin kayan abu na zamani, ba shi da ma'ana sosai a yabi, a ƙaunaci, ko a nuna sadaukarwa ga dutse marar rai, marar sani a sararin samaniya, to wannan zaɓi ma an rufe shi. Don haka mutane suna yabon kimiyya maimakon haka, kamar dai hakan yana da ma'ana.

How utterly stupid and senseless is it for humans to praise science for what they see in the natural world, in essence praising their own minds, without at least acknowledging, if not being certain about, the possibility of a Creator? You could imagine a person who does not show any appreciation for nature. You show him these pictures of Pluto, take him to see the most beautiful sunset, etc., and he says, “So what? What’s the big deal? These are not impressive.” That would be a more intellectually consistent attitude. Also, more intellectually consistent would be to praise and love Pluto itself. And that is what nature worship throughout history has been. It is no coincidence that all the planets in our solar system have the names of Greek and Roman gods. But since, according to modern materialism, it would make little sense to praise, love, or show devotion to a lifeless, unconscious rock in outer space, that option is also closed. So people praise science instead, as if that makes any sense.

Sauran mu kuma muna mamakin yadda wani zai ƙaryata Mahalicci amma kuma ya yabi kimiyya. Mafi yawan abin da kimiyya take yi shi ne kamar madubi ne kawai. Idan ka karanta wani shafin yanar gizo na hotunan abinci ko na zane-zanen gine-gine, kuma ka burge sosai da abin da ka gani a cikinsa, ba za ka yi ta yabon mai ɗaukar hoto ka manta da mai dafa abincin ko mai zane ginin ba, ko ba haka ba? Hakan zai zama rashin hankali gaba ɗaya. Kuma idan kana ganin babu wani mai dafa abinci ko mai zane, cewa abincin ko abin al'ajabin gine-ginen ya gina kansa, to ko da haka, don me za a yaba wani abu? Mai ɗaukar hoto ko ɗaukar hoto gabaɗaya ba shi da alaƙa da abin da aka ɗauka hoton. Idan ɗaukar hoto ne ke haifar da wannan sha'awa, to ka karanta littafi kan ɗaukar hoto. Idan kimiyya ce ainihin abin yabo, to ka je ka karanta Principia na Newton. Kada ka rika kallon hotunan sararin samaniya kana ta zubar da baki kana cewa kimiyya abin mamaki ne mai ban al'ajabi.

And the rest of us are left wondering, how idiotic to deny a Creator but also praise science. At most, science is a lens. If you were to read a food photo blog or architectural design blog and were particularly impressed with what you saw therein, you wouldn’t gush over the photographer and ignore the chef or the architect, would you? That would be completely illogical. And if you believe that there is no chef or architect, that the cuisine or the architectural marvel built itself, then, still, why praise anything? The photographer or photography in general has nothing to do with the object of the photograph. If photography is what is spurring this adoration, read a book on photography. If science is what is really praiseworthy, go read Newton’s Principia. Don’t browse space photos and spurt on about how mindblowingly amazing science is.