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.
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
Conclusion?
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?
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 andnewculture,anditwasfromherthattheChristianscholars received what
of Greek Philosophy and science they had to stimulate their mental activity up
to the time ofthe 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.
Conclusion
}”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.
}”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.
