12 December 2015

The Failed Hypothesis of LDM and iERA

A video has appeared (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IU9433lbIo) advertising the iERA event called "Failed Hypothesis" in December 2015. It seems Muslims are somewhat underwhelmed and are no longer thrilled to listen to their nonsense for a day, very different from just a few years ago, when such an event would have been sold out within hours. In my previous post I have critiqued their approach to a "new" process of trying to squeeze science into their old book, the Koran.

LDM will not learn and will not stop embarrassing themselves. They insist on being ridiculed over and over instead of sitting down with critics and trying to sort this out. The result is a lecture hall which is almost empty, with just a handful of people sitting there, if pictures, which have emerged are to be trusted.

LDM and iERA can’t handle or even understand reality today in the 21st century. Instead, they sell dreams. They are targeting unsuspecting Muslims who can’t conceive of fellow brothers intentionally lying to them. iERA need donations to survive. Donations by Muslims are their income. It’s their job to provide information to Muslims who, in turn, donate money and iERA manages the funds. Or maybe mismanages them?

So the better the lies, the better the comfort factor, the higher the donations. The problem is, there is nothing really to sell. Muslims have the Koran and since most are sunnis, they have the hadith and the interpretation by the scholars and can get any information or guidance they need and want. They don’t need iERA for that. But iERA need more money and they can only get it if they can sell their product and get more subscribers who will donate.

Forty years ago, along came a fraudster called al-Zindani who saw a way of tricking gullible people into accepting science in the Koran. But he was stupid as science has a method of correcting mistakes and scientists thus corrected the mistakes and science was out of the Koran again.

Now iERA come along to save the day and make science seem dubious and limited somehow, which is just as stupid as what Zindani was doing. But they want a little bit of science to be acceptable, but not everything. People like me have warned them of the consequences and the certain failure, but they don’t want to listen.

This video they’ve come up with on the - what they call - failed hypothesis, consists of a lot of hand-waving and empty speech bubbles.

They still don’t understand anything scientific, don’t understand what science does, how it works and what the results are. But they love using words which sound all “sciency” - which they are not.

I’ve already addressed some of it in my video on their Koran and Science.

Here, they pretend as though fabricating lies equals coming up with a hypothesis. They call the efforts of Zindani or 1001Inventions a fail and pretend they can do it better, selling just another bubble, a dream and wishful thinking. They declare the Koran as unscientific, something which can’t be verified or falsified using scientific methodology. Except, of course, you can.

If the Koran says mountains are pegs, we know what a mountain is and we know what a peg is and we know that a mountain is not a peg, so the Koran is wrong. It’s that easy.

As I predicted in my last video, they will start off by lying. They will try and bring Islam and science closer together, which is a fail as the 2 are completely incompatible, science based on facts and Islam based on faith. Science does not use faith and Islam does not use facts. Muslims are told not to question the Koran and to seek knowledge in the Koran. Completely contrary to the scientific approach.

They keep on displaying their ignorance when it comes to science and what science does, going off on words like empiricism - which they don’t understand or induction - which they don’t understand or certainty - which they don’t understand or change - which they don’t understand. They mention a lot of people, who, as I have demonstrated, do not say what they say they say. They will mention names, but NEVER the sentences themselves, never the statements they make which show what they claim they show.

These are just lies. Fabricated to impress fellow Muslims and make them donate.

No, scientific conclusions don’t automatically change. They simply don’t understand it

The entire topic of Darwinism and Darwinism 2.0 is so sickening and stupid, I can’t think of words describing how useless this is. All they are trying to do is shoot holes into a theory, which they don’t understand, embarrassing themselves once again in the process. All they will do is criticise the display, the graphic representation, pretending they have found a flaw in the theory. Why? Why do that? Does that help anyone?

But don’t you dare try and verify the Koran. Science is only allowed as far as the superstitions in a faulty, old book go, no further. Reality is what Islam allows as reality.

Prime example. Science tries to explore nature and understand it and Hussein says understanding nature is the prerequisite - the very thing we are trying to do using science. That’s the level of stupidity and wilful ignorance we are dealing with here.

Then Hussein says they will not use a presuppositional approach - and presupposes his favourite god.

}11:14 We have to be truthful

Really? A book can be tested and there has been no evidence of anything super-natural - as much as they try and squeeze a god into the Koran. Science does not care about gods or ghosts, that’s it.

Sentences like this show that this entire day will be a waste and I don’t even know if a critique of the event will be necessary, it is so unspectacular and just a bunch of uneducated idiots chasing a dream and making fools out of themselves in the process - instead of concentrating on what would make sense today in the real world of Islam.

}15:20 we should be using something if it is true

But they don’t and Islam continues to shrink and LDM can’t do anything about it. All they are doing is addressing a topic which does not exist instead of addressing the real problems haunting Islam at the moment.

01 December 2015

The Quran and Science - a response

Dec 2015
This is a response to an essay found online at OneReason titled The Quran and Science.

Why anyone would try to find anything remotely scientific or accurate or corresponding to reality in an ancient book is beyond me, especially when this book constantly talks about gods, demons, devils, talking ants, mountains as pegs and makes a complete mess when it comes to describing the cosmology in our Universe.

We need to appreciate that the iERA people writing this essay have no clue what science is, what science does, how science works and what the results are. They have also been found to lie, misrepresent and deceive to make their ancient book look more plausible and attractive, which realistically is impossible. As I have demonstrated before, they have not found anything convincing or reasonable in the Koran, which is why they seem to be fabricating an artificial hype, using shallow and superficial, factually wrong propaganda material like their “Eternal Challenge” booklet. Now, it seems, they are embarking once again on the “let’s-insert-science” path, desperately trying to make their ancient book look better than it is and distracting from the barbaric and primitive teachings.

Intrigued by their latest endeavour, I will look at what the claims are and whether they are any better than previous ones, which had to be retracted due to the public exposure of the nonsense their pamphlet contained.

The Koran and Science

}”Science has changed the world”
False. Science is a tool which enables applications. Science has changed our understanding of the world.

}”From medicine to telecommunications, science has improved our lives”
Not true; science provides information, descriptions and explanations as to natural phenomena. Applications based on our understanding changes and improves our lives.

}”science continually elevates our lives, and our understanding of the world and the universe”
Correct. Science provides understanding and not applications or technology. It enables the development of new and modern devices through an increase in knowledge and understanding. That’s why the knowledge of evolutionary processes enables the development of improved or even new types of medicine and medical approaches.

}”Thus, it is not surprising that many of us see science as the yardstick for truth”
Complete and utter nonsense. Science is not about “truth” at all. “Truth” is subjective and bound to change.

}”the only way to establish the truth about man, life and the universe”
That is false.

}”Although science is phenomenal, it can’t answer all the questions”
Nonsensical drivel.

}”It has limitations”
Islam does not smell. Islam thus has limitations. A toaster cannot be used as a towel. Is that a limitation?

}”It cannot be our only way to understand reality”
Science is the only known tool which correctly describes natural phenomena. There is no other methodology known to man which describes nature accurately, can be tested, replicated and falsified and has predictive capabilities.

The Limitations of Science

}”The claim that science is the only method to find out the truth about man, life and the universe is wrong.”
That’s why the only people making this claim is you.

}”Science cannot prove moral truths, like what is right and wrong”
Yes, it can. Examples:
Islam allows for incest and science objectively proves this is something wrong, negative for the well-being of our species.
Islam heavily restricts sex. Science demonstrates that this is unnatural and that increased compatibility tests are beneficial, demonstrated by the fact that less non-believers get divorced than Christians. Muslim marriages can’t be quantified due to cultural differences in the concept of marriage and divorce.

}”Science tells us what is, not what ought to be”
That is the task this tool was intended for.

}”In this sense science is amoral”
Correct, science describes and does not prescribe.

}”it is not an appropriate means of making moral decisions”
That is false. Science demonstrates the reaction to immoral activities via brain activity and enables an interpretation and adaptation of behavioural patterns.

}”Science cannot prove logical truths”
It is not supposed to. Islam does not smell. So what? This is childish and based on sheer ignorance. Science is a tool, a tool with a purpose, developed by humans.

But, if it were faulty, limited or wrong, so what? What would the impact be on the Koran and Islam? Would the Koran be wrong as well? Would the Koran be better in some way? What exactly is the connection or correlation between science and Islam? I am flabbergasted at the outright dishonesty and deceptive tactics here, trying to find some flaw in a tool they have no understanding of whatsoever.

For example, take the following into consideration:
  • All unmarried men are bachelors.
  • John is a bachelor.
  • Therefore, John is an unmarried man.
The conclusion here necessarily follows.

Let me take a different example and show the consequences:
P1: gays are men
P2: Hamza Tzortzis is a man

Science Doesn’t Lead to Certainty

What utter rubbish. Why would I make some silly remarks about something I don’t understand?

}”Certainty is not a word that scientists like to use due to the process of induction”
Once again, they demonstrate they don’t understand science and don’t know how induction works and what it does. I have explained this so many times, using really simple terms - they don’t have the intellectual capability of processing this information. Sad. Is this what Islam does to otherwise reasonably intelligent human beings?

}”This is why science continually changes”
That is false.
They are mistaking an increased accuracy with change. The inability to understand the contents of a scientific presentation and the insistence on ignorance leads to misconceptions like these. The scientific concept of speed=distance over time remains, regardless of a change in presentation in mph or kph.

But uneducated simpletons will not get this.

}”One day you’ll read in a popular magazine or newspaper that coffee is good for your heart, and in another that coffee is bad for your heart”
That’s why scientists don’t publish their findings in newspapers or magazines.
And this example shows how primitive, ignorant people can misrepresent scientific data.

}”we cannot use science alone to establish religious truths”
Yay! Something correct. At last.
Or is it? What exactly is a “truths”? How much “truth” before you get “truths”? And what is a “religious truth”? Talking ants? Then science can help. Science will force any natural occurrence out of this claim and relegate it into the realm of miracles.

}”Science changes and improves, whereas religious claims are static, unchanging and timeless”
No, science does not change. The observations and the data will be better and more refined, but science will not change and allow for an unsubstantiated god.

}”This doesn’t mean, however, that religion and science contradict each other”
Yes, it does. Religions and their gods are based on faith, science is based on facts.
Science does not have any faith and religions don’t have any facts.
They are opposites. Totally and in everything.

Islam and Science

}”In contrast, Islam facilitated science”
What is this assertion based on?
Science demands you question everything. Islam tells you NOT to question anything.

}”David C. Lindberg, a historian of science, asserts that it was a Muslim scientist, Ibn al- Haytham that developed the scientific method as we know it today”
Why would I care what Lindberg said 40 years ago? I look at reality and data. That’s why I find that al-Haytham was a great and clever man. Did he formulate the scientific method as we know it today? No!
Many Natural Philosophers of that era came up with elements of what we call the scientific method.

But let’s just spend a few moments on their first reference and source to see how they work.
They reference this as
[1] D. C. Lindberg. Theories of Vision from al-Kindi to Kepler, University of Chicago Press, 1976, pp. 60–7

It says that there is a book and on pages what? Pages 60-7?
I suppose that this is a mistake and it should read: pages 60-67
But why would one sentence, saying that al-Haytham “developed the scientific method as we know it today” stretch over 8 pages?

Lindberg - Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler 
Well, guess what, I checked and I found the book and here are pages 60-67. Is there anything here about a scientific method? Nope. Nothing. Only how he struggled with the old Greek idea that light rays emitted from the eye and were then perceived by the eye as an reflection, the extramission method or theory.
What is interesting is that this very same mistake can also be found in an essay called “Has Evolution Been Misunderstood?”, by none other than Hamza Tzortzis. As is the following source by Prof Arnold.
They are found all over the show, wherever Tzortzis dumps his pile of crock.

}”Professor Thomas Arnold, an Arabist and a historian, made the claim that Muslim Spain facilitated the European renaissance”
If he makes that claim, he needs to provide the evidence for that claim. Does he? No!
But hang on, once bitten, twice shy. Did Sir Arnold make that claim, 120 years ago? No! He did not.
All he said is that people were inspired all the way until the Renaissance.

bringing into birth a new poetry and  new  culture,  and  it  was  from  her  that  the  Christian  scholars received what of Greek Philosophy and science they had to stimulate their mental activity up to the time of  the renaissance”

All this says is that people in Spain got Greek Philosophy and this was sufficient for them, until the Renaissance came along, not even mentioning what Renaissance he’s talking about. So this quote, one which you also find everywhere, is practically useless.

Is Prof Arnold the author of a book called “Preaching”? That’s what it says in the references.

[2] Arnold, Preaching, p. 131

No, why would anyone expect intellectual honesty and precision from iERA?!
Their reference should read:
“Sir Thomas Walker Arnold. The Preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith. WESTMINSTER, A. Constable and Company, 1896, p. 131. Retrieved on date. (Original from the University of California)”
This to me demonstrates once again how utterly useless these people are. And once again I ask myself why there are people who believe anything they say.

}”So what is the relationship between Islam and science?”
Answer: utter hatred. Islam rejects scientific findings such as the Theory of Evolution or biological reality as in same-sex relationships. Science is allowed to provide descriptions only if they are in accordance with Islam.

}”Qur’an mentions knowledge over 100 times”
Context, please. This is not a perfect book written by a perfect being and it uses an imprecise language and vague terminology, thus requires context.
The word “knowledge” might be counted correctly, but the context is always the Koran. Not nature. Not natural phenomena.

}”It encourages profound thought”
No, that is false. The Koran copies the platitudes and miracles of past civilisations without adding much at all.

The Remarkable Qur’an

}”The Qur’an addresses various levels of intellect”
How so? All I see is the appeal to the primitive and gullible, in short, faith.

This passage is only esoteric mumbo-jumbo, showing there is nothing remarkable in the Koran, if I disregard the primitive brutality, the offensive behaviour towards women and those who don’t believe this version of a fairy-tale.

Examples in the Qur’an

Orbits (including the Sun’s Orbit?!)
The Human Embryo
The expansion of the universe

Total, absolute rubbish. Long refuted lies. A repetition of lies does not make them better.
The Koran describes a flat Earth

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaNg_nxqns ), does not even mention a Universe, let alone an expanding one and uses creation to explain the birh of humans. There is no mention of the embryo whatsoever.

A  Note on Future Findings

}”If we cannot produce a meaningful correlation or reconciliation between science and the Qur’an, we find an open window of opportunity for a future scientific discovery or conclusion to provide a meaningful analysis”
Hahaha, what nonsense. Special pleading at its best. Muslims had 1000 years to come up with something new. They have not. In fact, most Muslims are illiterate today and patents and scientific findings are far and few between, a fraction of what non-Muslim countries come up with. The Koran stifles research, limits its followers to the Koran and contains superstitious and faulty nonsense based in Arabic culture and a society of 1000 years ago. Nothing useful. Destructive, not constructive.

Instead of addressing the Islamic brutality and the backwards Muslim society, these people try and keep their followers dumb by pretending the Koran is something special and even accurate. Neither is correct.

}”There are a myriad of arguments indicating that the Qur’ān is a Divine signpost”
That is false. It consists of a single assertion: "this is a divine signpost", without evidence or any kind of substantiation.

}”example of the Qur’ān’s Divine origins is the miraculous nature of its complex language”
That is false.
It has been demonstrated again and again that this claim is completely unwarranted. Declaring a book full of mistakes a miracle does not make it so.


}”The Qur’an is a book which encourages reflection”

Sure, but only on the contents of the Koran, something I have shown in my “Knowledge is Haram” article and video.
Blog article: Knowledge is Haram 

}”Many of the statements in the Qur’an concerning nature and science have the ability to engage various audiences and appeal to their knowledge, whether a 7th century or 21st century audience”
That is false.
There are no statements “concerning nature and science” in the Koran. Ants can’t talk and birds fly without an allah. Milk is not made between blood and urine. Hail is not generated in the hills in heaven and thunder does not kill. Mountains are not pegs are there are no permanent barriers between salt- and fresh-water. Nothing the Koran mentions which occurs in nature is correct or relevant - and it certainly is not scientifically accurate, verifiable or correct.

}”it remains valid and agreeable”
That is false. It is just as wrong as it has always been - because it was not updated with current findings. It still contains the faulty perceptions of what humans thought they observed 1000 years ago.

}”This should surely make one think about who its author was”
Regardless of the veracity of a book, why should anyone grasp at straws and insert the super-natural when a natural explanation is so much more plausible?

}”The Qur’an contains knowledge about the physical natural world”
No, it does not. It appeals to gullibility and offers creation as solution.

}”It relates to our feelings, wants and needs”
The topic is science, not emotional pleading.

}”The Qur’an informs us that we have a purpose in life”
A toaster has a purpose. I have ambitions, goals, achievements and social interaction.

}”following God’s guidance will lead us to inner peace in this life, and Paradise in the hereafter”
An unsubstantiated, unproven claim based on wishful thinking.
If Islam and the Koran offer “inner peace”, why are there so many violent, non-peaceful acts committed in the name of Islam? If there is no afterlife and no paradise, where does a Muslim apply for a refund of their zakat donated to dawah liars and where does she or he get the time back they spent on their knees?

}”A rejection of His message will lead to depression in this life and Hellfire after death”
Yep, the typical mafia threat used to suppress humans in antiquity. But if a god wanted me to accept the message, why not tell me straight instead of leaving alleged signs which are meaningless and stupid? Why not provide evidence instead of appealing to faith? What a  useless god.

iERA have once again embarked on their collection of lies crusade in order to generate income from gullible Muslims who blindly believe this nonsense. But today we have the internet and everyone can easily get information to understand why these claims made by iERA are wrong and what exactly is wrong with them.

Just as an example let me provide a link which will immediately expose the claims of embryology made in the iERA essay as a fat lie and nothing else:

I hope I have generated sufficient doubt so that everyone dealing with claims made by iERA or other Muslim apologists for that matter, will first check, then double check and only then, after their own verification, accept anything they say or claim.

[1] D. C. Lindberg. Theories of Vision from al-Kindi to Kepler, University of Chicago Press, 1976, pp. 60–7
[2] Arnold, Preaching, p. 131
[3] Qur’an 10:24
[4] Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī. Tadabbur-e-Qur’ān. Pondering over the Qur’ān. Vol. 1. trans Mohammad Saleem Kayani, Islamic Book Trust, 2007, p 410.
[5] Qur’an 21:33
[6] Cited from Nidhal Guessoum. Islam’s Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science,  2011, p. 152.
[7] http://www.universetoday.com/18028/sun-orbit/#ixzz2h7WinqFD
[8] Qur’an 23; 14
[9] ‘Embryology in the Qur’ān: The ‘Alaqah Stage’, Elias Kareem. Accessed here http://islampapers.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/thealaqah.pdf.
[10] Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine, (Galen: On Semen) pp. 92 – 95.
[11] For an example see here ‘Embryology in the Qur’ān: The ‘Alaqah Stage.’ Elias Kareem. Accessed here http://islampapers.com/2012/02/09/alaqah/.
[12] For more information read here http://islampapers.com/2012/07/01/can-alaqah-be-seen/.
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscope#History
[14] See the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pwwP_dgriLI.
[15] Qur’an 51:47
[16] http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wsE#(51:47:5)
[17] See Tafsir Ibn Kathir
[18] See here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRd3loZFsxM
[19] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html
[20] Qur’an 41:53