PreprintPDF Available


Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.


Content may be subject to copyright.
Part 1 - Gods of Science!?
Rough Draft Nov. 2010
First Draft 30 April 2022
30 April 2022
All rights reserved
Ziaedin Shafiei
Preface ............................................................................................................................... 1
Godfather .......................................................................................................................... 2
To be Continued … ........................................................................................................ 9
God of the Godless Ideology ........................................................................................ 11
Evolution and Survival of gods .................................................................................... 16
God of the Gaps .............................................................................................................. 21
David Hume’s Contribution ......................................................................................... 26
The Turk ....................................................................................................................... 36
Gods in the Pantheon of Science .................................................................................. 49
God of the Evils ........................................................................................................... 63
God the Omniscient?! .................................................................................................... 71
How Much do we Know About Life? .......................................................................... 80
Darwin’s Contribution.................................................................................................. 93
Poor Design .................................................................................................................. 98
Which god Needs Proving for Existence? .................................................................. 102
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 108
Appendix A ................................................................................................................... 111
Analysis of Hoyle’s Metaphor ................................................................................... 111
Fitting Universe for Panspermia................................................................................. 115
Hoyle’s I Word ........................................................................................................... 118
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
Table of Figures
Figure 1 - Water-Raising Chain Pump ............................................................................. 37
Figure 2 - Front Side of the Turk ..................................................................................... 38
Figure 3 – Rear Side of The Turk..................................................................................... 39
Figure 4 - World of Knowledge with Capping ................................................................. 77
In this article, the author exclusively focuses on the subject of
gods. The emphasis is not on how these fictional entities were
imagined in the long past rather how some philosophers and
scientists have handled the issue since David Hume’s critical
approach to human knowledge and the design argument followed by
widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution by means of
natural selection which was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred
Wallace. The approach has trapped a few branches of theoretical
science in the firm grip of metaphysics with dire consequences. One
surprising consequence is the old habit of creating and firm belief in
various gods.
No attempt whatsoever is made to judgmentally comment or
investigate on the veracity or falsehood of a specific religion as it
was presented by its founder or laid out in its original scripture.
However, the common attitude of religious establishments and
individuals to the idea of gods is briefly presented at the outset as an
introduction to the subject.
Gods of Science!?
Few nations have been so poor as to have but
one god. Gods were made so easily, and the
raw material cost so little, that generally the
god market was fairly glutted and heaven
crammed with these phantoms.
Robert Ingersoll1
This is a naked truth that the human race has created and
worshiped a plethora of imaginary gods during its short appearance
on the planet earth. It is also true that this act of creation has not been
purely due to its ignorance and foolishness.
Through the human eye life has presented itself chaotic, irrational
and unfair. Additionally, it has always been packed with various
misfortunes, dangers, cruelties and catastrophes. Nature has also
been far too complex and cunning to be fully comprehended and
wisely analysed and managed by the meagre awareness of its
inhabitants in scientifically untutored and repressive societies living
in hardship and perpetual feud. Hence, whatever our ancestors had
no control on or could not fully comprehend in their lives was
attributed to gods of all sorts, evil or holy spirits, curse, blessing or
whatever else they could have imagined or suspected, to somehow
rationalize their world.
1 The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol 1, The Dresden Edition, 1901.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
One of the consequences of this widespread ignorance, fear, feud,
hardship, calamity, confusion and oppression has been the universal
practice of worship and gods pleasing manifested as prayer, rite and
sacrifice, and subsequently blind faith of people in their own forged
God creation, however, has not always been due to honest
ignorance or understandable and justified fictitious causes.
Moreover, fabrications of numerous imaginary entities and worship
rituals have not been exclusive to prehistoric societies and isolated
tribes. In fact, the age-old cottage industry of god making has
unceasingly been evolved and has become more inventive and
subtler to the point that it still pervades not only within such religions
as Hinduism and Jainism, which are known for their celebrated all-
embracing diversities, but also in some tightly administered
monotheistic religions.
Established religious authorities usually try to shy away from this
power-grabbing and money-spinning business in public but do their
best to make sure the momentum of god making activities do not
dwindle as they have the proven record for generating more gullible
faithful under their clout. Therefore, those establishments
consciously and desperately pitch for, say, the Western or Wailing
Wall in Judaism, numerous pilgrimage sites such as Our Lady of
Medjugorje2, Our Lady of Lourdes3 and Our Lady of Fátima4 in
Christianity, and well over ten thousand pilgrimage shrines in some
Islamic sects. It is generally assumed that their numbers are
gradually dwindling. The reality is far from that misperception. For
example, there were only about 1500 pilgrimage shrines in Iran
2 For example, see
3 “On 1 February 1876, Pope Pius IX officially granted a Pontifical decree of
Canonical Coronation to the image of Our Lady of Lourdes.” wiki
4 “On 13 May 1946, Pope Pius XII granted a canonical coronation to the venerated
image enshrined at the Chapel of the Apparitions of Fátima”. Wiki
Gods of Science!?
before the Iranian revolution of 1979. Their number has since
increased to more than 11000.
What is the godly significance of saints’ burial places or areas in
which certain religious figures have allegedly appeared to some
individuals5? Why are disadvantaged, sick and disabled people
rushed to those sites on a daily basis with empty promises of
miraculous life improvement and healing?
Whatever the justification, the contemporary gods are not
speciality or simple gods like some of the old ones of various
primeval cultures. If, in the long past, human in almost all
polytheistic societies imagined a goddess for fertility, a god for
destruction and gods or goddesses for health, rain, maize, fire, peace,
war, fortune and so on6, the new ones are actually deemed to be
multitasking. They are also assumed to be gracious gods as they are
only bestowed with lavish positive images and are not stained with
any harmful or destructive powers. Therefore, they can do nothing
but to help the believers in all aspects of personal and social life such
as alleviating financial problems or curing all physical and mental
Each modern-day god is thus carefully promoted to be a true
personal assistant, par excellence, just for the sake of countless spin-
off businesses, perpetual slavish loyalty and of course small
donations by millions of faithful visitors. Apparently, another
similarity between all these modern-day gods is the fact that they are
alleged to be close by and more approachable by desperate believers,
not being hidden away in high mountains or temples. Benevolent
gods that can or may be seen, even if in the dreams of a few deluded
pilgrims and promoters.
5 All three Marian apparitions reported by local children.
6 With gradual development of small societies, almost always, each community
had its own exclusive god or gods besides common gods as representative of
various phenomena and forces of nature. The community or tribal god could be
given the role of overseer over other gods.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
Believers of monotheistic religions usually claim that they do not
actually consider any shrine or pilgrimage site as god. They have in
fact had a long history of disagreements and fatal hostilities among
themselves regarding this issue. The earliest record of their
misinterpretations has been documented in several places of the Old
Testament such as Exodus 20:47 and Leviticus 26:18 which forbids
the creation and veneration of any symbolic carved image. But these
commands have not been followed by believers for various
reasons9,10,11 and they wouldn’t be happy if they are reminded of their
own written creeds and the reality of their actions. Instances of these
types of tensions among faithful played out as extensive and
prolonged hostilities between iconoclasts and iconophiles during the
two iconoclastic periods of the eighth and ninth centuries in
Christianity. Similar hostilities are still intense and simmering
among various Islamic sects.
Leaving hostile reactions aside, some religious authorities try to
argue away miracle-working relics, sin-forgiving temples, and
graves with fully equipped invisible health services as gods.
However, they should remember that these sorts of mental games
and justifications have been played by god creators over and over
again since time immemorial. For example, the Arabs of the Arabian
Peninsula before the advent of Islam had other excuses. They used
to call some unusual natural objects such as a lone tree, an isolated
7 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above
or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. NIV
8 You shall not make idols for yourselves; neither a carved image nor a sacred
pillar shall you rear up for yourselves; nor shall you set up an engraved stone in
your land, to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God. New KJV
9 Exodus 32:8 - They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them
and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed
down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, These are your gods, Israel, who
brought you up out of Egypt.’ NIV
10 When you are touched with hardship at sea, you ˹totally˺ forget all ˹the gods˺
you ˹normally˺ invoke, except Him. But when He delivers you ˹safely˺ to shore,
you turn away. Humankind is ever ungrateful.
11 Deuteronomy 28:64, Then the LORD will scatter you among all the nations,
from one end of the earth to the other, and there you will worship other gods, gods
of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.
Gods of Science!?
boulder in an endless desert, which appeared to have come from out
of nowhere, or their elaborately handcrafted statues daughters of
Allah. Allah being the name of their supreme god known to everyone
in the Peninsula including the followers of all religions practised in
that region such as Judaism and Christianity. The excuse then usually
opened the floodgate of divine attributes towards the objects making
them majestic, all powerful, omniscient and worthy of reverence and
worship, and eventually the source of personal or social benevolence
for worthy faithful and ill will for disloyal.
Simply, what happens in places such as Lourdes is what has been
practiced in polytheistic Hinduism and almost all other eastern and
Indo-European religions. The same goes for various religions of
Americas and other continents such as ancient Egyptian religions.
The Arabs used to perform the pilgrimage ritual in a much
established, elaborate and pretentious form. It seems that they
adopted and adapted this apparently widespread practice from other
religious groups who traded with them or settled within the Arabian
Peninsula. For example, we read in the Torah:
Three times a year all your men must appear before
the Lord your God at the place he will choose: at the
Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Weeks and
the Festival of Tabernacles. No one should appear before
the Lord empty-handed.12
Formally, Arabs used to visit their numerous gods, whom mainly
were resided within the house of Kaaba in Mecca, to strengthen their
devotion, for face-to-face worship and blessing twice a year. The
main pilgrimage was held in the twelfth month of the year, Dhu al-
12 Deuteronomy, 16:13-16, NIV
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
To encourage this convention, make sure nothing disrupted the
annual ritual and to welcome believers from as far and wide as
possible they declared three successive months of truce in the
Arabian Peninsula, something similar to Olympic truce. Throughout
the pilgrimage period, travellers were able to make their round trip
to Mecca without fear of being harmed, robbed, enslaved or killed
by any gods fearing and law-abiding individual.
The organisers also made sure that the pilgrims had complete
spiritual fulfilments by directing an elaborate theatrical show and
made it imperative for the visitors to participate in the symbolic and
ceremonious events and rituals which lasted for several days. As it
is well known, the effects of the pilgrimage were not only stronger
and long-lasting belief in the gods and their marvels but also a huge
advantage for the economy of the small city of Mecca and perhaps
the Arabian Peninsula as pilgrims did not go to the house of gods
empty handed. Therefore, the event became a massive public
relation exercise for the organisers providing them with prominence,
dignity and prosperity. In fact, the pilgrimage was so fruitful that the
whole proceedings were accepted within the then new religion of
Islam minus its gods but Allah.
One should note that primitive and prehistoric people and
societies didn’t label their realization of various gods and other
imaginative beings as religion. This was how they saw the different
powers and phenomena acting in the natural world as well as their
social affairs and personal well-being. So, they tried their best to
fulfil their assumed duties towards those imposing powers.
Therefore, the problem is not terminology; it is the delusional
mentality and one’s distorted outlook towards the world. If some
established monotheistic religious authorities are forced to rebrand
their god creation exercise to avoid being accused of practicing
polytheism, then this is another concern.
Gods of Science!?
On the whole, the pantheon of gods is not exclusive to the historic
Sumerian, Egyptian, Indian, Roman, Aztec, Arabs or Greek deities
such as the twelve Olympian gods. Each pantheon was, however, the
reflection of local knowledge, culture and circumstances. Perhaps,
the world of almost everlasting gods in the Greek mythology was the
replica of rough and violent societies in a world dominated by never-
ending wars. As ancient Greeks did not assume that the sky was a
habitat, gods were placed somewhere in their highest mountain,
namely Mount Olympus, and in the dreams of mainly true believers,
except any extra-terrestrial god such as Zeus which supposed to be
the sky and thunder god. Sumerian and Arabs, on the other hand, did
not live in areas with visible high mountains and built houses or tall
temples, if they had the technology, for the abode of their gods. For
example, king Gilgamesh, built a temple called Eanna (house of
heavens) for Anu, the supreme god of heaven, and his partner Inanna
(Ishtar), the goddess of love, in the city of Uruk.
It took a lot of hard thinking by all societies to be able to transfer
gods from earth and mountains to the sky, perhaps due to lack of
evidence for any magnificent palaces or any type of dwelling on top
of tall mountains. At any rate, political savvy and business minded
powerful rulers have always tried to bring their gods among people
under different justifications13. The difficulty was how to maintain a
barrier between downtrodden and submissive masses and ‘nothing’,
so that the latter to be assumed as majestic something. One way was
to carefully hide gods in the most sacred as well as most secret,
inaccessible and secluded part of the temples built exclusively as the
abode for deities. Symbolic figurine, monument or any physical
representative, in which god deemed to reside, was finally found to
13 For example, Greeks usually built a temple as monuments to a specified member
of the pantheon of their deities. The temple was adorned by its statue. In general,
the outside of the temple was used as a place for sacred offerings and inside for
their storage.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
be the most practical as well as convincing and less embarrassing
The reproduction of modernised versions of primeval gods within
Abrahamic religions is bizarre indeed, as their followers are
supposed to believe in a personal omnipresent, omniscient and
omnipotent God who knows their difficulties and hears their prayers
and pleas. It is thus incomprehensible that the faithful simply ignore
their core belief and endure the trouble to visit the newly created
gods in certain places for blessing, worship and help. For gullible,
troubled, ill and helpless believers, nonetheless, these types of
undertakings are as normal as practising Christians going to their
churches on every Sunday mornings.
One of the reasons for the creation of new homegrown gods is the
effort by local religious leaders to snub a universal god who cannot
be fully on their side as a powerful partner in their various struggles
against their opponents and enemies. A fictitious domestic god on
the other hand is exclusive, more pliable and fully under their
command and control for survival and perpetual dominance.
Generous donations by faithful pilgrims have always been a
tempting factor too.
To be Continued …
As security, survival and domination are still among fundamental
human instincts we shouldn’t be surprised at all to see this habit of
god creation being duplicated outside the formal façade of religion.
It basically can happen and has been happening with the support of
civilised laws and other social sciences, even in some developed
countries. But if religious based gods are relics of the past, new-age
Gods of Science!?
secular gods reflect human’s sophisticated social structures and
complicated mentalities.
A clear example is the presentation of some kings, emperors or
heads of states as shadows, representatives or personifications of the
supreme God whose decrees should irrefutably and willingly be
observed. In contrast, ordinary people are expected to consider
themselves as mere subjects to the sovereign in the inferior way of
interpretation possible. As it was extremely hard and troublesome
for our unsophisticated ancestors to realize their own folly, it is
similarly difficult and perhaps hazardous for modern-day
subordinates to spot their comparable mistakes or be able to unravel
the elaborated ploy. Quite the opposite, people are almost proud of
the relation and the situation. Accumulation of wealth and authority
in one’s hand makes any claim, such as being a god, at least not
Another contemporary example is the theory of Clash of
Civilization proposed by Samuel P. Huntington. Noam Chomsky
sees the theory as an example of creating an unreal paradigm or a
big idea to control nations’ mind and behaviour. He is
unquestionably precise in disclosing a new god of domination, a new
war-god whom is being awakened from its ashes.
Apparently, any real or illusory object can be adopted as god
when people are easily accepting it or it is forced on their psyche to
be so. Then it is straightforward to make the newly created god to
get more entangled in human affairs as a powerful tool in dominating
and directing the mind of the masses. Subsequently, when an
opportunity arises, the accepted god is promoted as the most
important and influential article in the life of nations, and before they
begin to comprehend the plot, it would have had inevitable and
sometimes indelible effects on peoples’ fate and future for a long
time to come.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
God of the Godless Ideology
The one modern god who I was introduced to during my teenage
years is “the wheel of history” in Marxism. According to its creator,
the mighty wheel is scientifically proven to relentlessly turn in a
particular forward direction towards progress and eventually a
foretold glorious destination. It redefines and replaces the existing
class structure of any society by its own caste system with an
impassable barrier of hate and feud. The wheel is not only supposed
to inevitably endorse and empower proletariats, and, of course, their
self-nominated Marxist representatives, but also completely
annihilate their vicious enemies under its crushing weight. The
enemies are not only the bourgeoisie but also any reactionary
individuals, groups or classes who selfishly, foolishly and ignorantly
dare to try stopping or rolling back the unstoppable movement of the
wheel14. The wheel also doesn’t simply demand class solidarity and
commitment but sacrificial devotion so that those enthusiastic
comrades who cannot precisely align themselves with its path or
steadfastly keep up with its pace would be mercilessly trampled
under its wrath.
No Marxist has ever labelled the idea of the progressive history
of Marxism as god. Marxists categorically abhor anything with slight
hint of religious hue. But the reality is that they inadvertently have
created an imaginary powerful entity by bestowing the fabricated
wheel of history with a mysterious path, power and heavenly
destination through several stages of gradual evolutions followed by
sudden revolutions. This god has faithful and rightful followers and
shameless unethical foes and it is the final arbiter, like any old
14The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan,
the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their
existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary,
but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel
of history.” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848,
English translation 1888.
Gods of Science!?
anthropomorphized god. It allows all required and necessary means
for achieving the final goal and even legitimises and glorifies
dictatorship and brutality. It, undeniably, is as almighty as any
menacing god imagined whose main objective is eliminating all real
and imaginary enemies of proletariats and bequeathing power and
wealth to the faithful victors by creating the egalitarian paradise for
The creation of this universal god has also provided hypnotizing
justification for grave cruelties that have perpetrated by communist
groups and regimes around the world towards their opponents,
dissidents and most importantly the very group whom they have
wanted to rescue and empower. Moreover, in the recent past,
different Marxist groups and governments were happy to slit each
other’s throats to settle mere slight differences in the interpretation
of the progressive movement and direction of their imaginative yet
mighty wheel.
The cruel culture of unchecked exploitation and harsh life of
working-class people under the callous capitalism since the
eighteenth century, or even earlier, forced numerous intellectuals
around the world to make fool of themselves with unsurpassed
eagerness by blindly following Karl Marx’s fabrications. They
subsequently embarked on deifying and worshipping their own
peculiar god under the pretence of scientific socialism.
Successive creeds and social codes were naturally and thoroughly
established and then vigorously implemented with utter commitment
and ruthlessness. For example, who could argue against or even pay
no attention to say Marxism-Leninism and later on Marxism-
Leninism-Stalinism in the then Soviet Union, Marxism-Maoism in
China, Marxism-Leninism-Hoxhaism in Albania, Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism-Gonzalo Thought in Peru or Marxism-Leninism-
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
Maoism-Prachandaism in Nepal15? Who could disobey Pol Pot and
his policy of social engineering? Who could escape the grip of his
caste system in which rural populations were nominated as the
higher caste ruling over urban people? Khmer Rouge’s motto for the
lower caste was "To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no
loss”. So, they managed to kill about one fourth of the population of
Cambodia in less than four years of ruling the country.
History of Marxism has made it much easier to realize why
powerful kings, emperors and heroes were assumed to be partly or
wholly of the same substance as gods. For example, the Sumerian
tyrant king, Gilgamesh, was believed to be two-third god and one-
third human. They were consequently assumed to be the
mouthpieces of gods. Perhaps it would be closer to truth to say that,
in fact, gods were the hidden but articulate spokesperson for them,
through various presumed revelations and apparitions facilitated by
trusted and resourceful clergymen. Accordingly, those kings were
not only showcased and considered most powerful, wise and
wonderful beings with sacred divine missions, thus demanding total
obedience from all their subjects, but also allowed themselves to
implement any degree of injustice and cruelty without allowing any
resistance or even grimace from any soul.
Similarly, all Marxist leaders have behaved as if they must have
complete control of the wheel not the other way round. They have
assumed that the real destiny of history should be decided by them
with the help of their almighty god, their close obedient comrades,
pantheon of lesser gods, and unquestioning communist party and
followers. Simply, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all Communist
leaders have been the wheel and the wheel has been each and every
one of them, all going through the shining path of history. Their
15 Gonzalo (Abimael Guzmán) was considered by his followers to be a great
theorist at the same level as Marx and Engels. He introduced the idea of indigenous
people empowerment into Marxism. Prachanda adopted his ideas and path in
Gods of Science!?
glorified iron-feast tyrannies have not been justifiable and
convincing without the existence of the illusory wheel as it has been
the accounts of past and present dictators backed by various
ideologies and religions.
The blindfolded Marxist intellectuals and their followers have
believed without a shred of doubt, much more assured than hopeful
Christian pilgrims in their ways to Our Lady of Lourdes, that sooner
or later they would reach to their glorious historic destination under
the leadership of certain individuals. They have been immensely
confident that the wheel of history under the command of their
omniscient and omnipotent leaders would finally cure their social
and personal ailments by meticulously guiding them to the second
and final dreamland of Communism. Their supposed terrestrial
heaven has been claimed to be a similar society to the so-called
primitive communism. That primitive society is merely a fantasised
model of prehistoric hunter-gatherer communities, from socio-
economic perspective. In effect, Marxist leaders have parroted the
necessary, sufficient and pleasing egalitarian mantras while have
unfailingly been practicing the roughest brutality of any uncivilized
individual and society wholeheartedly.
Marxism has also a similar religious path for humanity. They are
identified in chronological order as:
One short period of supposed good life in classless
primitive communism (the Garden of Eden).
The reality of human life, which consists of four stages of
unavoidable long-lasting exploitation and miseries for all
but a few, being it a slave-based, feudalist, capitalist or
socialist society.
The final destination is only the promise of a paradise, the
Second Coming, which prophetically is identified as
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
global classless and stateless communism, free of
competition and war.
Those who had lived during the heyday of Marxism in the
twentieth century, well remember that just how and how much
Marxists around the world were contemptuous towards their
intellectual opponents. They regarded themselves a great deal
superior in intellect and way ahead in comprehending the world and
life, especially the major effect of production methods on civilization
and development of human societies, in comparison to their
opponents who were spitefully regarded as reactionaries. Marxists
were as haughty as a pompous tyrant feudal landowner towards his
illiterate and helpless serfs in Middle Ages. Strangely, this
intellectual superiority was accepted by the majority of people and
social groups, even their opponents, through accepting a milder or
adapted versions of the god of history.
Nowadays, the gods of Marxism are neither respected nor feared
anymore in the majority of countries. They are even the source of
embarrassments for their numerically insignificant admirers in the
West so that some of those formerly proud veteran communists
prefer not to be identified as such. To restore their deflated prides -
as majority of them were really striving to help societies to be
egalitarian through a certain dictatorship - a number of active
followers have joined or set up respected secular or anti-religious
organisations such as women’s liberation movement, green parties
or the Central Council of Ex-Muslims. They may have accepted
some sort of defeat but surely not in their battle against all types of
recognised religions and their motley gods, though hiding under a
well camouflaged and appreciated names.
It is also worth mentioning that, in both developed and especially
developing countries, the spearheads and followers of Marxism were
mainly middle-class intellectuals, students and academics, who were
Gods of Science!?
getting involved in international power politics, not labourers or lay
people. As it has been noted a successful god always needs the strong
shoulders of highly influential peoples and institutions in the society
for its survival. Also, it does not mean that supressed and working-
class people refuted Marxism based on rational analysis and dire
accomplishments of communist administrations. Nay, they either
were faithful to their own gods and sought their heaven in the sky or
were not exposed to the idea enough. Perhaps the concept of
Marxism, its destiny and eventual human fate were not translated
into recognizable worshiping objects and rituals for them.
In summary, human, physically, mentally and emotionally has
been busy entrapping itself in its own fabrication of false reasoning
and imaginations. The creation of various bogus gods is rooted in
hardship, fear, hope, desire, vanity and other human’s attributes for
avoiding mishaps, gaining rewards and supremacy, tactful control of
people in a country, bringing about an egalitarian society and even
trying to explain the true nature of the world.
Evolution and Survival of gods
Once a god is created its characteristics and usages could be
evolved whimsically or methodically. The change is inevitable and
necessary as these products of human imaginations have been
continuously passing on to the next generations of owners with
different needs, creativities and aspirations. Also, the invented
creatures have mainly been used as up-to-date survival and
domination tools in various struggles of the ever-changing life. The
continuous evolution of the god of the Old Testament and his
dwellings are clear evidences, though it is hard to find any change
concerning his cruel temperament.
He initially resided in the supposed garden of Eden, accompanied
by Adam and Ave, which was completely flooded at the end of
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
Noah’s mission on Earth. Afterwards, he appeared randomly and
only to selected individuals, say, to have a long wrestling bout with
Jacob, the head of a distinguished family16 or meet Abraham on his
way to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, with the help of his
associates17. With no fixed address he later led the children of Israel
through deserts to their dreamland and tried to give them the law
from a certain mountaintop in which he was half hiding from his
people. In addition, he ordered a luxurious tent, tabernacle, for his
abode fully paid by recently freed slaves, i.e., Israelites18 and built
by the renowned artisans of the time19. He was enthroned on the
gold-plated Ark of the Covenant between two cherubim in the inner
room of the new magnificent building.20 He did not stay in his
expensive tent and temple for long and silently moved away to the
sky accompanied by some newfound shadowy associates and
These types of gods mentioned so far can be assimilated to an
imaginary and untouchable godfather and his entourage. They are
created for the protection and prosperity of individuals, families,
16 Genesis 32:22-32
17 Genesis 18 and 19
18 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Tell the Israelites to bring me an offering. You are
to receive the offering for me from everyone whose heart prompts them to
give. 3 These are the offerings you are to receive from them: gold, silver and
bronze; 8 “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among
them. 9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will
show you.
Exodus 25 NIV - Offerings for the Tabernacle - The LORD - Bible Gateway
19 Then the Lord said to Moses, 2 “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son
of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 3 and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with
wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills— 4 to
make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, 5 to cut and set stones, to
work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of crafts. 6 Moreover, I have appointed
Oholiab son of Ahisamak, of the tribe of Dan, to help him. Also I have given
ability to all the skilled workers to make everything I have commanded you:
Exodus 31 NIV - Bezalel and Oholiab - Then the LORD - Bible Gateway
20 If someone ever claims that the Prosperity Church is a new phenomenon, they
should read the Old Testament.
21 According to Christianity, god reappeared as the son of Mary and stayed among
Israelites for about 35 years and then ascended back to heaven after being
Gods of Science!?
cities, tribes and nations. Let us label such a god as the god of
protection or survival, godfather or simply god.
The reactions of nations, classes and individuals to gods of other
nations, classes and individuals have been a different and again
complicated and confusing story. Naturally, initial reaction was
disinterest rejection22. For example, one of the Ten Commandments
is “Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is
Jealous, is a jealous God”23. But this was not the only response.
Others’ gods could be gradually, though grudgingly, accepted if they
belonged to victorious, prosperous and dominant nations24, and
wholly rejected, hated, derided openly and mercilessly destroyed,
even by their devoted worshippers, if they belonged to vanquished
states or overwhelmed nations or tribes. There are two recent well-
known examples of this trait:
European Jews’ strong and justified judgment during and for
a long time after the Second World War that “God died in
The acceptance and then unceremonious rejection of those
gods who occupied the pantheon of Marxism, both within the
twentieth century.
Those exceptional leaders and their advisers who have been wise
and experienced enough, have tried to incorporate the gods of the
defeated nations into the acceptable pantheon. At least they have
tolerated all gods as a policy of gradual integration and for
preventing possible revolt and disintegration.
22 Apparently, Israelites initially doubted and rejected the god of Moses and built
a golden calf during Moses’s short absence. The calf was destroyed by Moses and
three thousand Israelites paid with their life for their great sin, by direct order of
god. Exodus 32
24 For example, Deuteronomy 32:17, NIV, “They (Israelites) sacrificed to false
gods, which are not God— gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared,
gods your ancestors did not fear.”
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
In general, these invented gods could be easily accepted, valued,
imported, exported and rebuffed as perishable commodities and
currencies. They could even be confiscated and transferred to
different places by victorious armies as subjects of power
manipulation. They could also be assumed as demons, or any
devious being opposite to gods, by other nations.
What have been the fate of protector gods? The vast majority of
these imaginary supernatural beings have been vanished or long
forgotten not because of strong scientific or rational challenges to
their existence and reality but due to numerous simple reasons such
They did not evolve with time. Strangely enough, even the
identity of the god of the Bible was fixed at some point.
In fact, random transformations of the god of the Old
Testament were continued in Christianity to the point that
some early notable Christians such as Marcion considered
the assumed just but cruel god of the Old Testament25 a
completely separate entity from the benevolent and
merciful god portrayed by saint Paul and his allies in
various epistles. Those documents later found their ways
into the New Testament as revealed or God-approved
sacred scriptures for Christianity. Good god-bad god
duality did not last long as there was an urgent need for a
new change. God had to be adapted to its new cultural
surrounding within the Roman Empire. Eventually, it was
officially divided into three gods in the revised Nicene
creed, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The
combined power of the Empire and the Church then have
painstakingly and forcefully justified and advocated the
25 Marcion named the god of the Old Testament Demiurge.
Gods of Science!?
existence and rationality of the new entities26. One of the
main reasons for the survival of these gods, despite the
downfall of the Roman Empire27, is the fact that
Christianity has since had enough political power, wealth
and polemical clout to support its gods. It is very hard,
though not at all impossible, to make these gods evolve
further. One idea which has been proven to be working
effectively even in modern times is to promote various
gods of the Bible and Christianity to be the same as the
accepted and respected god of the time, e.g., the deity of
the enlightenment philosophers thought out by
intellectuals such as Voltaire.
They naturally ceased to exist such as a tree god or a
feared demi-god dictator, or they were destroyed during a
conflict or a natural catastrophe.
Not so many remember the sole force, the champion of
radical western intellectuals, the supreme comrade, the
genuine Marxist and the great teacher Enver Hoxha. Pol
Pot will be well remembered for the foreseeable future but
for all the wrong reasons.
The confusing fact is that some powerful leaders, such as
Roman emperors, got deified after their death. Various
religious dignitaries have had the same fate.
They were native and their fates were tied with their
vanished tribes or small nation. For example, some
mighty Sumerian gods were long forgotten when their
cities were abandoned to ruin. Thanks to archaeologists,
26 One of the major contributors to great schism, which divided mainstream
Christianity into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, was the different
opinions regarding the nature and genesis of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, each
sect has its own slightly different version of the Nicene Creed.
27 It is also argued that one of the reasons for the quick demise of the Christian
Roman Empire was the abandonment of their official policy of tolerance towards
other gods and religions. Christianity was accepted as the official religion in 323
CA. The fall started in 395 CA.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
they only reappeared as objects of history, at least for the
time being.
They were not found effective enough and people put their
trust in more successful and popular ones in polytheistic
their creators and keepers were not clever or powerful
enough or their conducts disgraced and subsequently
sealed the fate of their idols.
To summarize, these somehow do-it-yourself gods are the
product of a godfather culture and mentality. Creation story
associated with these types of gods can usually reflect the reason
behind the god making phenomenon, most probably as propaganda
material. For example, any god created or supported by a tyrannical
establishment is usually accompanied with a creation story in which
the universe crops up from chaos and anarchy. The god then emerges
as a powerful hero who brings order and serenity to the world. He
then rules with an iron fist to maintain the order and much needed
God of the Gaps
We briefly examined easily dismissed gods in the previous
section. It seems that exposing various manifestations of these
creation myths have been straightforward and obvious as outlined so
far. But the whimsical fabrication of heavenly entities has not been
the whole story of this issue. The point is that some of our ancestors
also believed in a being that was not created by human because of its
own security, well-being, dreads or desires but was perceived by
deeper intellectual thoughts, albeit sometimes crude or misguided.
They, in fact, conceived a god by contemplating on varieties of
mysteries in our universe such as different manifestations of
Gods of Science!?
puzzling life and the enigmatic sky in which the life-giving sun is
resided. The sky also provides air and sweet water, two other life
supporting substances known to them.
In other words, we should not, deliberately or inadvertently
ignore deep queries, thoughts and arguments of philosophers and
intellectuals of the past and present societies such as Plato, Aristotle,
Voltaire, Kant and Thomas Paine, when we try to ponder on this
issue. The entity which these intellectuals usually referred to as the
Deity was assumed to be responsible for creation and possibly
regulation of the world. According to some of these eminent
individuals who argued for the existence of the Deity, the
supernatural being could even be partly detached from the universe
and human life or not being intimately involved in the running of the
world and human affairs at all.
If the qualities of survival gods were in par with evil spirits and
their quantities were generous the second type was of a separate class
and reputation, and was usually assumed to be one. Perhaps due to
this universal intellectual experience, one philosopher could follow
other philosophers’ argument, from different places and times, as if
they all were deliberating on almost exactly the same unseen entity.
For all those known thinkers, this god has never been a local jealous
deity, devoted to a specific person, tribe or nation, or presented by
its followers as a dividing barrier, if not the god of hate and war, but
universal and timeless. This god was supposed to be the god of
creation, existence and life. For simplicity we may refer to this god
as God, to differentiate it from godfathers.
Due to high profile of these types of distinguished intellectuals in
various societies, traces of God inevitably can be found in almost all
religions too. It ranges from a creator god, such as Brahma, who is
in the same level as some other Hindu gods - all with independent
authorities - to a system of thinking in which God is the only deity
and other heavenly beings are just his obedient creatures with no
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
independent authority of their own. This specific issue is not
straightforward but as it is not related to our main line of discussion,
we leave it to the historians of religion.
Reasons for existence of God were strong enough to convince
numerous intellectuals and outstanding past scientists such as Isaac
Newton and Leonardo da Vinci. It is also true that theists’ stance was
weakened by philosophical arguments of David Hume and Charles
Darwin’s scientific theory of evolution by means of natural
selection. However, the very challenge of some philosophers and
natural scientists to reason against the involvement and trace of God
in the universe including the enigmatic genesis and evolution of life,
which peaked around the middle of the nineteenth century, shows
that serious collective thinking was involved in the whole affair. The
very existence of intellectual engagements and arguments clearly
show that the idea of God was not merely the imagination of a few
frightened or delusional individuals in primitive societies or the
concoction of charlatans and manipulative leaders in past and
The existence or absence of God has thus been justified by human
based on the mysterious existence of the world. The gist of the
various philosophical arguments for the existence of God is that our
universe cannot be erupted out of nowhere full of enigmatic
regularity, complexity, beauty and splendour; hence, it is in need of
an intelligent creator not blind forces. But those arguments usually
did not and do not stop here. Under the strong and ever existing
influences of various religious ideas or even based on human
observation of the world, especially scrutinizing the existence of life
on the planet earth, God could also be assumed to intimately interact
with its created universe, either directly or through some mysterious
On the other hand, an atheist’s view consists of a material world
without a single creator or designer for it. Obviously, if one is
Gods of Science!?
convinced that nothing observed in the universe can point human to
a designer or creator what is then left is trying to disprove the
involvement of any intelligent agent in the running and regulating of
all the activities happening within it.
The argument between the two camps of mostly religiously
influenced theists and mostly antireligious atheists has thus
thoughtlessly concentrated on these unceasing involvements or
occasional interferences of God, as there have been so many new
claims to be made by one camp to prove God’s contributions and
subsequently being refuted by the opposing camp. The two camps
have been so occupied with these recurring claims and rebuttals that
the victim was the main argument, whether our universe has been
the product of some grand design or it was erupted by chance and
has since evolved haphazardly.
Let some simple examples clarify the two different interlacing
concepts of design and operation and the confusion they could
Consider the power transmission system or gearbox in
conventional vehicles powered by various internal combustion
engines. There are mainly two types of transmissions designed by
engineers for motor vehicles, manual and automatic. In the manual
variety, which is generally a less complicated system and is easier to
design, the driver is the main judge and executor for choosing and
shifting to suitable gears by pressing the clutch pedal and moving the
gearshift to prearranged positions for speeding up and down the
vehicle during a normal drive on the road.
For moving forward in a vehicle equipped with an automatic
gearbox, the driver does not have to get involved in changing the
gears up or down. The gearbox system is so designed to perform the
task automatically in any type of road throughout the life of the
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
To be able to fulfil this function properly the automatic gearbox
system requires some information such as the rotational speed of the
engine, vehicle speed, payload and gradient of the road. To know
those quantities several sensors, switches and systems must be added
to the vehicle to measure or accurately estimate those variables. The
information from the sensors is then passed on to a dedicated
software for determining the appropriate gear selection. Finally, an
additional mechanical, hydraulic or/and electronic system should be
added to be able to automatically execute the actual shifting to the
desired gear.
The whole automatic gearbox system should obviously be
redesigned to work as a self-governing assembly which results in
some apparent differences such as the clutch pedal being redundant
and the gear tower being modified. There are various physical and
technological differences between the two gearboxes which are
hidden from the driver, details of which are also beyond this
discussion. However, it should be emphasized that in addition to
introducing more complexity, the automatic transmission is designed
with some decision-making ability and operational foresight that are
incorporated in sensor, logic and actuator trio, not to be found in a
manual system.
In the past, almost everyone believed that some, if not all, natural
events in the universe were influenced or operated by gods or God
and his agents. That idea has been gradually put aside through
scientific discoveries which are suggesting that the universe is not
operating like a manual transmission vehicle and no intelligent being
is involved in different decision makings and events in it. However,
even if the universe is going around without the helping hands of
various heavenly and mysterious entities, the very existence of the
universe and life with complex autonomous systems within it is still
an enigmatic issue. It is obvious that the automatic transmission of
the above example not only does not rule out the involvement of an
Gods of Science!?
expert designer or designers but also suggests that an autonomous
system may direct us to the existence of very ingenious design and
A closer example for clarifying the case is the difference between
driving an ordinary automobile and a self-driving one or a factory
that produces a handmade product and the one which produces a
similar product with fully automated machineries and robots. Simply
put, operation of a system such as a gearbox, an automobile, a
factory and possibly the universe are different from its existence and
possible design. With our current knowledge, proving or rejecting
God merely based on the supposed manual or autonomous operation
of our universe is unwise at best. Those who still try to prove or reject
God on this basis only show that they have not been able to fully and
properly comprehend the subject at hand.
David Hume’s Contribution
One might now argue that the idea of the possible planned
creation of the universe and the design of organic life by an
intelligent agent have philosophically been refuted by David Hume
a long while ago. But Hume also believed that science is founded on
indefensible assumption as it relies on the inductive argument.
Science, nevertheless has since gone from strength to strength
despite Hume’s philosophical reasoning levelled against its vital
principle. That is, scientists have not given up on science because of
Hume’s outright refutation of induction.
Hume’s criticism of design argument is in fact much weaker. The
essence of his famous arguments, related to our discussion, can be
summarized as follows:
The unique event of the creation of the universe has not
been witnessed by anybody. The same goes for the
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
genesis of life. Thus, we are not allowed to pass any
judgement with certainty about their cause of
What humanity has so far experienced is that all known
artifacts such as watches or knitting-looms are being
made or manufactured by various craftsmen, engineers
and firms. We also know that complex skyscrapers and
ocean liners are being designed and built by
appropriate companies. It is thus correct to assume a
designer or a group of them for similar objects such as
aeroplanes and tennis rackets but universe and life is
completely different objects altogether and we should
not extend our common experience by suggesting a
creator or designer for them. We should seek other
causes such as random agitation of matter driven by an
innate characteristic of the universe28.
In philosophical term, Hume did not subscribe to the use of
inductive reasoning for the design of our universe - because of its
uniqueness - while reluctantly confirming the use of analogy in
general, e.g., “What we see in the parts we may infer in the whole”29.
In fact, he was also not sure about the ineffectiveness of inductive
reasoning as it was only allowed for comparable objects, “Similar
effects arise from similar causes”30. If we are hard pushed to find an
object similar to universe then:
28 “How could things have been as they are if there were not an original inherent
principle of order somewhere—in thought or in matter? Dialogues Concerning
Natural Religion, part 7
29 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 6. Hume thought causation does
not exist. Accordingly, human brain imposes the concept of cause and effect to
various events in nature. However, he used it whenever it suits his argument. He
also argued that it would not be illogical if forces and objects, such as gravity and
billiard balls, operate differently in future. Meanwhile, he refuted miracle which
is in contradiction to his denial of consistent effects by consistent causes in future.
30 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, parts 2, 6 and 7
Gods of Science!?
“the world plainly resembles an animal or a plant more than it
does a watch or a knitting-loom.”31
“… if we survey the universe far as we know it, it bears a great
resemblance to an animal or organic body, and seems to be
driven by a source of life and motion like the one that drives
organisms. A continual circulation of matter in it produces no
disorder; a continual waste in every part is incessantly
repaired; the different parts of the whole system are seen to act
in harmony with one another; and each part of the world or
member of an organism, in doing its proper job, operates both
for its own preservation and for that of the whole. From all this
I infer that the world is an animal, and that God is the MIND
of the world, driving it and being affected by it.” 32
Moreover, while Hume forcefully rejected the idea of creation by
chance33 his proposed working mechanism of the world is nothing
but chance creation and chance evolution of the universe. The
following passage is the clear evidence.
“Suppose that matter is thrown into some position by a blind,
unguided force. It is obvious that this first position must in all
probability be utterly confused and disorderly, with no
resemblance to the human artifacts which display, along with
a symmetry of parts, an adjustment of means to ends, and a
tendency to self-preservation. If the original actuating force
ceases after this first operation and stops imparting motion to
matter, matter will have to remain for ever in disorder, and
continue to be an immense chaos without any proportion or
activity. But suppose that the actuating force (whatever it may
31 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 7
32 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 6
33 No hypothesis, whether sceptical or religious, should make room for chance;
everything is surely governed by steady, inviolable laws. Dialogues Concerning
Natural Religion, part 7
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
be) still continues to drive matter along, this first position will
immediately give place to a second, which will likewise in all
probability be as disorderly as the first, and so on through
many series of changes and revolutions. No particular order or
position ever stays unaltered for a moment. The original force,
still at work, gives a perpetual restlessness to matter. Every
possible state of affairs is produced, and instantly destroyed. If
a glimpse or dawn of order appears for a moment, it is instantly
hurried away, reduced to a confusion, by that never-ceasing
force which drives every part of the material world.
Thus the universe goes on for many ages in a continuous series
of states of chaos and disorder. But couldn’t it happen that it
eventually settles down, not so as to lose its motion and active
force (for we are assuming that that is inherent in it), but so as
to preserve a uniformity of appearance through all the hubbub
of its moving parts? This is what we find to be the actual state
of the universe at present. Every individual is perpetually
changing, and so is every part of every individual; and yet the
whole appears to be the same. A tiny example: a rabbit takes
in pure air and breathes out foul air, it drinks water and emits
urine, it eats grass and extrudes faeces; and yet through all this
change in its constituent matter it appears to us as the very
same rabbit. Isn’t this state of affairs one that might be hoped
for—indeed, one that would be sure to arise—out of the eternal
revolutions of unguided matter; and couldn’t this account for
all the appearances of wisdom and planning that the universe
contains? Think about this a little and you’ll find that if matter
did arrive at this set-up, in which forms seem to be stable while
their parts are really moving and changing with them, that
would provide a plausible and perhaps a true solution of the
Gods of Science!?
problem of explaining the appearance of design in the
Hume’s philosophy is thus based on restlessness of matter caused
by “blind and unguided force”. This is exactly chance creation,
regulation, operation and evolution of the universe and life, provided
that enough raw materials and time are available.
The combination of chance and time needs to be analysed in more
details here. When a fair six-sided die is thrown, it can land on any
number between one to six. Time has no involvement in this process.
On average the probability of a die landing on any of those
numbers is one sixth. This theoretical average also does not depend
on time. However, in practice we need high number of tries and
therefore time to produce some values close to the theoretical value.
Likewise, the probability of landing one or six, twenty times in a row
is theoretically known but again needs countless attempts and time
to materialize. The length of time to produce the target result is not
certain and can be of any duration but on average it inversely
depends on the probability of the outcome. The lower the
probability, the larger the number of tries and the longer elapsed time
can be.
If Hume was certain that the creation and ordered evolution of our
universe and life were possible by chance then the existence of every
imaginable object and phenomenon are similarly possible by the
same cause and process. However, for some certain objects, such as
a wheelbarrow, an aircraft or a piece of music to be materialised by
agitation of matter an estimated length of time is also needed.
Therefore, existence of an object, besides the existence of a large
amount of matter and its continuous agitation, depends on two
34 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 8
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
chance which is the probability for a favourable outcome
caused by blind and unguided force
Chance and time may be combined and be called chance-time.
However, as far as we know, chance-time has not yet produced any
of those above mentioned or similar items such as a watch. Hume,
meanwhile, did not provide any explanation for their nonexistence.
Moreover, no scientist or philosopher, including followers of David
Hume, expect to see such items in any planet or anywhere else in the
universe created by chance-time. On the contrary the existence of
such items has always been considered as sign of intelligence. NASA
SETI program and Project Phoenix are examples of these
expectations. It means that philosophers and scientists do not really
believe what Hume concocted as a reason for durable existence of
universe and life, which so far are exceptional phenomena yet to be
clarified and justified.
Another major problem is that Hume assimilated the universe to
life in order to clarify the enigma of enduring order observed in our
universe. But his argument presented with complete ignorance of the
exact working mechanism of organic life. Simply, he tried to solve
one problem by presenting another problem which was not and is not
yet resolved. Therefore, he, in fact, did not show a single artifact
being created by restlessness of matter as evidence of his theory.
Quite the contrary, evidences for numerous objects and projects by
various designers are obviously extensive.
The above two Hume’s quoted arguments also confirms that his
philosophy is not robust and clear-cut at all and open to diverse
interpretation. In fact, Hume’s position is not entirely
straightforward on many important subjects he tried to illuminate.
For example, some philosophers think he was indeed an atheist and
to hide his true belief, he used theological lying, even though he
Gods of Science!?
made sure some of his philosophical works to be published
posthumously. On the other extreme, some believe he was a theist
and honestly meant what he clearly wrote in some passages in which
he strongly argued for the existence of God through Philo, as his
spokesperson in various dialogues. To support this claim, they refer
to the beginning of Chapter 2 in Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion which reads:
“But surely, where reasonable men treat these subjects, the
question can never be concerning the Being, but only the
Nature, of the Deity. Nothing exists without a cause; and
the original cause of this universe (whatever it be) we call God;
and piously ascribe to him every kinds of perfection.”
The latter group also maintain that he only tried to criticize the
philosophical reasoning of the design argument.
Hume, no doubt, has clarified what philosophy has so far given to
humanity, a collection of contrasting ideas.
It should also be noted that the apparent conclusion of Hume’s
arguments must be absolute agnosticism as no human has had the
chance to experience the origin of the universe and life. Therefore,
no specific suggestion, especially one based on an irrational
speculation or uncorroborated by evidence, should be allowed in his
Hume’s argument against purposeful design means that people
from, say, an isolated Amazonian tribe equipped with bows, arrows,
and blowguns as well as the philosophy of Hume could convincingly
argue that an unmanned aerial vehicle is created by chance as nobody
in the tribe has ever seen such a strange flying object being made by
anybody they knew, besides it being like a bird that has an unknown
origin. The vehicle was also passed over their village by pure chance
with nobody in control of its flying and journey as nobody could be
seen riding on top of the newly discovered vehicle.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
There might be an element of truth in the argument of the
tribesmen. The aerial vehicle might have passed above the remote
small village by chance or might have gone completely out of
control. But we know those scenarios are not the norm. We are also
sure that the imaginary tribesman should not think with certainty in
the line of Hume’s theory as we know the vehicle is certainly
designed and most probably under control. Therefore, Hume’s
argument is undeniably weak at its best and a good example of
combined subjective bias and argument from ignorance.
Karl Popper, somehow fixed the problem of induction by
introducing the concept of falsifiability35 in the first half of the
twentieth century. It means that we should allow inductive reasoning
in science until a valid counterexample is found in contradiction to
that specific theory. Empirical science, in reality, has been relied on
this version of inductive reasoning for its successful development
and reliability.36
In that case we should also be allowed to extend the design
argument to every ordered and complex object and system including
our universe and organic life unless we find one complexly ordered
object that is actually in existence without a designer. Even if we
find one or several counterexamples it does not mean that we should
allow ourselves to think that every artifact is not designed. If we had
thought so we would have basically used another unconditional
inductive argument. In simple words, finding a black swan rejects
the theory that ‘all swans are white’ but it does not mean that we
have now the liberty to say there is no white swan or choose the
colours of swans as we prefer.37
For investigating the possibility of a designer for universe and
life, the existence of a counterexample, i.e., finding a purely chance-
35 Popper argued that science should be accomplished by deduction through the
process of falsification.
36 It is thus a puzzle why some scientists still try to side with Hume’s arguments.
37 Falsifiability principle does not seem to be as clear-cut as Popper put it. But we
leave it as it is for now.
Gods of Science!?
based object, merely reminds us that all objects are not designed.
Therefore, we need to carefully investigate each case separately and
without any prejudice.
So, we can confidently assert that Hume did not provide a strong
philosophical argument against designed universe and life. At worst
each case should be inspected for the cause of its genesis and ordered
The falsification of the design of life by a conscious designer is
what Darwin and Wallace proposed in July 1858. Their idea was
preceded with more or less similar suggestions pitched by other
naturalists such as Erasmus Darwin, Patrick Matthew and Jean-
Baptiste Lamarck. Darwin and Wallace promoted the idea that
physical characteristics of an organism are not fixed as they can be
modified not only by human selection but also by gradual adaptation
with the ever-changing local ecosystem. In fact, they essentially
supposed that organic beings have been continuously evolved due to
the existence of minute differences in each individual, in comparison
to even its siblings, some of which were preferred and selected by
the natural process of survival. The intricate mechanism behind the
slight differences was not understood at all by then but the
proponents of the theory nevertheless forcefully argued that there
had been no premeditated design and no systematic or intended
development of any organic being.
Accordingly, the gradual evolution of the widespread fauna and
flora throughout the planet earth was explained by introducing a
mainly accidental and completely unknown chance-based process
helped by abundant passage of time. Moreover, Darwin proposed
that life was started with the appearance of a very simple micro-
organism which also was produced purely unplanned in a suitable
warm little pond somewhere in our planet. Being equipped with
several concurrent chance-attributes, such as abilities to eat and
digest food, grow and reproduce or divide, it had the capability to
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
gradually diversify randomly and consequently increase in size,
complexity and ability.
All the acquired beneficial characteristics, such as being able to
poison, harm and kill other creatures, see, make noise, listen, fly,
run, camouflage, photosynthesis, develop sharp or blunt teeth and
think have gradually evolved in each branch of life. They all came
about without a definite or predefined direction but due to favourable
minute random changes which happens to be required for better
survival of one individual in comparison to and competition with
other less fortunate individuals. The survived organism then lived
long enough to reproduce and pass on the beneficial change to its
Chance creation and evolution of the universe as well as chance
origin and evolution38 of life was therefore the outcome of the then
new philosophical and scientific endeavours. Ironically, chance,
randomness or haphazardness, when related to these two specific
subjects, cannot be categorized under the banner of philosophy and
science because of the pure unpredictability of its nature, eluding
logic and reproducible experiment. To completely frustrate any
scientific approach the passage of time has also been added to
chance/randomness to completely isolate these theories from
science. In other words, the period of time a scientist can wait for a
result can be unlimited, similar to the promised second coming of
Jesus Christ, killing off any hope for a deterministic conclusion.
Nevertheless, the twin phenomena of chance and time, chance-time,
were considered as strong candidates to replace the ideas of God for
the purposeful design and evolution of life, based on evidences
collected by Darwin and Wallace.
Hume’s and Darwin’s ideas are still well respected and refined
versions of their theories are well-established. There are, in fact,
38 Neo-Darwinists explain that evolution is not entirely driven by chance as after
an occasional beneficial random mutation in a gene, a deterministic selection
process by nature takes over.
Gods of Science!?
numerous chance-based theories for the genesis of the universe and
the origin of life. The existence of those concurrent theories,
however, indicates that the conditions and assumptions for those
theories are certainly not yet set in stone. Also, various attempts for
the creation of early life by chance in laboratory environments have
not yet been successful39. Nevertheless, the door of science is
allowed to be wide open to every unsubstantiated idea since chance,
pampered with a considerable time span, was given a pivotal role in
the existence and development of those fundamental phenomena.
This improper style of science has been compounded since the
surprising results of a few experiments in quantum mechanics gave
scientists the sharp hint that nature can sometimes go against all
hitherto sound wisdom. After those reawakening experiences every
crazy40 thoughts are more than welcome in some scientific
As philosophy has been allowed to get involved in scientific
affairs when it is deemed beneficial, its contribution needs to be
further scrutinized.
The Turk
To start with, let us examine an interesting example and then
clarify some important points related to the subject.
Consider the famous and fascinating Automaton Chess Player or
the Turk. It was designed by Hungarian engineer Baron Wolfgang
von Kempelen about 1769 CE. Perhaps the naming of the player was
partly influenced by the reputation of some historical Turkish
engineers for designing simple automatons. For example, one of
39 For example, see the Miller-Urey experiment carried out in1952 which was
followed up by similar types of investigations.
40 This is a reference to the famous Niels Bohr’s comment to Pauli's then new
nonlinear field theory of elementary particles, which was: “We are all agreed that
your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to
have a chance of being correct.”
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
these practical engineers, Al Jazari, 1136–1206 CE, the author of The
Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices, managed to
design and build some then sophisticated robots for Nasir Al-Din
Maḥmud of Artuqid Dynasty during the Islamic Golden Age. Those
included a water-raising chain pump, an elephant clock, a drink-
serving waitress, and a musical robot band41.
The drawing of the chain pump in Figure 142 shows an ox as one
of the two sources of power for the continuous operation of the
water-raising apparatus. It is obvious that the hybrid pump can run
exclusively on hydraulic power depending on the appropriate sizes
Figure 1 - Water-Raising Chain Pump
Gods of Science!?
of various components, the hight differences between the three water
surfaces and the required flow rate. Therefore, the ox can be
eliminated from the pump altogether. It has also been argued that the
author deliberately included the ox “so as not to scare ordinary
people into thinking that this is some kind of magic”43. At any rate,
the pump can be deemed as a fully automatic machine.
The Turk as shown in Figures 244 and Figure 345 consisted of a
cabinet about 110 centimetre (cm) long, 60cm wide and 75cm high
with a wooden model of a man, elegantly dressed in
Turkish/Ottoman costume of the time, fixedly positioned behind it
as its automaton chess player. At the front side of the cabinet, a full-
length drawer was built at the bottom, not at the top, for storing the
chess pieces. The chess board was fixedly positioned at the top of
the cabinet in front of the model.
43 See Science in a Golden Age - Pioneers of Engineering: Al-Jazari and the Banu
Musa, about 16:30
Figure 2 - Front Side of the Turk
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
When the inside of the box was being exposed to awe-inspired
spectators, less than one third of the interior space was observed to
be filled with packed clockwork machinery to the right of the Turk.
There were also some levers, probably a section of an advanced
pantograph, positioned underneath of the chessboard and the rest of
the box was surprisingly empty. This routine disclosure of the
interior of the box was carried out by the conductor of the game as
his first task before the start of a play. He sequentially opened and
then closed all back and front doors to reassure the spectators and
the opponent of no foul play.
A game was also being watched over by the conductor who set
up the white and black chess pieces on the board ready for the start
of the game. He then lit two long candles positioned to the sides of
the cabinet and removed Turk’s long pipe from its left wooden hand
and positioned the hand on a soft cushion at the side of the board. He
Figure 3 – Rear Side of The Turk
Gods of Science!?
eventually wound up the clockwork mechanism by a revolving
handle and then moved a few steps away from the cabinet while the
game was played. He did not do anything afterwards but winding up
the machine from time to time during the game or any other
necessary service which was not deemed to affect in any way the
course or the result of the game.
The wooden robot could move its left arm so that to reach any
chess piece within the chessboard. It could grab a piece, lift, move
and position it in the centre of any square. If a chess piece was being
dropped during a move by the Turk, the conductor not the Turk
picked the piece up and positioned it in the square in which the Turk
The Turk’s right hand was not as active and mainly rested on the
table. It tapped on it when the opponent’s move took a long while.
The robot could also shake and nod its head and role its artificial
eyes. The clockwork noise was only being noticed by spectators
during moving of a chess piece and not in any other time.
The Turk played many chess games during its 84 years of
existence in Europe and the USA, some with skilled opponents, and
showed to be an able player. It was exhibited in several European
imperial courts and played against statesmen such as Napoleon
Bonaparte and Benjamin Franklin.46 It is reported that when
Napoleon tried to cheat by making an illegal move, the Turk reacted
angrily by clearing all the pieces from the board.
As mentioned, the conductor tried his best to expose the inside of
the cabinet before a game to convince the challenger and spectators
that nobody was hidden inside the cabin and the Turk was an entirely
automaton player. But some found it hard to accept the claim and
their own two eyes. They strongly suspected that a skilful chess
player was somehow hidden inside the cabinet during an exhibition
46 The game was played when Benjamin Franklin was serving as U.S. ambassador
to France.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
that played the strategic board game using a few mechanisms
consisting of some levers, pulleys and strings that rolled the eyes and
moved the head, left arm and fingers of the model.
They obviously did not know who was inside the box and came
up with various ideas about the physical stature of the hidden player.
The speculation included a legless war amputee, a dwarf or a young
chess prodigy who they thought somehow was hiding inside the
cabinet. Some even speculated that the whole process was being
controlled remotely by an operator concealed under the floor or in
another room. There were also numerous assumptions about the
technique used to make the positions of the pieces on the board
observable for the operator inside the dark cabinet and the
mechanism through which the pieces were carefully reached, lifted,
moved and correctly positioned.
It is clear that the suspicious people did not imagine a soul in the
cabinet because of ignorance but knowledge. In fact, more
knowledgeable and curious47 people found it harder to believe that
the highly mentally demanding chess game can be played by such a
modicum of merely mechanical machinery that seems only to be
active during the actual move of a chess piece.
The Turk was in fact an ingenious hoax. The son of the last owner
of the cabinet confessed that the game was surreptitiously being
operated by a skilful chess player who sat in the empty space under
the chess board during the play and hid in a concealed space when
the inside of the cabinet was exposed, section by section, for
inspection. The clockwork was also included in the box as a
disguised shielding to hide the chess player’s torso at the back of the
cabinet during the inspection. Meanwhile, it was also being used as
a smokescreen during the movement of a piece. That is, operation of
47 One of those curious people was Edgar Allan Poe when he was working as a
journalist. He listed seventeen reasons against the Turk being an automaton some
of which is not entirely correct. For example, he thought a genuine automaton
always wins or its movements are made at regular intervals of time.
Gods of Science!?
the machinery generated some clockwork noise on demand for
disguising the hidden player’s actual action during a move. The
player used a lever mechanism that was partly inside the box and
extended through the torso to hands, neck and head of the Turk. For
a spectator, it seemed that the movement of a piece was being
handled by the bulky clockwork.
Working replicas of the Turk have also been recreated, such as
the one by the Heinz Nixdorf Museum in Paderborn, Germany. It
can thus be demonstrated that a normal-size man could comfortably
sit inside the box, hide himself from prying eyes during the ordered
opening of the cabinet doors for inspection and play the game in the
providing space.
With undeniable progress in scientific knowledge, the
advancement of technology, including information technology, and
the advent of high-speed computers, various software have been
continuously developed to play the game of chess at the same level
of chess masters and grandmasters. Unlike the Turk, usually the
chess pieces are not physically moved on the chess board by a robot
in a formal match, such as Deep Blue verses Garry Kasparov
matches in 1996 and 1997, but by a human operator. Nobody has
ever been too concerned about the physical moves of the pieces by
the computer as it is absolutely insignificant in comparison with the
primary goal of the game which is the tactical and strategic moves
of the pieces in the course of the play to win the game by trapping
the opponent’s king and putting a checkmate on it. In fact, no one
familiar with the advanced hardware and sophisticated software
technologies has ever doubted that the game cannot actually be
played by the computer48, even if the actual machine was running in
48 Garry Kasparov doubted the involvement of a chess master in game number two
of his second match with Deep Blue 2 played in 1997 because the machine read
his clever trap. He did not doubt the playing ability of Deep Blue 2 but accused
the opponent of being helped by extra analysis of human.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
a remote place far away from the chess board in some high-profile
The point is that the automaton Turk is rightfully rejected as a
clever hoax based on our basic understanding of purely mechanical
machineries of the eighteenth-century technology, and all games
played by chess programmes running in modern day computers and
other digital devices are considered as genuine, again based on our
knowledge of the level of sophistication employed in hardware
design and software technology.
Simply, the scientific knowledge and automaton technology of
the eighteenth century and the paltry clockwork machinery used in
the design and operation of the Turk was not sophisticated and
capable enough for a chess game. Thus, the awe-inspiring Turk
unquestionably needed the indispensable help of a professional chess
The nail-biting challenge for its creator and various owners and
conductors was not focused on how to convince ordinary people,
intellectuals and luminaries, that a device with no memory,
analytical capability, logic and any kind of data storage and
processing capability can play chess at any level. Ignorance was their
bliss as nobody had a faintest idea about these essential
requirements. The challenges were intentionally directed on how to
reject the suspected trickery during a show. Their response was
essentially well-planned and practiced elaborated efforts to
dishonestly convince the spellbound spectators that there was
nobody hiding inside the box during the game and that the Turk was
in fact an able and independent chess player. That is, like any created
god, ignorance of and divergence from crucially relevant issues were
the major reasons for the shadowy existence of the Turk.
The same technological argument cannot be said about the
automatic operation of simple devices such as drink-serving waitress
or hand washing automatons designed by Al Jazari even if these
Gods of Science!?
robots were made at the beginning of the thirteenth century.
Moreover, we can confidently assert that there was no need for
human involvement, or even a helping hand from an ox or any other
animal, for the continuous operation of his water-raising chain
There exist a few possible philosophical arguments which could
be presented by the contemporaries of the Turk, for rejecting it being
a hoax:
Inductive Reasoning:
The drink-serving waitress and elephant clock automata were
genuine mechanical machines. They are thus the valid
evidences that the chess player Turk, which is yet another
mechanical automaton, can also work with the same principle.
It is only a more complex robot. One day we will figure out
how it was done.
Deductive Reasoning:
All automatons are purely mechanical machines. The Turk is
a well-known automaton. So, it is a genuine mechanical
machine too.
Humean reasoning:
No spectator has seen a person inside the box during any game.
Moreover, the Turk is simply a robot. It is similar to other
known automatons such as the Flute-Player, the Pipe-and-
Tabor Player and Digesting Duck, which were made by
Jacques de Vaucanson and wowed the enlightenment
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
philosopher Voltaire,49 or elephant and candle clocks, which
were made by Al Jazari. Hence there is no one inside the box.
Trivializing reasoning:
The game of chess is in fact so simple to play that there is no
need for unconventional, complex and smart machineries. The
mechanical technology of our time is thus advanced enough
allowing engineers to build an automaton capable of mastering
the game. Actually, the game is so trivial that the Turk plays
the game without even moving a component or two inside the
box during its decision making. Playing a chess game is even
simpler than putting the long pipe aside as the Turk is able to
do the former and not the latter.
Hume’s philosophy regarding the evolution of universe and
life had no choice but subscribe to this line of thinking.
Reductionism reasoning:
The game of chess is a collection of the board plus white and
black pieces and two players. All do exist, including the Turk
as one of the two players. Thus, there is no need for any
external involvement and explanation. Regarding the Turk, we
simply need to take it apart to understand how it works. In fact,
we know the parts as they are visible inside the box. Chess
playing capability is thus the result of interface between
various interacting parts, it is an emergent property.
In reality, the above reasonings resemble, in one way or the other,
the types of approaches that some scientists and philosophers have
49 The duck was another fake artifact made in 1739 but Voltaire admired its
inventor as “Prometheus’s rival and persuaded Frederick the Great to invite their
maker to join his court.” Jessica Riskin, The Defecating Duck or the Ambiguous
Origins of Artificial Life, Critical Inquiry, 29, 2003. See also Digesting Duck in
Gods of Science!?
taken in their encounter with and analysis of the reality of life. For
example, the first argument (inductive reasoning) looks a little
familiar. It reminds us of philosophical reasoning for proving
everything in the universe is formed naturally.
The argument goes like this; as some natural phenomena such as
snowflakes and rainbow are formed by natural laws, therefore,
everything else in nature can also be formed without a designer. In
the case of the Turk, the argument similarly states that any
automaton works independent of a human operator because we have
seen some other automaton to work so.
Renowned philosophers such as Voltaire and Denis Diderot can
be excused for being tricked by a deceptive automaton like Digesting
Duck as philosophy has generally shown that it is not a useful tool
for finding reality.
One more example for exposing the helplessness of philosophy in
dealing with any scientific subject in our time should be mentioned.
It is a well-known fact that feeble tricks are used in mathematics to
find some haphazard values from some divergent series such as
Grandi’s Series50. Accordingly, to support certain theories in
physics, mathematician and physicists have furthermore convinced
themselves that the result of adding all positive natural numbers is
−1/12. That is:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + = 1
This result is accepted in quantum mechanics only because it
enables other desperately needed finite results in physics to
materialize. Four types of trickeries are usually used to obtain this
totally unconvincing result:
Ignoring or hiding divergent quantities
Ignoring or hiding conditions for formulas
50 Grandi’s Series 1-1+1-1+1-1+1 … is open-ended.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
Extending or ignoring the specified domain of a formula
Using awe-inspiring formulas to cover all the above tricks
Philosophy is not able, and maybe because it is convinced of its
weakness does not even want to get involved in this glaringly
controversial issue, to confront both mathematician and physicists.
It also has no opinion on the defenceless justification of the above
result. Moreover, philosophy has not enough strength to argue why
this result, which is based entirely on open fallacy, has become one
of the foundations of a few well-established scientific theories. It
cannot reason whether science and mathematics should be fully
trusted if these types of trickeries are pompously accepted by almost
all established scientific institutions for more than a century. It
cannot tell why some scientists and mathematicians are happy to
mislead themselves and trusting public just to get the result they
desperately need for proving their pet theories.
We can clearly see the blunt teeth of philosophy in the above two
examples. Even inductive and deductive reasoning can be so weak if
they are not used properly and conditionally. As a matter of fact,
philosophy works only in a universe where all its facts are known,
or is wrongly assumed to be known. To make this approach
convincing enough, those philosophers and scientists usually try to
create or simulate a simplified world or scenario in which everything
is black and white like the Daisyworld of Gaia hypothesis. This
simplification artificially brings the case closer to a scientific
investigation in which deductive and inductive reasonings are more
reliable only because they are:
backed up by repeatable and reproducible experiments
the experiment is based on correct assumptions
the experiment is carried out at specific conditions.
Gods of Science!?
For example, it is a certified fact that the boiling point of water is
100 degrees centigrade, at least anywhere in our planet earth, if water
is pure and the experiment is carried out at atmospheric pressure of
one bar, practically at an altitude of 111 metres above mean sea level
and atmospheric temperature of 15 degrees centigrade. If pressure
drops water boils at lower temperature and vice versa, which is also
backed up by experiment. One then can confidently boil water with
appropriate apparatus just by reducing the pressure.
On the other hand, even the statement that boiling point of water
is 100 degrees centigrade or any other specific temperature without
any correct assumption and specific condition is not an acceptable
scientific statement even if it is possible to observe the boiling of
water at precisely the announced temperature countless numbers of
times. In fact, most of pseudo-sciences are based on this type of
camouflaged and half-baked unscientific statements.
By creating a simplified world one can get rid of correct
assumptions and specified conditions and then perform a thought
experiment or simulation instead of real experiment. That is why
pure reasoning of philosophy was and still is such a popular tool for
solving mysteries of the universe beyond scientific observation and
examination while it is miserably cack-handed in solving simple
everyday life issues or clarifying various phenomena in nature. It is
due to its error prone approach and ineffectiveness that pure
philosophical reasoning has been rightly replaced by proper
scientific methods.
One important conclusion can be inferred from the Turk example.
As we do not know the full reality of the world and the level of
technology used in it, we also cannot judge whether the universe is
a fully independent and self-regulating entity or it might be
controlled and operated by some other agents beyond what we have
identified so far, if they exist at all. Based on this fact, it is thus
imperative that we must not, at any rate, assimilate the world with
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
our various industrial or artistic creations. For example, we are not
allowed to say that the world is like a beautiful painting portrayed by
God and thus every minute pixel is directly sketched or coloured by
Him or in contrast say that the universe is a fully automaton entity
and is not influenced by any other agents or causes beyond our
known universe unless our judgment is based on clear and detailed
facts backed up by thorough scientific examinations and
Therefore, besides the clear distinction between designing
something and operating it, we should highlight one of the age-old
reasons to the phenomenon of god creation, or better say, for proving
the existence of God. That is, some god seeking people have
concluded in their own mind that their observed universe, though
complex, is not sophisticated or advanced enough system to
independently handle some of the wonders happens in it and thus in
obvious need of a god or a group of gods for its operation. Let us call
these types of gods operator gods. These creatures are sarcastically
known as gods-of-the-gaps.
Gods in the Pantheon of Science
One should note that this type of reasoning is not exclusive to the
god-of-the-gaps believers who are desperately trying to prove their
religious based worldview and are accused of “camouflaging their
ignorance” or “abnegating their intellect”. It is, in fact, an accepted
reasoning even in modern scientific institutions used by high-profile
scientists in their academic investigations but under different names
and guises. Several accepted candidates of these kinds of gods are in
common use. The well-known and universally believed members of
this new pantheon are chance and time.
Before going to details, one important point needs to be discussed
further. The point is the prominence and superiority of the scientific
Gods of Science!?
method in contrast to other methods for gaining correct knowledge
about the universe we dwell. Science was not properly defined until
scientists gradually added one sure tool to their toolbox for gaining
access to various realities and laws of the nature. The valuable tool
was repeatable and reproducible experiments at the heart of their
investigation process.
Scientists have also created the necessary mathematical tools to
help them developing various practical but verified models of the
reality to make the acquired knowledge readily accessible to their
fellow scientists for possible improvement or criticism and above all
for educating new generation of scientists. This long and decisive
stride has given science the power of being right, always in theory
and most of the time in reality, by carefully checking its statements
and judgements with the reality of nature. Human thus could not
create any nonsense story anymore as long as adhering to the
principles of science.
Natural philosophers of the past were not generally able to do
repeatable and reproducible experiments as they did not have the
proper understanding and essential instruments necessary for
practising it. Their experiments were mainly limited to unaided
observation of the universe and life using their five senses which
they then fed to their main tool, philosophical reasoning. Natural
philosophy thus had to be given a new name to highlight its
completely novel identity and direction, with experiment as its main
component. The new name is also a strong hint that science has
parted its way from philosophy.
Fortunately, majority of philosophers have recognized the benefit
of science. It means that modern philosophers also use the outcome
of experiments in their investigations. In fact, they take advantage of
the new tool as much as scientists or even much more as they do not
spend years or even decades in laboratories to discover a single
scientific fact. Moreover, philosophers are nowadays much less
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
under the influence of other sources of knowledge, such as myth,
local folk tales and various religions or ideologies, as they were in
the past.
If almost all of philosophers still have no tangible positive impact
on science, it is due to the fact that their reasonings and concerns are
still rooted in their past practice and mainly rely on the opinion of a
few individuals not firm principles. For example, so many still think
that there is nothing left to say beyond what Plato, Kant, Descartes,
Marx or Hume have argued and proposed. Moreover, their
philosophy is not as clearcut, rigorous and independent, and
therefore not as beneficial as those philosophers try to argue. Due to
their insignificant contribution, some scientists usually do not
consider philosophy a serious subject nowadays. Independent and
contributing philosophers such as Karl Popper and Thomas Nagel
are exceptional but they have proven the huge potential of
The success of science has even influenced the outward outlook
of the followers of both revealed and meditational religions. They
have already decided to affiliate with institutions, which have no
option but to part their ways from the new scientific method in
relation to their many peculiar and supernatural claims. Simply,
religion is supported not by experiment and logic but revelation and
miracle backed up by high reward or severe punishment, possibly in
this world and definitely in the promised next life. However, various
religious groups try their best to establish that their specific faiths are
in full agreement with latest scientific discoveries, or at least neither
is in sharp disagreement with the other51. In truth, majority of
educated people have kept their affiliation with a religion only
because their faiths are painstakingly covered and decorated by some
scientific or pseudo-scientific veneers.
51 For example, see Helen De Cruz, "Religion and Science", The Stanford
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
Gods of Science!?
Apart from those half-hearted philosophers and full-hearted
religious followers, other groups who have parted their ways from
science but still try to pretend to be under its umbrella are
unfortunately some theoretical scientists. In fact, one can claim that
what almost all natural philosophers used to do in the past is
wholeheartedly undertaken by these theoretical scientists as if they
have never heard of the Scientific Revolution or somehow have time
travelled back to prescientific era. Theoretical scientists have access
to data and results of experiments to test and hone their ideas and
theories, the luxury which was not available to their past
counterparts. But regrettably, they have not completely released
themselves from the influence of fruitless and deceptive methods of
the past for gaining correct knowledge.
This behaviour can range from picking and mixing their preferred
scientific results and ignoring unfavourable ones52, which is a huge
slap in the face of science and falsification principle, to the cases
when no room is left for experiment at all while pretending that all
the activities are still accomplished under the patronage of science.
The departure from scientific principles is so blatant that several
controversial solutions or answers for one enquiry have gained
approval within different scientific institutions. Their appeals may
not be to religion, myth or folklore but some new fancy words with
ambiguous meanings such as chance-time, beauty53, simplicity and
even crazy.
The involvement of chance, which in fact is a combination of
chance and time, in a few major natural phenomena was already
mentioned. The argument from chance has become more prominent
after David Hume proposed it as the unrestrained cause for the
52 For example, scientists are silent about the finding of late physicist Paris M.
Herouni regarding cosmic microwave background temperature which is based on
real data but promote favourable modern creation stories of others with no
experiment to back them up.
53 “It is more important to have beauty in one’s equation than to have them fit
experiment”. Paul Dirac
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
existence of order and harmony in our universe. His reasoning is still
applauded and supported as the strongest argument in comparison to
all other cosmological or teleological arguments such as argument
from design that was fine-tuned by mainly religious philosophers for
proving the existence of the god of the Bible or other scriptures. We
need to emphasize that according to evolutionary biology the genesis
of life on Earth is attributed to chance too which is also considered
as an important contributing factor in its evolution, commonly
identified as beneficial random (chance) genetic mutation by Neo-
These examples show one clear fact. Some philosophers and
theoretical scientists have removed the concept of god and
consequently any foresight, intelligence and design from our
outlook. They then confidently have replaced its various assumed
designs, duties and effects by some blind and unintelligent process
which needs to be present at all the steps of the way. For example, if
one asks how the distal phalanx in one of our middle fingers is made
the scientific answer is “numerous beneficial chance mutations” for
millions if not billions of years54 or simply it is made by chance-
time. The answer for the reason of the existence of joints between all
phalanges is exactly the same. There is no need to ask about the
cause of muscles, sensory receptors, blood vessels and skin that are
surrounding the bones and joints in any finger as the answer is
unfailingly the same. The enquiry for the existence of various
versions of eyes in different animals has the same answer too. What
about the existence of mitochondrion, DNA, lung, heart, brain,
skeleton, immune system, nail, ear and every single cell, tissue or
system in any animal? They are also made by chance-time. Exactly
the same answer is given for similar enquiries about the
developments of all tissues and systems of any flora. To make sure
54 Natural selection does not eliminate the fact that minute chance mutation is the
first step in any modification.
Gods of Science!?
there is no misunderstanding, those scientists insist to make it known
that the process of evolution is completely blind and brainless as,
like the Turk, life has no memory and data processing ability to
remember the past or plan for the future.
Moreover, the mysterious but omnipresent and omnipotent
chance-time has specially filled the places of gods-of-the-gaps in
science. Whatever theoretical scientists cannot clearly explain is
comfortably justified with these new gods.
The use of unknown entities or processes in explaining difficult
questions in science is not unique to chance and time or the above
cases. To show the widespread application of the practice, several
examples are listed below:
There seems to be several unexplained phenomena in universe
1. An enormous cavity has been found in the universe that
measures about 1.8 billion light years across. This empty
space is known as supervoid55 in the cosmic microwave
background. Astrophysicists have yet to find a convincing
reason for such a gaping hole if it really exists as it has been
argued that the void could be due to an error in data
processing method, a statistical fluke.
2. Clusters of galaxies have been found not to be moving in the
expected direction in our expanding universe. This wrong
movement is dubbed “Dark flow”. New data from Planck
satellite is claimed to confirm as well as to refute the
existence of the flow due to the uncertainty in their
measurements. In other words, accuracy and the method of
processing the data seems to have the major effect on the
55 A typical void has a diameter of 30 to 300 million light years.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
3. The temperature in some places in the universe does not seem
to be matched with our current theories of the creation of the
Among the various explanations for each of these possible
anomalies, Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton has just one
justification for all three issues. She came up with a new idea
about the origin of universe in about 2006. This idea,
Wavefunction of the Universe, assumes the existence of
The idea of multiverse was then getting more momentum among
cosmologists, thus, the argument put forward by Mersini-
Houghton for the robustness and credibility of the wavefunction
theory was not considered irrelevant or unscientific. The related
part of the script of the BBC Horizon program related to her idea
is quoted below:
“It fits with three observations, phenomena which have
defied conventional explanation. …
According to Mersini-Houghton, all these effects are due
to the presence of neighbouring universes, and are
explained in precise detail by her theory.
I really started taking the theory seriously only when the
predictions that we derived were successfully tested.
Three unexplained, difficult to accommodate findings,
observational findings, seem to just fall beautifully
together in this theory and hang together.”57
56 Professor Alexander Vilenkin believes that these patches of cold or hot spots
“could be the signature of collisions” between bubble universes.
57 BBC Horizon, Episode 3 of 15, 2010-2011, What Happened before the Big Bang
(about 00:46:00).
Gods of Science!?
Here the effect of other completely unknown universes, if one
ever exists, is chosen to fill three gaps of our apparently difficult
or hard to explain issues, all at the same time. The effects of the
assumed universes are not identified at the conventional edge of
our universe but different sections within its three-dimensional
space which suggests that those universes have different or
hidden dimensions not yet observable by scientists.
Second example is related to the source of gravitational force
which is significantly weaker in comparison to other three
fundamental forces in nature, i.e., electromagnetic plus strong and
weak nuclear forces. Professor Lisa Randall suggested that
gravity is weak, because it may originate or leak from somewhere,
say, a hidden dimension in which space-time is tightly warped so
that it cannot be observed.
Next example is the use of misfire by Professor Richard Dawkins
to explain away difficult questions in evolutionary biology58 such
“What natural selection favours is rules of thumb59,
which work in practice to promote the genes that built
them. Rules of thumb, by their nature, sometimes
“What is the primitively advantageous trait that
sometimes misfires to generate religion?”
The idea of misfire resembles Aristotle’s explanations for
monstrosity and deformity in contrast to his assumed perfect
58 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006.
59 Here Dawkins forgets the fact that rules of thumb does not mean planless and
mindless process, which evolution is supposed to be based on.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
creature, male human. For example, he thought a woman is in fact
a deformed or inferior man.
Sir Fred Hoyle had the habit of proving that every new illness,
especially an epidemic or pandemic disease, has an extra-
terrestrial origin, such as mad cow disease and the so-called
Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. He also believed that not only the
origin of life was extra-terrestrial but also steady flow of celestial
viruses are influencing, if not directing, the course of evolution of
life on Earth. This process is called panspermia.
To present one historical case, the archaic concepts of aether60
was reinvented by various scientists such as Newton. It was
nominated as the required transmission medium for the
propagation of a few natural phenomena such as gravity and light.
Among other logics, scientists used the analogy from sound,
which needs air as a transmission medium to propagate, in
justifying the existence and various characteristics and effects of
The existence of aether was questioned after the famous null
result from the Michelson-Morley experiment and was almost
dropped from science when Einstein introduced the theory of
special relativity. However, individual scientists, including
Einstein and Dirac, have since tried to revive the concept of aether
for different applications but as the idea of aether has been
discredited a few times those recent proposals have not gained
any credibility.
In quantum mechanics, which is one of the less understood
scientific subjects, the concept of virtual particle is a universal
god-of-the-gaps. It is the omnipresent candidate for explaining
60 In Greek mythology, aether was the god of light and the sky. It was also believed
to be the wholesome air that was breathed by the Greek gods. Aristotle introduced
the concept of heavenly pure air into physics as the immutable and eternal fifth
element alongside the then accepted four changeable and transient terrestrial
elements, earth, water, air and fire.
Gods of Science!?
any phenomenon which cannot be explained by any other causes.
In fact, the four fundamental forces of nature apparently depend
on the exchanges of virtual particles. The propagators for the
internal lines of Feynman diagrams, Lamb shift, Casmir effect
and spontaneous emission are just a few examples of this type of
argument in quantum physics. Energy and particles are
unhesitatingly borrowed by physicists whenever they are required
and they are swiftly given back when not needed anymore.
Sometimes there is a cause for the appearance of virtual energy
and particle, such as Feynman diagrams, and sometime no cause
is required. Even one of the popular versions of big bang
cosmology relies on something out of nothing science, which is
founded on the presence of ever-ready virtual particles. It is also
the cause of vacuum energy, which has been nominated by some
as the force behind the accelerating expansion of our universe61.
Thus, these unseen virtual gods are assumed to be the cause of the
creation of the universe as well as its lubricant for smooth
operations of various subatomic processes plus its large-scale
Finally, the god generally used in cosmology is the god of
creation, nothing62. From this god every wonderful object is
abundantly created. Claiming of finding the existence of nothing,
which has resulted into something, by experiment would be quite
a scientific feat. This god retired immediately after the genesis of
the universe, at least according to one branch of science, which
asserts that neither matter nor energy can be created in our
61 Physicist Despairs over Vacuum Energy - YouTube
62 Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something
Rather than Nothing, Simon & Schuster, Sept. 2012.
63 The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter can be changed
from one form to another, but they cannot be created or destroyed.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
Here we are not interested in the veracity or hollowness of these
claims made in scientific institutions and journals. They can be true,
with the same probability of any metaphysical idea, or not so. We
also do not advise against these kinds of thoughts. One is free to
hypothesize whatever that can be imagined possible as Greeks
speculated on the existence of a pantheon somewhere on the Mount
Olympus which was assumed to be the centre for the haphazard
management of the universe. What we wanted to point out is the
prevalence of the same logic, which supports and promotes the
validity of the god-of-the-gaps argument within the scientific
community. Their main difference with religious type argument is
that the new uncompromising metaphysics exists under lexicon of
the time such as nothing, false vacuum (high energy vacuum with
strong repulsive gravity), hidden dimensions, misfire, common
ancestors, chance, cosmic inflation, aether, time (when it is used
inappropriately), quantum vacuum fluctuation, virtual particles,
quantum foam, quantum tunnelling64 and neighbouring dark
The extensive authorities of some of these gods such as hidden
dimension, chance, time and virtual particles can overlap as they are
deemed to be multitasking. There is also a strong tendency that some
of these gods are immaculate and beyond any criticism. Only praise
and confirmation are valued and highly rewarded, throwing
falsifiability principle in the bin of metaphysics.
It is not surprising that almost none of these credible gods of
modern science have ever been observed by scientists to warrant any
fitting experiment. They are all based on circumstantial or direct
evidences such as:
64 As proposed by Alexander Vilenkin as a necessary process for the birth of our
universe from nothing. Its proper use such as Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy is
a well-established technology. See God the Omniscient?! Section for more
Gods of Science!?
Evidence: There are massive cold and hot spots in our universe.
Explanations: According to the latest theories;
o They could be the signature of past collisions between
bubble universes.
o Perhaps they are the immediate effects of other universes
upon our universe.
Evidence: Alice is a religious person.
1. According to evolutionary biology;
o Her belief is due to a random gene mutation which has
apparently been favoured by religious-friendly-Nature
since the dawning of human civilization.
o This bizarre evolution might be the result of an occasional
gene misfire.
2. According to scientific theory of Marxism outlined in the
Communist Manifesto;
o Alice’s belief is definitely the result of modes and means of
agricultural and industrial production which are considered
as the base in the philosophy of Marxism. Religious belief
is merely a superstructure phenomenon that will be
corrected in the forthcoming Communist Society when the
base is permanently and properly restored.
We only need to compare these kinds of baseless pseudo-
scientific statements with similar religious-based arguments a
sample of which can be presented as follows:
Evidence: Tom is suffering from an unknown serious illness for a
long time.
Explanation: According to sacred scriptures;
o his sickness is caused by mischievous Satan
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
o god is not happy with Tom’s behaviour, which is ultimately
the sign of his weak belief and the reason for his illness. He
will definitely be burned in hell fire for all his doubts and
Evidences are numerous and have been the subjects of various
interpretations. The emphasis here is on the fact that some scientists,
under the influence of metaphysics, try to substitute proper
experiment with interpretation of evidences for proving modern
gods-of-the-gaps. Moreover, finding new evidences with advanced
equipment by scientists do not warranty their correct interpretation
or exonerate any unscientific method for seeking knowledge. For
example, it is a well-known fact that B-mode polarization map
produced in BICEP2 project65 was not the evidence of primordial
gravitational wave which scientists were looking for but the effect of
dust clouds within the Milky Way galaxy. Top scientists equipped
with the state-of-the-art technology were misled by interstellar dust
simply because:
1. they firmly believed in inflation cosmology and thought their
mission, in competition with other likeminded scientists, was
to confirm the theory, not to falsify it.
2. they relied on evidence from mostly unknown heaven.
3. They felt there was no need for peer-review, before public
announcement of their success, as there were so many peers
collaborating in the project.
The question is how confident we should be about the source of
the information from far away sources? It is true that there exist
various checks to weed out any odd or rogue signal but,
unfortunately, any favourable signal is eagerly welcomed. That is,
65 Samuel Reich, E. Polarization detected in Big Bang's echo. Nature (2013). For BICEP2 Press Conference see
BICEP2 Press Conference - March 17, 2014 - YouTube
Gods of Science!?
once again the sky has been accepted as the abode of gods-of-the-
gaps from where unquestionable evidences are sent down to faithful
Furthermore, as noticed these new gods are, no doubt, plenty in
numbers too, and it seems that there is no reasonable possibility their
numbers to be reduced to one or even zero in a foreseeable future.
On the contrary, based on one interpretation of quantum mechanics
billions and billions of one type of these gods i.e., extra universes are
continuously created in stark contradiction to the first law of
thermodynamics. Those not so trustworthy gods such as wormhole,
meme, treme, inflaton field and warp drive are naturally innumerable
and are created more frequently. It is not surprising to note that some
of these unobserved gods, such as inflaton, are responsible to fill a
few wide gaps in our knowledge.
It is now clear that metaphysics’ main expertise is creating all
types of gods. Gods one can firmly and happily believe in, deeply
trust and appeal to for a long while. That is why its spell is so strong
and has been omnipresent within human societies since time
immemorial. Its power to deceive anyone at any time, and for a long
time, is simply inconceivable.
In all the above scientific cases the principle of “natural cause” is
not violated by merely including each specific cause as part of the
nature. In other words, the definition of nature is expanded to include
the totally unknown causes, such as one or multiple extra dimensions
and countless extra universes, even if one has not yet been observed
or verified.
This style of reasoning or logic is accepted in each of the above-
mentioned scientific cases only because the suggested unknown
cause is assumed to be a non-intelligent being. The effects of some
are even non-deterministic resulting in disorder and some apparently
have multiple effects. Specifically, the unwritten assumption of this
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
kind of science is that the universe is governed by chaos and is
devoid of intelligence.
God of the Evils
The flip side of god-of-the-gaps is the Devil or Satan which is
also supported in mainstream religions. Accordingly, Satan is the
representative or personification of wickedness and malevolent
forces in our universe. It supposedly causing misery, ruin, aberration
and confusion among faithful and faithless alike. This unpleasant
imaginary creature was apparently created, or reinvented66, in an
unsuccessful attempt to take the blame for the existence of evil away
from the kind and compassionate god of the Bible.
One of the paradoxes for Satan’s existence is that it is
continuously rebelling against the rule of the omnipresent,
omnipotent and benevolent God without Him being able to do
anything about it whatsoever. The paradox is glossed over by
creating the afterlife in which everything will eventually be settled
justly. It is thus not surprising to notice that both the concept of
afterlife and Satan are almost absent in the first five books of the
Bible, Pentateuch, attributed to Moses.
In other Abrahamic religions, namely in Christianity and Islam,
Satan is claimed to be an angel, though a fallen one. This creature
like its Zoroastrian’s counterpart, is assumed to be immortal,
omniscient and omnipresent and has unlimited power over
unsuspecting human being. It seemingly is assisted by demons,
which are its offspring67 and followers. As the main task of Satan
66 A concept of Satan was initially imported from the Indo-Iranian religion,
Zoroastrianism, into Judaism and the Bible after the Babylonian exile.
67 Quran, 18:50: And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam,"
and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the
command of his Lord. Then will you take him and his descendants as allies other
than Me while they are enemies to you? Wretched it is for the wrongdoers as an
Gods of Science!?
and his allies is creating various shortages and gaps, they necessitate
the existence of some types of gods-of-the-gaps. The roles of these
gods are somehow delegated to various saints and angles in
established religions, revealed or meditational. Thus, the tribe of
Satan can be collectively considered as gods-of-the-gaps-creators
and at the same time god-of-the-gaps with vicious and destructive
The equivalence of Satan in pseudoscience is any unexpected and
unexplainable exception and paradox which exists within a theory
that either is based on a god-of-the-gaps idea or somehow is not fully
supported by true science. These types of theories can only survive
as ideology and creed68 in pseudo-scientific type institutions and
should be treated as such.
Those counter examples and paradoxes live side by side with the
proposed theory which can be the cause of confusion for those who
are neither aware of the false bases of the established theory nor able
to properly reject its counter examples and paradoxes. If the principle
of science is duly honoured, a scientific theory is swiftly rejected
immediately after a serious counter-example or paradox is identified
or a correct theory is proposed. This is how Newton's law of
universal gravitation was treated when it was concluded that the
theory could not accurately calculate the precession of the perihelion
of Mercury despite the widespread use of the theory even now, more
than one hundred years after its formal dismissal69.
Like its religious counterpart the nature of a god-of-the-gaps
theory and its contradictions can be the same. That is, a god-of-the-
gaps can have positive or negative character and effect. For example,
68 For example, see Relativity Paradox - Sixty Symbols from 7:26 to 8:35 in which
a typical advice to students about relativistic physics is openly given. Generally,
students are convinced to blindly accept and believe what they are taught against
their own best scientific judgement and wisdom.
69 The implementation of this rule is now completely arbitrary as there are number
of counter examples against both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics but
they are vigorously defended by scientific establishment.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
chance, virtual particles, extra dimension or multiverse can be
designated as a reason for the existence of a phenomenon as well as
its demise or weakness. Likewise, some complex phenomena such
as life can evolve from its original simple form if it is given enough
time but ultimately, i.e., given enough time, every sophisticated
system and all forms of energy in the world but heating energy will
perish due to unremitting increase of entropy and disorder in our
universe ending up in the state of thermal and chemical equilibrium.
Virtual particles are the indisputable candidates for the creation of
our universe, as if from nothing, and also the reason for annihilating
black hole one of the most robust large-structure physics has so far
The more a theory relies on god-of-the-gaps the more it looks like
a religious idea. For example, remarkably, there are Pauline type of
conversion on the road to Damascus. Here is Professor Lisa
Randall’s experience which is telling:
“Do I believe in extra dimensions? I confess I do. In the past, I've
mostly viewed speculations about physics beyond what's been
measured—including my own ideas—with fascination, but also
with some degree of scepticism. I like to think this keeps me
interested, but honest. Sometimes, however, an idea seems like it
must contain a germ of truth. One day on my way to work about
five years ago, as I was crossing the Charles River into
Cambridge, I suddenly realized that I really believed that some
form of extra dimensions must exist. I looked around and
contemplated the many dimensions I couldn't see. I had the same
shock of surprise at my altered worldview that I experienced
when I realized that I, a native New Yorker, was rooting for the
Red Sox during a playoff game against the Yankees— something
else I never anticipated I'd do.
70 This theoretical process is known as Hawking’s radiation.
Gods of Science!?
Greater familiarity with extra dimensions has only increased my
confidence in their existence. Arguments against them have too
many holes to be reliable, and physical theories without them
leave too many questions unanswered. Furthermore, as we've
explored extra dimensions in the last few years, we've expanded
the range of possible extra-dimensional universes that can mimic
our own, suggesting that we've identified only the tip of the
iceberg. Even if extra dimensions don't conform precisely to the
pictures I will present, I think they are very likely to be there, in
one form or another, and their implications are bound to be
surprising and remarkable.”71
Professor Mersini-Houghton had similar admission.
“I was teaching early at 8AM in the morning. And it was one of
those large classes with about 100 students. I'm not an early riser,
so I wasn't happy about it. However, I did manage to come and
teach, and was done by 9AM.
So, I thought, "I deserve a coffee. "Time for a coffee to wake up
and plan the rest of the day." Of course, I'd been thinking about
the big questions of cosmology. Why did we start with this big
bang and what was there before? And suddenly this idea comes.
It was an idea that emerged from the fact that it's possible to
represent the entire universe not as an object, but mathematically,
as a wave.72
As noticed, Randall and Mersini-Houghton do not refer to a
recently published result of a new experiment in their decision-
making process. They simply surrender to fashionable ideas which
are gaining popularity and validity by being repeated within
scientific establishments and mathematical departments.
71 Lisa Randall, Warped Passages, Unravelling the Mysteries of the Universe's
Hidden Dimensions, Penguin Press Science, 2005.
72 BBC Horizon, Episode 3 of 15, 2010-2011, What Happened before the Big Bang
(about 00:46:00).
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
Unfortunately, the cue for a new scientific theory can get even more
pitiful. Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleagues Sir Hermann Bondi and
Professor Thomas Gold figured out their steady state cosmology idea
from watching a horror movie together the story of which is quoted
here as the last example of this type of holy inspirations.
“One evening the three of them went to a local movie theater that
was showing the 1945 classic horror movie Dead of Night,
starring Michael Redgrave. The action features a recurrent
nightmare, and the movie has no beginning or end. Gold said of
this movie: "It's completely circular. You can come in at any
place and see it until the place you came in."
Very soon after the evening out, Gold hit on a remarkable parallel
between the movie plot and the universe. Hoyle yet again started
puzzling over the implications of Hubble's observations. What
did it mean, all the galaxies flying apart? Would space not soon
become empty? Gold responded that the universe might be just
like Dead of Night, where you can come in at any time. Perhaps
the universe had no beginning and will have no end!”73
It seems that the three professors Sir Hoyle a distinguished
astronomer, Sir Bondi mathematician and cosmologist and Gold an
astrophysicist - were born just a few hours earlier and have not ever
observed that the sun rises and sets every single day. They had to see
a film to appreciate a characteristic of a cyclic phenomenon for the
first time and based on that unique experience figure out the reality
of our universe.
One more resemblance should also be mentioned. Similar to
granting Satan a free hand to wreak havoc in this world, chance
mutation is almost always harmful rather than being beneficial in
73 Quoted from:
es_steady_state_model-73265. Also see episode 5 of Genius of Britain after
Gods of Science!?
evolutionary biology74. Thus, one may wonder what is the real
difference between what Richard Dawkins calls a misfire in
comparison with chance mutation but playing with completely
worthless and irrelevant words? This kind of logic is like rolling a
die in the Ludo board game and passionately argue that the result is
based on pure chance if the die value is six or a desired number, and
misfire when the outcome is lower than six or any unfavourable
value. It is an unintentional admission that, in scientific language,
there is no difference between the real information and noise in Neo-
Darwinian evolution.
So, the obvious conclusion is that, relying on a completely
subjective yet unknown, imaginary and haphazard phenomenon with
a fictional broad power such as chance, nothing, time or misfire is
nothing but appealing to the god-of-the-gaps argument. This is one
of the direct scientific verdicts on Neo-Darwinian evolutionary
biology as well as chance genesis of life, before even going to any
due detail. Same verdict applies to the beginning and evolution of
the universe.
It should be emphasized that Hume followers and Neo-Darwinists
in fact have been trying hard to scorn and dismiss any religious based
representative of god-of-the-gaps and then replace it with nothing
but another modern set of god-of-the-gaps, by any other name.
Simply, those modern-day philosophers and theoretical scientists
have intentionally or inadvertently copied indefensible yet popular
religious ideas and techniques in their confrontation with religion. In
this regard both religion and pseudo-science are acting like Indian
and Pakistani border security guards in Wagah-Attari during the
lowering of the flags ceremonies. It is hard to find any difference
74 It should also be noted that evolutionary biology has not paid any heed to the
basic principle of causality. On the contrary, it has been trying to convince
everyone that the opposite of the causality principle must be accepted in
evolutionary Biology. That is, the effect of mostly harmful mutation is not counted
in evolution of life and all the emphasis is put on occasional beneficial mutation.
Simply, it boldly states that, in principle, a perforated bucket can be filled to the
brim by occasional slight drizzle.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
between their extravagant razzmatazz yet fascinating routines except
their different outfits and flags.
We already clarified the impossibility of proving these types of
benevolent gods and malevolent devils, unless our complete
knowledge of the universe is guaranteed or such gods are observed
at work. Our full knowledge is obviously not yet achieved. For
example, so far, we have not observed a different universe beyond
ours and definitely do not know any of its characteristics. On the
other hand, no god, natural or otherwise, has been observed to be
busy at work as Hume already pointed out.
What needs to be clarified here is that; outright dismissal of any
authentic and logical claim in science is not allowed unless the claim
can be proved wrong. However, a genuine claim must be backed up
by observation, repeatable and reproducible experiment or any other
authentic scientific proof, even the god-of-the-gaps type argument,
unless scientists categorically reject this type of argument by
opposing the ideas proposed by high profile philosophers and
Professors such as Hume, Alexander Vilenkin, Mersini-Houghton,
Alan Guth, Randall, Dawkins, Hawking and countless others.
Unfortunately, some scientists are selective and only dismiss the
ideas of those philosophers and theoretical scientists who are
considered to be a safe bet to reject, such as late Sir Fred Hoyle and
the infamous Darwinist, Trofim Lysenko whom was a key part of
Stalin’s terror apparatus in the then Soviet Union.
One can see the obvious dichotomy a religious person is facing.
By “religious person” we now mean anybody who uses a form of
god-of-the-gaps argument in any theory related to the genesis and
evolution of the universe and life. With the existence of various
marvels in the world, such as life, either our universe is not
sophisticated enough and consequently in need of some operator
gods, such as chance, false vacuum or totally unknown extra
universes, perhaps with a different, yet unknown, set of laws, or is
Gods of Science!?
completely independent phenomena, extremely sophisticated and
well planned and designed by benefitting from a combination of
hardware and its hand in glove software.
Consequently, one taboo question can be asked: is not the
existence of various sophisticated software within each organic life
the work of an intelligent being or at least an intelligent universe75?
In other words, can we, at least, consider intelligence as an
indivisible and integral part of nature. The third possibility is
Hume’s through and through dumb material universe that, similar to
the supposed mechanical Turk, can create all those marvels,
including intelligence, with continuous agitation, changing and
mixing of matter.
So far, the latter option has been accepted by majority of scientists
as the only credible worldview and the most solid foundation for
science. It was shown that they have only been able to convince
themselves by appealing to disguised gods-of-the-gaps. It is an irony
that the same scientists are proud of the fact that the universe only
communicates with and reveals its secrets to intelligent peoples like
them if they actually use their intelligence properly and correctly
through meticulous scientific techniques. They therefore cannot
reject the existence of intelligence in our universe entirely but limit
its existence to our planet.
This type of reasoning is a kind of informal logic. It goes like this:
all swans are white; the existence of many black swans is just an
exception; most definitely no other black swan has ever existed or
will exist.
The fact is that some scientific subjects such as all issues related
to the existence and birth of our universe and perhaps the genesis of
life cannot be experimented as it happened once in the long past and
75 Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature
is Almost Certainly False, Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press, 2012. Also, A
Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value, Sharon Street, Philosophical
Studies, Springer, 2006,
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
are close to impossible to reproduce. Theoretical scientists of these
disciplines only have the not so trustworthy tools which were
available to past philosophers too. They are a few signs, logic and
endless speculations. Consequently, they experience the same
frustration, as well as the unwelcomed and unscientific freedom in
dealing with their subjects resulting in the diversity of scientific
theories which will never be resolved. The diversity of theories in
those subjects betrays the real colour of the approaches taken by the
contributing scientists and clearly shows that our knowledge of the
universe is miserably incomplete and most probably subjective in
those fields.
Because of this confusion, which is purely due to divergence
from scientific principles, there is a grave danger of vindicating all
religious, ideological and metaphysical statements in science76. This
may end up to implementing religious mentality in science under a
new disguise. One example of this hard to avoid influence is the
God’s eye view of the reality of the universe.
God the Omniscient?!
Some survival gods such as the sun god and a simple stone god
do in fact exist, though their perceived mystical origins, supernatural
attributes and spine-chilling powers which have been concocted by
their creators and worshippers are purely imaginative. Therefore,
though these gods have obviously existed we can easily dismiss them
as human’s delusional creations. The same is true for chance, time,
and some other gods-of-the-gaps of philosophy, science and various
One god that has no physical existence either, is proudly created
and promoted in some of the highly regarded scientific institutions.
76 For example, see the lecture, A Conscious Universe? – Dr Rupert Sheldrake
Gods of Science!?
This god is called Nothing that is assumed to be something. It is
given the responsibility for the creation of the whole universe and
every object and wonder in it.
The existence and true characteristics of some operator gods, such
as inflaton field, extra dimensions and other universes are not yet
proven. The existence of a designer God is also under investigation.
But, for sure, there exist numerous omniscient gods in our universe
which humanity is much better off without them. These gods are
indeed human beings when they are under the illusion of being
omniscient or supreme.
Traditionally, and more openly in the past, majority of tribe, state
and religious leaders have considered themselves well above
everyone else in the society. Some have explicitly declared to be God
Almighty or somebody in that high echelon of being. If the situation
has not been suitable for an open claim, they have had the option to
be God, or have its authority over their followers or citizens, under
various guises and titles. For example, some have openly claimed
that they have been authorised to overrule any or all clear religious
commands and any previous decree and dogma if they wished to do
In our time, some theoretical scientists, like majority of
philosophers in the past and almost all religious believers of the past
and present, as well as the followers of dogmatic ideologies, such as
Marxism, argue from supreme authority. The well stablished
deductive reasoning is the tell-tale sign of this delusion in
philosophy. Those scientists are also under the false impression that
they know everything about the whole of the universe not just partial
and fuzzy knowledge about a tiny part of it, intertwined with a heap
of wild fantasies. For them, the only outstanding issue is to iron out
some minute problems or how to interpret those to fit their own
worldviews. They, consequently, reflect on the universe as if the
whole and complete facts of it including its past, present and future
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
have entirely been revealed to them. That is to say, while some
scientists are dreaming towards creating the Theory of Everything,
some others already think they actually have the theory under their
These hopeful gods simply forget this important fact that our
correct knowledge of the universe is not from top to bottom but vice
versa through step-by-step scientific efforts. For them there are even
no known unknowns, such as dark matter and dark energy, unknown
facts, such as the whereabouts of antimatter or reason for its almost
nonexistence in our universe or why and how the entropy of our
universe was at its lowest in its assumed genesis. They pretend or are
convinced that uncountable cavernous gaps in our knowledge or
unknowns do not exist, do not count or do not have any effect in their
worldviews. For them science is finite and its boundaries are
conquered. In other words, none of them think that they have theories
that may be refuted by new discoveries but like an established
religion it is the complete and final outlook of the universe, come
what may.
Being under the illusion of omniscience allows one to pass firm
and final judgement about the universe and its various phenomena
based on unbendable belief on knowing everything that could be
known. One of the dangers of these gods and their
followers/worshippers is putting hard boundaries on the width and
breadth of the universe based on their contemporary and limited
knowledge. Let us call this trend capping the universe or simply
One needs to imagine the world in which our natural philosophers
still believed in the notion of spontaneous generation or four
classical elements - earth, water, air and fire - which were accepted
as the fundamental elements of the universe by almost all nations in
the past. Another infamous example is the well-established
Aristotelian Earth centric universe which fiercely defended by the
Gods of Science!?
Catholic Church in contrast to heliocentric view of Copernicans
championed by Galileo Galilei. This is how capping works; one
wears ignorance with pride.
One reason for the existence of this type of omniscient scientists
is the fierce turf war between science and religion. The main subjects
which are heavily affected by this war are evolutionary biology and
to some extent cosmology. Scientists in these fields should be most
diligent of their work and make doubly sure that this unfortunate
conflict does not affect and taint their principled scientific practices.
It goes without saying that if any religion or religious idea is not
correct it should be challenged vigorously by everyone including
scientist. But we know that even a broken watch can show the right
time twice a day, every single day. Therefore, resenting whatever
that has been associated with religion should be avoided. For
example, moral ideas such as good manners, honesty, charity and
respects for parents were not solely introduced or embraced by
religion and it does not have the exclusive right to them. In fact,
various parts of the Old Testament, which is accepted as a sacred
scripture by all Abrahamic religions, can be considered as nothing
but immensely immoral, if not scandalous, in any culture and by any
As, fortunately, some nations have eventually accepted the socio-
political principle of secularism for the management and running of
their countries, scientists must also separate their scientific work
completely insulated from any religious and ideological ideas in any
shape and form, pro or against. Regrettably, while a variety of
scientists are adopting religious mentality some try to reject almost
anything that religion has been associated with during its long
One confident scientist who was determined to make sure all
possible stones are turned in pursuit of solving a scientific problem
was the late Sir Fred Hoyle. It does not mean that all his ideas were
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
correct or scientific but it seems he was broadminded enough not to
participate in the phoney and futile war throughout his scientific
endeavour. However, even as an atheist scientist, a few of his ideas
were criticized not scientifically but with the language and mentality
of the ongoing war.77
An example of Hoyle’s thoughts, and a hasty and unconvincing
response from demigods, is the so-called ultimate Boeing 747
gambit, which is a reference to the famous comparison made by
Hoyle in response to the Darwinian idea that life could have been
created by pure chance from the primordial soup in a warm little
“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.”78
We need to remind ourselves that the issue of the origin of
life is completely different from the gradual evolution of life.
Accordingly, one cannot explain the former development with
random mutation and natural selection. So, there is a need for
a different, proper and scientific response. As there is none,
and scientists do not want to openly propose chance-time as a
solution for these two completely different but seemingly
77 “The new evidence pointed clearly and decisively to a cosmic origin of life,
which is to say to the alternative possibility that had been available from the
beginning. Perhaps because it was seen that a switch to this alternative might start
filling the churches again, the response to the new evidence was to follow a far
more perverse logic than before. So one arrives at the pre-Copernican view
widely held today.” F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space,
78 The Intelligent Universe, 1983. P 29
Gods of Science!?
related cases, some refuge to metaphysical answers. One
popularised counter argument is:
A designer God cannot be used to explain organized
complexity because any God capable of designing
anything would have to be complex enough to demand
the same kind of explanation in his own right. God
presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us
to escape. This argument, …, demonstrates that God,
though not technically disprovable, is very very
improbable indeed.79
In other words, these omniscient gods, reassured by trusted
Humean-Darwinian chance-time creation, in their rebuttal resort to
capping idea without a justified scientific proof. They measure
complexity and possibilities in our universe based on what they
already know, consequently denying any other possible existing and
future ideas and phenomena. Above all, they even deny the fact that
there is a sophisticated software running in their body. The software
which has been the major component of life from its genesis and it
could not have come to existence trough any haphazard way such as
creation by chance.
It is now clear that one of the consequences of this type of
thinking is separating the world of knowledge to two spheres. One is
ruled by science and logic. The second sphere is ruled by gods-of-
the-gaps such as chance-time as sketched in Figure 4.
Scientists should remember that they are supposed to discover the
world based on their scientific principles and efforts, not merely
philosophise and even make the catastrophic mistake by trying to put
a limit on its scope. The consequence of capping has been churning
79 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006, P109
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
out panacea types of solutions for anything beyond the imaginary
and arbitrary demarcation line.
We should also learn from similar mistakes by the nineteenth
century scientists who generally assumed they knew it all. Towering
Laplace in the beginning of that century was more confident than
those great scientists at the end of it such as Albert Michelson who
articulated that:
“While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical
Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than
those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand
underlying principles have been firmly established and that
further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous
application of these principles to all the phenomena which
come under our notice. It is here that the science of
measurement shows its importance where quantitative
work is more to be desired than qualitative work. An eminent
Figure 4 - World of Knowledge with Capping
Gods of Science!?
physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science
are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.”80.
How very wrong they all were!
Scientists are supposed to find out what the universe and nature
are and what they are doing not to tell them what to be or what to do.
Simply we must not play omniscient God and should stay an explorer
until we are one hundred percent sure that the whole universe is
exposed by science.
Carl Sagan’s observations well applies to this type of gods, as
well as all religious people which he was rightfully challenging:
“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at
science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The
Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander,
more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no!
My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A
religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the
Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to
draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by
the conventional faiths.”81
The point is that we should firmly challenge these bogus
omniscient, as well as, omnipresent gods in our planet whom have
learned to hang on to the bandwagon of metaphysics and religious
mentality. It should eventually be accepted that there have been
continuous discoveries of new matters, energies and complexities in
the universe which our past generations, common or scientist, never
even imagined to exist. We should thus make it clear that there is a
difference between true seekers of knowledge and the latter types of
80 Dedication of Ryerson Physical Laboratory, quoted in Annual Register 1896,
p. 159, Albert A. Michelson - Wikiquote
81 Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
demigods. A true scientist does not put limit or cap on the
possibilities in the universe. In other words, we must not claim to
have God’s-eye-view of the entire world.
To prevent these types of recurring mistakes we need to introduce
a dogma for philosophy and science, which may be succinctly put
Human is not the omniscient God
The word “God” is included here as personification of an entity
with full knowledge of everything or somebody who has in its
possession the coveted theory of everything. With this understanding
the dogma may be simplified further to:
Human is not omniscient
This can be nominated as the first dogma of philosophy and
science. The major consequence of this dogma is that deductive
reasoning should be used very carefully in philosophy and science.
For example, any statements started with words such as ‘all’, ‘any’,
every, whatever, or ‘only’ is allowed when there is close to 100%
certainty about a claim, assumption or premise. Therefore,
statements such as ‘all swans are white’ is allowed if we have
observed all swans on the planet earth and we are certain that no
other swan exists in the rest of the vast universe. Similarly, the
statement ‘Earth is the only planet to harbour life’ should not be
allowed as we have not examined all the planets in the universe. This
is different from ‘all swans in this pool are white’ or ‘Earth is the
only known planet to harbour life’. Mainly, deductive reasoning
should only be allowed when assumptions can be guaranteed to be
One obvious outcome of the dogma is that majority of
philosophical proofs for the existence of God which rely on
Gods of Science!?
deductive reasoning, such as Kalam Cosmological argument, are
rendered useless. In general, the dogma ejects one of the well
accepted and widely used philosophical reasoning which pretends to
know it all by producing various made-up premises and then gets to
certain conclusions using deductive argument.
Humbly, we should only rely on our collective scientific
knowledge, which is a bottom-to-top-method of knowing and
discovering, completely independent from any religion, ideology
and metaphysics. We must also convince ourselves, by learning from
humanities past delusions, that we must not be entirely certain about
everything we have so far found out in our search for the
comprehension of the world.
How Much do we Know About Life?
Why isn’t our answer to Hoyle’s valid gambit more honest82?
Based on our current knowledge, one can confidently state that the
issue of life and its origin is not that simple to be understood or
solved in foreseeable future. But there are three glaring facts about
life which have been discovered since the middle of the twentieth
Each living cell is equipped with a piece of sophisticated
software called DNA. In other words, life has been possible
when some complicated instructions are embedded in the
matching complex hardware known as cell.
As far as we know, the software has existed from the
genesis of life and was not added a while later. In fact, one
of the leading origin-of-life theory, known as RNA world
82 See Appendix A for an analysis of the idea of panspermia, which was
proposed by Hoyle and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe, and an
intelligent design theory proposed by Hoyle.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
hypothesis, proposes that organic life began with a simple
RNA molecule that could copy itself autonomously with
high fidelity. That is, instruction had precedence over
clueless substance for the origin of life.
It has been irrefutably proven that some noncoding DNA
sequences such as those in a genetic regulatory network and
CRISPR are programable.
These discovered facts were not known to Darwin and his
contemporaries. Thus, he could be excused to declare that life could
have been started in a warm little pond by pure chance. But copying
and repeating the same line of thinking by top biological scientists
of our time is just beyond belief specially after failure of well-hyped
experiments to initiate life, such as the one carried out by Miller and
Urey in 1952.
To show how far we are away from understanding life, consider
DNA or RNA molecules which exist within the nucleus of each cell.
Scientists are now able to only read83, but not understand, the alien
codes in those molecules of numerous creatures including human.
The international Human Genome Project “one of the greatest
scientific feats”84 – was mainly a project to read about 92% of human
DNA. Scientists have, nevertheless, accurately identified the
functions of a very small percentage of the genes in the entire human
genome known as protein-encoding genes. There has also been
steady progress in identifying some regulatory regions of genes.
For comparison and clarification, suppose somebody without any
familiarity of Morse code sees or hears the following message.
... --- ...
It is easy to read the dots and dashes and identify the meaning of
the above arrangement of them, SOS, because of its common and
83 Gap-free human genome sequence completed for first time - BBC News, April
84 The Human Genome Project
Gods of Science!?
widespread use, thanks to the film industry. But not knowing the
code, one does not know how to compose a meaningful message or
even interpret any other messages written in Morse code. Genuine
and gibberish messages are completely identical to untrained people.
This is almost the state of our understanding of DNA and RNA. We
can read them and identify the consequences of some codes, genes,
within those molecules but do not understand them.
We know the functions of some genes only because they are
identified to be responsible for making all kinds of proteins or
causing some positive or negative effects such as blue eyes, certain
defects or diseases. Our best effort, so far, is merely copying one of
the identified codes from DNA of one species and pasting it to the
DNA of another species or similar types of manipulations of the
genetic codes.
Evolutionary Scientists nevertheless tell us that only those few
percentages of DNA, which they have so far identified to have some
tangible effects, are beneficial. They assume that the rest are, at best,
a colossal heap of completely useless and gibberish code which is
being hoarded for, at least, about 3.8 billion years as the side-effect
of genes gradual evolution. They label this heap of software as junk
Junk DNA was initially considered to be more than 98% of the
total molecule. To clarify the amount of junk, human DNA sequence
can be printed in about 2000 books each about 1000 pages.
According to proponents of junk DNA the contents of only about 40
books are necessary for human life leaving the content of about 1960
books as junk.
As another much-simplified illustration of this amount of
assumed junk code and their status within DNA consider the
following sentence in Morse code which has one hundred letterings.
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
.- -. / .. ... --- ... -.-. . .-.. . ... / - .-. .. .- -. --. .-.. . / .. ... / .- /
- .-. .. .- -. --. .-.. . / - .... .- - / .... .- ... / .- - / .-.. . .- ... - / -
.-- --- / . --.- ..- .- .-.. / .- -. --. .-.. . ... / -.--. - .-- --- / ... .. -
.. . ... / --- ..-. / . --.- ..- .- .-.. / .-.. . -. --. - .... -.--.- .-.-.-
Excluding the highlighted (Bold and red) section, that we think is
understandable, the rest of the information, which in this case is 97%
of the message, is illegible to somebody who cannot understand the
Morse code. The exact meaning of the fathomable information can
also be completely different from what it is presumed to be as it is in
this example.
The translation of the code is:
An isosceles triangle is a triangle that has at least two
equal angles (two sides of equal length).
In 2012, the Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE)
proposed that only 20% of human DNA should be regarded as non-
functional code85 but there is a dispute on this latter figure among
the scientists and still a high percentage of DNA, about 85-90%, with
a lower limit of 75%86, is considered as useless garbage by majority
of evolutionary biologists.
Is this claim correct? If we do not understand the code how we
allow ourselves to pass such a judgement?
The argument for the existence of very high percentage of junk
DNA is not completely groundless as it is based on evolutionary
85 “The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one
biochemical RNA and/or chromatin associated event in at least one cell type.”,
The ENCODE Project Consortium (September 2012). "An integrated
encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome". Nature. 489 (7414): 57–
86 Dan Graur, An Upper Limit on the Functional Fraction of the Human Genome,
Genome Biology and Evolution, Volume 9, Issue 7, July 2017, Pages 1880–1885,
Gods of Science!?
biology, especially the so called “gene’s eye view” of life87.
Nevertheless, the initial figure of 98.5% has been gradually
decreasing by discovering more useful DNA segments. Based on this
fact their argument can thus be summarised as:
about 98.5% of DNA are non-protein coding genes. They are
junk DNA according to the theory of evolution.
they remain junk unless scientists discover each individual
nucleotide or segment not to be so
meaning that the capping argument is the main line of reasoning in
this case. That is, science stops with evolutionary biology and selfish
gene theory. Those biologists were so confident with chance creation
and evolution of life that they even did not think or completely
ignored that there might be slightest management and regulation,
which is a hint of foresight and design, within DNA. According to
their reductionist ideas, production of solely raw material, in this
case various proteins, was necessary and sufficient requirement for
supporting life. Therefore, the rest of DNA could be nothing but
junk. Moreover, attributing a massive fully functional code to
chance, almost five billion nucleotides long in each human cell,
would be hard to justify.
This attitude and type of argument is also reminiscent of the
argument for proving the existence of and justification for god-of-
the-gaps by religious people. With the progress of empirical science,
the domain of those gods and the strength of the argument have been
gradually reduced. Unfortunately, we are witnessing another
embarrassing version of god-of-the-gaps argument, this time by
prominent scientist who are happy to be seen in complete combat
gear in their fighting against religion and religious mentality.
87 Palazzo AF, Gregory TR (2014) The Case for Junk DNA. PLoS Genet 10(5):
Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
Finding even one useful non-coding gene was sufficient to put an
end to junk DNA theory but devotees of god-of-the-gaps are hard to
convince despite the fact that numerous non-coding genes have been
found to provide important functions. Examples of useful non-
coding DNA are structural DNA, functional RNA and gene
regulatory sequences.
The question is, why competent evolution didn’t or couldn’t
disposed of these very high percentage of junk from DNA as a result
of natural selection. The proposed junk DNA is equivalent to
accepting an evolved animal being burdened with more than 98.5%
useless organelles, cells, tissues and organs. There is no such
creature in nature. At most a few tissues and hardly any organ can
be identified as useless in any animal or plant and those are still
debatable cases.
It is also a fact that evolutionary biologists do not claim that any
organ in any plant or animal consists of colossal junk and useless
sections or functionalities. The same is true for any known cell.
There is no talk of cells being infested with high percentages of junk
organelles. In actual fact, there is a regulating mechanism which
removes dysfunctional, unnecessary and damaged organelles in
We almost know the functionalities of all those organs, tissues,
cells and organelles. Therefore, there is no prospect for such
unscientific speculations for those cases, whereas evolutionary
biologists believe in the existence of massive junk sections in DNA
only because they do not know much about DNA. In fact, it is fair to
say that they unfortunately argue from nothing but ignorance.
Scientists should also be reminded that this type of attitude
towards unknown organs has had tragic consequences even in the
recent past. One notorious example of this attitude was the surgical
operation, known as prefrontal leucotomy88 or Lobotomy, performed
88 leucotomy means cutting off the white matter, nerve fibres, from the brain
Gods of Science!?
on children and adults deemed to suffer from any mental disorder.
Even unruly children and young women were not spared from this
curing procedure.
The so-called psychosurgery was routinely practiced in almost all
developed countries from 1935 until late 1970s (late 1980s in
France). For example, in the USA about 5000 surgeries were carried
out each year during the 1940s. Egas Moniz, the pioneer of this
neurosurgical treatment on human was awarded a shared Noble Prize
in 1949.
The aim of the surgery was simply cutting off both frontal lobes
from the rest of the brain by various surgical methods. Surgeons
mutilated the organ with almost total ignorance of the functioning of
different parts of the brain. “Historically, patients of lobotomy were,
immediately following surgery, often stuporous, confused, and
incontinent. Some developed an enormous appetite and gained
considerable weight. Seizures were another common complication
of surgery. Emphasis was put on the training of patients in the weeks
and months following surgery.”89 These obvious evidences, even
high-profile ones, against such a cruel treatment were simply
One celebrated version of the surgery consisted of hammering an
orbitoclast, a surgical instrument similar to an ice pick, from the top
of each eye socket into the brain and then almost blindly but
methodically wobbling it inside the organ in an effort to cut nerve
fibres of both frontal lobes. Sometimes the surgery was repeated
several times to make sure the lobes were completely detached from
the rest of the brain. Here is what they did to Rosemary Kennedy,
the twenty-three-year-old sister of President John F Kennedy, as she
suffered from learning disability:
89 Noyes, A.P.; Kolb, L.C.. Modern clinical psychiatry. Philadelphia and
London: W.B. Saunders; 1962. Lobotomy - Wikipedia