6 - The Misery of Modern Science 

"Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no purpose principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable… Second, modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society…. Fourth, we must conclude that when we die and that is the end of us.  
 - One of the contemporary supporters of Darwinism  
Prof. William Province, Cornell University

"And they say: "What is there but our life in this world? We die and we live, and nothing but time can destroy us." But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture:"   
 - Qur'an, AL-JATHIYA 24 

We can summarize this vicious circle as: The referred  people, better to say, the systems of thought that shape their mentality, believe that this 'scientific', in other words 'experimental' knowledge is the unique guide of the mankind. Experimental knowledge is just as how it is called: it is the knowledge that can be proved or disproved through experiments. "Water freezes at 0°C." is an experimental knowledge. You can make an experiment on this; you get some water, cool it down until it freezes and look if it really freezes at 0°C. In fact, science is all what men do to learn about the universe that they live in, by making experiments and observations. 

The point where the evolutionists stuck appears, considering one step ahead. According to the evolutionists, this experimental knowledge is the only guide for mankind, because what we call as the universe is only the aggregate of this experimental knowledge. Even the abstract concepts like love, hate or sorrow can be observed through psychological experiments. The consequence of this thought is not believing in things which cannot be proved through experiments and observations, or else, being systematically skeptic. This thought originated with 18th century enlightenment, formed the core of 19th century positivism and existed in all kinds of materialism. 

Under these circumstances, according to this belief of science, all religious information is considered as unreal or at least as open to doubt. For example, the existence of the Hereafter cannot be proved through an 'experiment'. The existence of God can also not be "observed" through an experiment in a laboratory. 

The evolutionists explain the existence of religion as the consequence of insufficiency of science. This being the rational, ancient civilizations with insufficiency of science, define the things that they cannot explain through experiments,  with "supernatural powers" which is God in monotheist religions. The more the field of experimental knowledge expands, the more the field of religious information lessens. According to the supporters of this belief, the time will come when everything in the Universe will be explained through experimental knowledge and observation, and the humankind will have no need for religion. 

This positivist mentality that regards 'modern science' as the unique guide, is summarized in its original source, and that is the text of a freemason lodge: 

In every society with insufficient information, vain beliefs will command  mankind for sure. These in fact demolish the freedom of soul and lead the men to morality of fear and hope. Thinking of a person who behaves with the fear of God and hell or the hope of heaven for every deed of him; is there any virtue and nobility in his behaviors?… When the man ponders deep and attains the quality of discussing - criticizing, he will then understand that mentioned fears and hopes are only the results of mystical imagination. In order to be saved from the vain beliefs or ignorance, there is need to attain the principles of positive science and wisdom, and data: the prominent command and inclination of masonry. 

This is the thought mentioned in the above lines that urges the evolutionists explain the nature without accepting the existence of Allah in any case. If they happen to accept that the nature is created and regulated by a Creator, then they would be accepting an explanation that cannot be proved through experimental knowledge. And this, will mean their excommunication from 'modern science' which they take as religion. They will be regarded as a "transgressor" before his colleagues who devote themselves to this religion, because he accepts other knowledge other than experimental knowledge! 

Then why and how is this positivist thought that we summarized above is wrong? 
 

20th Century and Semi-Positivism 

The positivist thought that is summarized above, in fact, belongs to 19th century and lost its popularity within that century. With the impact of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it has been comprehended that science is not an absolute guide that explains everything and cannot be. Various science philosophers, especially Karl Popper, supported that science cannot explain everything and that it has a "field" and there exists other fields apart from this. 

A natural consequence of these arguments is this dull cliché: "Science and religion has their different fields and should not interfere one another." 

The idea behind this commonly used slogan actually still supports this experimental knowledge as "the most important guide". Only, this "most important guide" should not try to explain some fields of "metaphysics" and this limited field was left to religion. (And surely if there is any discovery that is conflicting religious teachings, science  would be supported and accepted.) 

Definitely there are some political and social consequences of this lightened semi-positivism in the 20th century. This referred science-religion balance isolates the humanity from religion. Because humanity can be explained by "experimental knowledge and observation" and includes all politics, economy, law and social regulations. There remains only two limited areas for religion and these are personal ethics and belief. That thoroughly means the continuity of the New Secular Order established in the 19th century. 

Moreover, New Secular Order, by giving this limited area to religion, created a "safety valve". The defenders of the new secular order now has the right and the chance to say "we are not against real religious people, we love them a lot." This "real religion" is the religion within the walls of the temple but adopting the criteria of the New Secular Order when they are out of these walls. If they happen to think the same way when they are outside, then they will be named "exploiter" or "reactionary". 

The name "reactionary", in fact, reflects the mentality of evolution. "Reactionary" is the person who accepts the technological developments but supports that the basic values  that never change. However, evolution supports that history is a progress towards better. This progress started from a single cell and then created the humankind. As time passes, wisdom and culture of the humankind were also progressing. Furthermore, during this 'progress', the volume of the human skull was getting bigger. 

However there is not a single indication that proves that, as the experimental knowledge increases, people think better. People were only gaining more power when their experimental knowledge increases. But no proof could be found that this power has the ability to reveal the meaning of life or a fair society order and political model. 

In short, there is no basic difference between 20th century semi-positivism and 19th  century positivism, like Auguste Comte and Karl Popper. Both models are in agreement that 'experimental knowledge' is more reliable than religious knowledge, that is the knowledge communicated by "Allah's revelation" to humankind. In both models 'modern science' is accepted to be the most important guide. Only, semi-positivism, has made a more realistic evaluation and left a small field for religion. This, provided an important benefit, now it has a 'security valve'. 

But what was wrong with positivism or semi-positivism? How, accepting experimental knowledge as the most important guide, could lead astray? 

The real meaning of science 

The ones who support the idea that science is the guide, support that there is an absolute science independent from all the cultures, all ideologies and beliefs. According to this, science is a universal criteria different than other sources of knowledge. Science is the centre and everything should be regulated accordingly. Everything is evaluated regarding its accordance with science. 

Now, the deception is here. Contrary to the propagation, there is no such constant and 'universal' science above religion, cultures and ideologies.  Science is not a universal guide, contrarily science is guided. 

The "paradigm" concept of American science philosopher Thomas Kuhn explains it clearly. According to Kuhn, who is not semi-positivist like Popper, all kinds of science are built on a series of some presumptions. The general theoretical conjectures, rules and technics that are made up by the people in science and their applications constitute "paradigm". Until a new scientific impasse comes up, this paradigm will be valid, but later it will definitely collapse. For example Newton's scientific hypothesis are scientific paradigm. With the rise of Einstein's paradigm that is valid today, Newton's paradigm lost its validity. This means: when a new scientific crisis appears, this paradigm will lose its validity too. 

The important point is that paradigms cannot be stated as a general law. Paradigm is nothing but conjecture that is accepted to be true for a temporary period of time. 

The scientists who take science as their guide and their followers accept a certain paradigm as being the absolute truth, hence in fact they take a conjecture as their guide. The Quran points out that the unbelievers "....follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!" (An-Najm 23)  

According to Paul Feyerabend who went further than Thomas Kuhn, it is absolutely the result of  a subjective preference to consider science as being superior than any  other teaching that humankind has put forward. Therefore the government should give up the education policy that regards science as the guide and assumes it is superior than other branches. 

These final points show us that science is as "subjective" as any other belief or ideology and that no paradigm can be accepted as the 'absolute'. 

Therefore, no one has the right to say "this is the truth discovered by science and all beliefs and thoughts should be evaluated in accordance with it". 

The deception behind modern science is hidden here: "New Secular Order" has fixed a paradigm in modern science that fits its own ideology and imposes this produced science as "universal guide" to all cultures. This is offering the ideology with a label of science. 

The concept behind the basis of this paradigm in modern science is; in simple words "atheism". It is designed to explain the universe in a non-religious way and the aim is to create a society totally isolated from religion. 

The above mentioned paradigm, as the basis of this type of science can clearly be observed through evolutionist scientists. The comment of American biologist Robert Shapiro on Michael Behe's book called "Darwin's black box" is a good example. The microbiology specialist Behe, in his book, has put forward a very concrete explanation for the basis of being alive: Intelligent design. However Shapiro does not accept this fact and explains his "scientific" attitude as: 

Michael Behe has done a top notch job of explaining and illuminating one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of the complexity that permeates all of the life on the planet. Prof. Behe selects an answer that falls outside of science: the original creation of life by an intelligent designer. Many scientists, myself included, will prefer to continue the search for an answer within science. Nonetheless, this book should be on the essential reading list of all those who are interested in the question of where we came from, as it presents the most through and clever presentation of the design argument that I have seen. 

Because, this type of science has been developed to serve for this aim and that is to make people reject the creation. As mentioned in the beginning, the powers that established the New Secular Order insist on the socio-politic system to be anti-religious and guided modern science to form the basis of this anti-religion socio-politic order. 

This means that people take something they formed themselves, as their guide; in other words they idolized it. Modern science, as we examined in the previous chapter is an important idol of the modern age. 

The concept has become such an intensive idol that, it is thought that every other thing should be approved by them. For example there are some "enlightened men" who claim that "Islam is not scientific". Their stand point is that some of the miracles of the prophets cannot be explained with the rules of nature fixed by science. (As if the things what they call "the rules of nature" are independent from Allah Who creates the miracles.) Moreover, some of them deny the Hereafter thinking that it is not "scientific". In spite of these, some naive ones defend and say "No, Islam is in line with science". 

However the question is not that whether Islam is in line with science or not, but whether science is in line with Islam. What needs to be approved is science, not Islam. 

 The Guide of Modern Science: 

The information given above about science explains that science cannot be a guide but contrarily, every belief and every ideology guides science in various ways. Science is neither a guide, nor an aim within itself, but only a tool- a tool that can  be used in favour of an aim. 

At this step, an interesting point should be mentioned: the identity of the guide of modern science. Definitely the guide of the modern science teaching which is established to support the war against religion, is the social powers that established the New Secular Order. However, there is a "spiritual guide" that they recognise as the social powers themselves. And the real leader of modern science is the spiritual guide. 

This is a well-known guide, that is the Satan who has been struggling to isolate humankind from religion, since the beginning of history! In the article called "The Scientific Way" by Moiz Varen, one of the "masters" of the Turkish freemasonry lodges, the first time the Satan encouraged men to rebel Allah being ‘the beginning of science and freedom’ is explained as: 

"The humankind to become human started with a mysterious word: "NO". First rebel came from the woman. Man agreed and they chose freedom. They ate the "forbidden fruit", they knew they became conscious. They understood their sexes. With snake's words, they learned to differentiate between right and wrong, they became like God. The price of knowing was mortality and the price of freedom was responsibility. 

Michael Bakunin who is one of the leaders of socialism is the person who expresses clearly this inclination in freemason teaching. Being a very senior freemason, and as he names himself, being a "Satanist" he relied every "revolutionist"  teaching including modern science on Satan's spiritual guidance. According to Bakunin, who regards Satan as "the spiritual leader of all revolutionists and the real guide for human freedom", Devil is the biggest rebel and the "saviour" in the struggle against God and religion in history. 

These thoughts stated in freemason teaching yields to an interesting conclusion: modern science that was proposed to form so-called rational grounds for people to dissociate from religion, is in fact adopted a "Satanic" teaching as a philosophical basis. 

As the Quran informs, the Satan really owns this mission. The Devil has promised Allah to make humankind transgress. 

"He said: "Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way:  "Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude (for thy mercies)." (Al-Araf 16-17) 

If this modern science relies on such a basis, then we should get rid of this deception and achieve a holy understanding of science as soon as possible. Instead of a dogmatic understanding of non-existence of a creator, there should be an understanding that confirms the clear existence of God and searches for answers to explain "how the universe is created"…