Scientific proof of God! (Again!)

Here’s another example of a Muslim use of half-understood science to prove the existence of the soul and of God, published in something that is ostensibly a scientific journal. (Thanks to Glenn Branch.)

“Molecular genetic program (genome) contrasted against non-molecular invisible biosoftware in the light of the Quran and the Bible,” by Pallacken Abdul Wahid, claims that “The failure of experiments to produce life through purely chemical means or to restore life to a dead cell would in fact invalidate the molecular biological program (genome) concept. More importantly, the failure would confirm the Scriptural revelation of non-particulate nature of the divine biosoftware and the existence of God.”

Personally, I prefer the way we do things in the US. We have plenty of crank pseudoscience driveling about equivalents of the “divine biosoftware,” but we have found a way to concentrate most of this and confine it to creation-science publications. In the Islamic world, you can find this sort of dreck scattered all over the place, since it’s a lot more mainstream. Most inconvenient.

Rape them Atheists!
G&T Rebuttal, Part 6: Chapter 7
Geisler & Turek Rebuttal, Part 7: Chapter 8
Apologetics Infographic #1: Atheism and Nothingness
About Taner Edis

Professor of physics at Truman State University

  • uzza

    What? What? What? It LOOKS like a scientific journal… but it published this wtf?
    I'm not a biologist, but..
    Please explain this.

  • Juno Walker

    I think this says it all, from their "About Us" tab:

    "Scientific Research Publishing (SRP: is engaged in the service of academic conferences and publications. It also devotes to the promotion of professional journals. The company has an outstanding work team as well as the widespread third party relations, enables our customers to obtain great satisfactions and convenience in their publications."

    Too many grammatical errors for my taste.

  • Rosser

    Nice review of the complexity of life’s building blocks. Evolution was far from explaining the development of DNAs origins and its usefulness in orchestrating cell typing, tissue organization, phenotyping, etc. This article does a nice job reviewing further complexities within the cell, apart from DNA, that assist with these processes and further complicate the process of our underlying biological processes and makeup. Evolution appears, in light of such complexity, even further out of reach of even coming close to explaining the origins of life. This is not the only point of the paper, however. The author makes a peer-reviewed scientific process of reasoning and illustrates the competing hypothesis is not weakened as we discover such further complexity. The seemingly designed process of biological development becomes less and less "seemingly" as we discover more and more. The rib to chromosome comparison, etc. is odd and probably serves better as an illustration than a debatable/testable topic on a purely scientific level. But the premise and conclusion of this review is far from unscientific. It always amazed me how we look at cave drawings from thousands of years ago and assume intelligent life wrote the stick figures based on indirect evidence, logic, and reason. Yet people can look at the most sophisticated language in the universe and conclude chance, random events, and naturally directed mechanisms must be responsible. Why not just say the cave drawings although obviously people, animals, and objects telling a story are from random waves of erosive wind and water that have oddly occurred over hundreds of millions of years? But because you don’t believe there to be a competing hypothesis, you already “reasonably” do adhere to such a statement. As we learn more about the biological building blocks of life, it seems more fitting to promote cave drawings into a new shiny, very complex, sophisticated, self-reliant aircraft and the darwinistic reasoning that "explains" its origin into a pathetic tornado passing through a junk yard. Man sure is “reasonably” lucky to be here.

  • David Mabus

    now we are going to bury you….

    And the lesson from all of this? DOUBLE!

    What do you want, you little f*ckers?

    more of these idi*ts