Take a trawl through the innumerable Islamic websites proclaiming the miraculous nature of the Qur'an and one soon encounters a depressing refrain: science is to be relied upon only when it is confirmed by the Qur'an (or, at the very least, when it doesn't contradict it).
Apart from the ludicrous claims of preternatural knowledge of embryology, isostasy, cosmology etc. in the Qur'an, this also leads followers to deny such universally accepted (in the scientific community) theories such as evolution, since however hard the miracle seekers try to twist the original Arabic and search the tafsirs they cannot but accept that Allah has plainly stated that all species were created at once and that man can trace his origins back to two individuals, Adam and Eve, created by Him.
Hence science that plainly contradicts the Qur'an (and thus God) must be denied. Denial, however, is not enough. Such blasphemous beliefs must be denigrated and belittled lest any curious Muslim be tempted to reflect upon the overwhelming evidence for science that contradicts the Revelation and reach his or her own conclusions, namely: Allah wasn't much of a scientist.
Christianity, of course, has been here before. But the West had the Enlightenment and religion has retreated in the light of advancing knowledge ever since. Islam, however, is still fighting to maintain its grip on its followers' hearts and minds, and the deniers of evolution - such as those neanderthals at iERA - will go to any despicable lengths to hide knowledge from those who are the targets of their dawah.
Take the use of the term "scientism". Miracle seekers use it relentlessly when what they actually mean is ...well, science.
Here's our favourite miracle seeker, Hamza Tzortzis of the Islamic Education and Research Association writing about Richard Dawkins in his paper, A response to the God Delusion
The statement presumes scientism to be the only way of establishing facts.In case you're wondering (and my spell check certainly is...), scientism sees science as "the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth". It's used exclusively in a pejorative sense. And yet the irony is that the miracle seekers love quoting (cod)science when they think it'll confuse the bejesus out of their gullible readers.
Here's Hamza again, explaining why evolution is "impossible" (well, it's true we have our doubts with you, Hamza, ol' son) by quoting from Barrow and Tipler's book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle..
Evolution is impossible because we have not had enough time on Earth yetAccording to John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, the odds of assembling a single gene are between and 4-180 to 4-360. The implications of this are that there simply has not been enough time since the formation of the earth to try a number of nucleotide base combinations that can even remotely compare to these numbers!
I wonder if Hamza would be happy to quote the figures if he knew he was using "science" from an author infamous for writing a study on the mechanism for raising the dead (The Omega Point).
George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler's book on the Omega Point as "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler's thesis. Best of all, Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler a "crackpot". I suppose it won't surprise you to learn either that Tipler was a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a society which advocated, wait for it... intelligent design.
So here's another -ism for you Hamza: obscurantism - which we might summarise as attempting to blind your readers with the dubious science of creationist crackpots while attacking the real science of world-renowned scientists.