Surecracy Versus The Controversial Problems Of The Closed Model Of Thinking Being Adoped By Darwinists' Evolutionists And Intelligent Design Theorists

1. The ' Closed Model Of Thinking And Of Believing ' / CMOTAOB has definitely brought its own intellectual problem(s) and/or logical controversy within its questionable trial(s) of influencing the humans' capabilities, human conscienceness ( both Intellectual and Psychomoral ) and the human related degree / level(s) regarding its relative certainty within the process(es) Of knowing , being in equilibrium and in balance between science and religion's scripture(s) of Monotheism .
2. This later above mentioned Closed Model Of Thinking and Of Believing seems to have no view(s) in understanding - the complete cycle of integrated knowledge: where Science, Philosophy and Religion supported by ' Monotheistic Realism ' can - in fact - act altogether within a unique and organized quadri-dimensional balance or in a developmental Harmony at all the times - associated with a definite capability of stabilizing both human intellectual and human psycho-moral conscienceness; with any needed factual, non-biased, non-delusive information in any specific/ particular area of knowledge including science, philosophy and religion especially the one(s) dealing with true monotheism and its factual evidence(s) and/or its related given and/or recorded scriptural supporting examples ..
3. Darwinists / Evolutionists Materialists always limit their incapable scientific vision to man - physical nature ( philosophic naturalism ) - back to man in ' a trial and an error ' closed model of thinking and of believing. The scientific belief in natural must; to be accurate, be tested to be considered factual natural but the critics within this scientific / philosophic approach are that it is regarded as very slow - as developmental - in understanding in depth the physical / metaphysical (energies) in nature. It also lacks the needed degree of absolute and/or relative certainty in many ways, it is based on probability and its inference(s) with certain limit range; it exposes itself to significant risk(s) of error(s), being partial to be considered explanatory to the whole picture with its details and it can be also biased - depending the researcher - in both analysis and in conclusion(s) before reaching its relative factual consideration(s). Philosophical Naturalism mostly base itself - as it seems - solely to materialism in science away from studying - in depth - its coordinated / integro-dynamic related, interacting energies, in existence, formulating materials, the universe and the biolife; it does not have a clear whole picture in order to explain life - as an existence - in full details and universe as in its origin and in its present / future balanced and designed existence for a purpose. Both Darwinists and Evolutionists take their untested/unproven theoretical assumptions as a factual belief but that still lacks its supporting factual explanatory evidence - beyond doubts - as Surecracy has below their false case regarding the imaginary evolution of man from apes; leading thus to both scientific and philosophic delusions - as a recorded controversy - being brought due to their extensive reliability upon their questioned human closed model of thinking which lacks still both true knowledge and acceptable flexibility. As we have mentioned before - in our preliminary scientific research paper against Darwinists / NeoDarwinists - that their evolution theory based on the probability of chance in some but not all of their subjects; in explaining how life had originated; was fully incapable as it has a lot of contradictions and even holes to be accepted as factual from the scientific point of view(s); their philosophic and related ideological approach brought more delusive assumptions and more controversy - as for example - within fascism, communism/socialism, secular democracy and democratic capitalism.. Each brought its own controversy and/or trouble to people. The Evolution Stories of man and life lacks its certainty- without doubt - in all the era: scientific, philosophic ..etc. using such a closed model of thinking and of believing ..!! This is in one hand.
4. On the other hand; If Intelligent Design Scientists and/or Theorists Tried - in another similar approach of closed model of thinking and of believing - to extend their trial(s) from chance and necessity towards the probability of the presence of design(s) which can not evolve by hazard - referring it to the supernatural cause; and they intentionally were ignoring: how to support their research findings in relation to such a supernatural creator's reference(s)/ knowledge in existence ..etc. It is simply because they all clearly know very well that their biblical scripture(s) literally written and/or translated inaccurately till nowadays - by the hands of some religious men / not true prophets - using their closed model of thinking and believing of man's limitations and delusive imaginations which can not withstand, with its illogical bias the (Intellectual Test) and their psycho-moral delusion(s) brought many related controversies and thereafter leaving such a biblical scripture literally with words to be explained solely by faith; not to be explained in lights of a strong reliable-capable belief with an acceptable moralo-psycho-intellectual certainty against what we hear from their leaders which may possibly lead to bias, misleading confusion, controversial issues they brought to us - as for example not for limitation - the controversial ontological issue of materialising God / (Allah) in Christian Scripture(s) { Modern testament }having a Son Of God (Jesus) - standing in contradiction between { Ancient Testament }- Judaism and Islam - which support(s) the uniqueness / non-materialistic vision of God (Supernatural) .. Here such a questionable approach is factual in the sense of What Intelligent Design, especially Christian theorists, found themselves in trouble that: (4.1) Their scientific and/or philosophical approach related to study the elements of a design in the universe and/or biolife can not be fully supported with any correlated evidence(s) of their own biblical scriptures as the later(s): Design Approach and/or the Biblical Scriptural Approach - without doubt - fall/fail because it was based / founded upon such a recorded Closed Model Of Thinking and Of Believing as ID scientific facts out-there can not match any of their supportive ontological facts if any even accordingly existing. Any accurate researcher in the biblical script(s) can find out clearly the presence of many illogical controversies within the Holy bible(s) which are subjected to many debates especially with Moslem intellectuals / scholars .. This is not the case in our ' Scriptural Holy Qu'ran ' which contains enormous supportive scientific-subjective-ontological evidences and/or facts which are supporting clearly our position in Surecracy and in TMPT (theory) as findings in all related era of knowledge: Scientific, philosophical ( in terms of philosophy of science and of philosophy of religion ) and religion ( True Monotheistic Religion(s) being available Today )..! The Open Model Of Thinking And Of Believing that both Surecracy and The Metaparaphysics Philosophic Theory (TMPT) adopt, seems the sole left alternative to follow - as a new problem solving compatible approach - towards giving better answers and for creating such a needed absolute and/or relative certainty in human knowledge ..! Author: Sherif Abdel-Kerim, The International Surecratic Movement (ISM International) , Canada, Copyright (C) 2009.

Surecracy Versus The Intelligent Design Theory (ID) and Its Intelligent Design Movement

In Summery and Review:

In our Surecratic View and In Light Of The Metparaphysics Philosophic Theory (TMPT); the Intelligent Design Theory - trying to teach its own controversial views - is actually criticized by being a reactionary and even a direct by-product of secular democracy, Western Dualism and Darwinism ..!

What Most Of the Evangelical / Creationists' Movement Members - including its followers of the Christians and the Jewish Supporters to the Intelligent Design (ID) Theory - where they lack or even trying to avoid, within their public appearance and within their intellectual research trials, is that their ID case(s) and/or ID argument(s) Knowingly evaded - on questionable purpose(s) - to be relying upon their scriptural evidence / biblical authority support to their subject being discussed regarding the presence of design(s); A matter which logically may be inter-correlated with the Subjective-Ontological Monotheistic Scriptural Evidence(s) - that may have certain scientific epistemological value(s) - to support the profound factual scientific quantitative and/or qualitative ontological descended information via prophecy mediation to be considered within their Intelligent Design debate.. They all kept very quite about it within their ID scientific-philosophically related studies; within their search trials for better knowledge and the needed factual truth..! Accordingly, ID Approach which was claimed to be scientific and/or philosophical ( in relation to the philosophy of science) - followed an ascending physics / physical field approach - invoking esoteric idea(s) as within information theory (including statistical inference) , molecular biology and the intellectual logical sense in testing their proposed hypothesis ..etc but there is no acceptable foundation of the subject(s) of their ID discussions between evidence of science and similarly the related evidence of their religion(s) .. ! The Intelligent Design leading theorists seem still using a typical closed model of thinking / believing which is restricting itself in science in physical and ascending metaphysical field(s) with their assumptions to include the Supernatural without finding out the needed supporting ontological -biblical subjective evidence(s) upon the subject matter(s) being studied or presented. ID theorists fallen to be away from finding out a needed open model of thinking, at least within one cycle of complete knowledge in order to properly support their claims with acceptable evidence ..!

Here their assumed ' Intelligent Design Theistic Realism ' failed the needed tests - from our Surecratic point of view - in order to proof itself as being capable for complying with the true ' Monotheistic Realism' that the Holy Qu'ran had already highlighted and/or discussed; Monotheistic Realism in Islam is different from Theistic Realism of Evangelicalism, Christianity and Judaism. The first - as highlighted in surecracy studies and our available publication(s) - is fully capable to prove itself with scriptural/ontological subjective-scientific evidence. It is a mater which also had been highlighted in others studies - as for example - within the study of Dr. Maurice Bucaille ' La bible, Le Qu'ran Et La Science Moderne ' & ' L'Home D'Ou Vient Il? in Paris 1976-1981 and in our published studies in 1988-2002, and particularly concluded upon the application(s) of such a concept within The Qur'an Scriptural Review(s) and its approach(es), Discovered in lights of Our newly introduced theory: The Metaparaphysics Philosophic Theory (TMPT) ..! Upon Discussing The Concepts of Creation and/or the presence of Supernatural The Scientific Arguments that lack its Ontological-Subjective logical / Epistemological Facts; is not and will never be considered enough to claim its support to a questionable faith and/or to a delusive belief in any mean(s)..! The compliance between the two is conceptually a must and a necessity in testing the Holy book(s) of Religions as well as of science .. The human belief can be biased, delusive and even misleading; particularly if it is not well built upon factual logic and proper scientific knowledge and reasoning .. The Supernatural God / Allah is still capable - in any scriptural book related to the true monotheistic Messiah - to deliver the factual true knowledge of creation - in any area - including the scientific related ontological-subjective evidence(s) that human being(s) can logically, scientifically understand and integrate the available information or knowledge that are compatible with each other in order to have the needed profound stable belief(s).

Writer: Sherif Abdel-Kerim,
Founder Of The International Surecratic Movement
Copyrights (C) 2008, Canada.


A Detailed Paper Under Editing Development For Web Publication Soon ..

Surecracy Versus Darwin's Theory, Neo-Darwinists and Neo-Darwinism Movement

Darwinism is a philosophic approach which is conceptually based on Darwin’s Theory. It intensively relates itself to a doctrine - that is considered ancient, enough to be correlated to the ancient Greek and Roman atomists notably including Lucretius (2) - in human history. But Such later ‘ Evolution Theory ’ was magnified and intensively developed by the British naturalist ‘ Charles Darwin whom had published it within the first book edition titled the ‘ Origin Of Species ’ in the year 1859. Darwin’s Theory - in brief- its Observations, its Assumptions and inferences which were drown for claiming his theoretical views (1,2):1. This theory seems to be founded on three major assumptions and its related observations: 1.1: All living things vary, the species have obvious fertility; having more off springs than growing to adulthood. Populations keep roughly the same size with little change(s). 1.2: The basic premises of Darwin’s Theory: is considering that the Individual(s) and all living species ‘ ruthlessly struggle* ’ and/or ‘cruelly fight to survive’ while they are developing;

____________________________________________________

* Malthus Theory Of Ruthlessness: Darwin’s seemed to be significantly influenced by the British economist ThomasMalthus writings in ‘ An Essay On the Principle Of Population ’ in the 19th Century; it was widely accepted. Malthusestimated a very rapid increase in the population(s) where these populations were kept under control because of disasters whether natural such as diseases, famine, earthquakes ..etc. or socio-political as war where some has to die for othersto live and to survive, a destructive concept of cruelty/brutality claim which carry the philosophy of ‘ existence means continuous war and struggle.(1,2). Ideologically, The German/Nazis and Communists adopted both Malthus / Darwin’s system of thoughts and perceptions in application within their psuedo-scientific, socio-political & military secret agenda ! Such misconception is strongly believed - supported by historical evidence - to significantly fuel not only the first world war (1914-1918) and the second world war (1936-1942) but also it had significantly influenced Communism alliance and Democratic Capitalism to a considerable extent in application, for fueling their exploitations, direct/indirect participation(s) in encouraging genocides, civil wars, imperialism in the ‘Third World’, being the weakest of lower race and culture(s).
______________________________________________________

A very questionable concept of viewing and of adopting that: ‘ Life is a conflict and is a fight ’..!

1.3: Living things pass their characteristics where within sexually reproducing species where no couple of individuals are typically identical.
Both Natural Selection as being highlighted by Charles Darwin in ‘ the origin of species’(1): Chapter 4 and Mutation { in neo-Darwinism: adopting Mandel Approach in genetics to be further associated with Darwin’s Mechanism of Natural Selection }; are thought by Darwinists to cause the preservation of favored species and/or races in the struggle for life and for the evolution; where these variations - impacting the ability of the individual(s) to survive and to reproduce - being considered inheritable in a given zone or environment to pass thereafter into future generation(s) by time. This slowly influenced process can result - according to their view(s) - in adopted / developed populations to such an assumed environment as a function of time(1,2,3) and ultimately after intermediate generations, leading to the formulations of new varieties and/or new species (1,2).

The Metaparaphysics Philosophic Theory (TMPT) Debate and claims , being supported by others’ research findings against Darwin’s Theory & Darwinism:

Taking the first step; in scientific criticism against Darwin’s theory - while still speaking within our boundary of the ‘Physical Field’ in ‘ TMPT Model ’ - and in support others’ research work findings (1-18 ); it has been uncovered that there are - at least three major subjective topics - to be highlighted within our reasonable claims and fighting debate: scientific-wise, philosophic-wise and ideological -wise:

1. Darwin’s theory is simply viewed incapable to give us any reasonable explanation; regarding a serious factual issue ‘ How life had been originated over the Earth as a planet ’ and if this question can be extrapolated in anywhere else if life may exist in any form of bio-life.

1.1: The simple rules - according to the present definition in classical scientific biology - consider this crucial fact that ‘ life always comes from life ’ and by reference to our new definition: ‘ bio-life comes from bio-life’ in the physical field of our Model TMPT. In other words; inorganic atoms- forming molecules and amino acids, fatty acids ..etc.- can not spontaneously generate one living cell to be functioning on its own via spontaneous mechanism(s). Darwin’s seemed to be reflecting in the backgrounds of his thoughts ‘ the Medieval Theory ’ (3,14) - of Darwin’s and Earnest Haeckel times (14) -regarding the theory of ‘ spontaneous generation ’; where inorganic / organic nonliving things can gather altogether to form the living organisms such as insects growing from dirts, flies from nutrients leftover or rats from wheat..etc. A matter which - thereafter- was disapproved by the bacteriologist Louis Pasteur with his experiments and his related conclusions; opposing the spontaneous generation theory which Darwin’s had considered his corner stone or black box to base his evolution theory; an evidence of scientific discredibility to his theoretical assumptions.

1.2: The simplest cell or microorganism has a factually of incredible and/or irreducible complexities (3,14) in its biological structure(s) and biological system(s) in the physical field. Inorganic materials experimentally can never produce any living cell or even any active genetic molecules, capable to be functioning on its own. The probability to produce - for example - protein of 500 amino acids was estimated - by some scientists and statistical inference experts - to be as 10 to the power of 950 which is an extremely very high exponential value in statistics / mathematics; which is experimentally or is naturally extremely minimal and is considered to be impossible to occur by both theoretical and/or applied science (3). This issue was highlighted - for example - in Scientific American Magazine (October 1994) where the evolutionist professor Dr. Leslie E. Orgel (12) approved this fact while highlighting in his statement that it is extremely improbable for two complex structural proteins:( i.e. proteins and nucleic acids..etc) to arise spontaneously - in the same time and at the same place ( to act, interact and react ) to form one cell while it is also extremely impossible to have each one functioning on its own without the presence of the other; a matter which leads him within his study and scientific analysis to the conclusion - as he says - : ‘ And so, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means..! ’ (12,3).

1.3: Professor Michael Behi (4,13) also challenged both Darwin’s theory and Neo-Darwinistsregarding the Darwin’s assumptions - in the origin of species (1,2) - by highlighting Charles Darwin’s following statement (1,13): ‘ If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ ( e.g.. Like human eye or ear or lungs .. etc. ) existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..!’. M.Behi (13) here have clearly stated that the system(s) which may meet Darwin’s criterion will be the one(s) that is/are exhibiting irreducible complexity (i.e.) in a single system being composed of several parts which altogether contributes to its basic function(s) to such a system; and where any removal of one or more of these actual essential parts can effectively cause the ceasing of its functions. Bahi also highlighted - in connection to the physical field of Molecular Biology and by reference to molecular evolution scientific journals that he noticed during his own research that there were zero scientific papers discussing any details for evolutionary intermediates in developing any complex bio-molecular structures. The examples of irreducible complexity can be considered in aspects of: proteins transport ,bacterial flagellum, Closed circular DNA, blood clotting, photosynthesis, transcription regulations..etc.

1.4: Neo-Darwinists have tried to questionably use “ Mutations” in their so called ‘ Modern Synthetic Theory’ starting from the decade of 1930’s ; to add it to Darwin’s idea of natural selection in support of their evolutionary theory. They all assumed a theoretical concept - that still lacks its supporting evidence(s) to be generalized, where in their theory - under debate - neo-Darwinists assumed the presence of millions of bio living beings and its complex organs ; on our Earth as a planet, went into mutations and processes of selections.. But such an assumption is actually facing its grave scientific counter-critics such as:

1.4.1: Mutations mostly and definitely cause destructive change(s) and very harmful results or effect(s) on any living being(s) / existence at cellular, tissue, organ and/or intact biological structure. It is also very rare to happen under normal environmental atmosphere.

1.4.2: As mutations are random rather than to be considered orderly induced changes in the structure of any biological system or being. The later bioalife being which is highly organized complex system(s); will certainly deteriorate to the worse rather than to better..

There is here a serious difficulty almost impossibility to find out a mutation example which can be observed to produce its developed complex genetic code that is truly beneficiary developing and/or irreducibly complex organ or organism or animal or human being in such a way .. There is also another practical scientific difficulty to find out those millions of intermediary changes and/or these massive gradual changes as evidence to be considered. Mutations leaves very significant destructive changes which are mostly common to observe like in the case Cancer or tumor - as for example- in man ..! Without hesitation or any doubt such a mutation as evolutionary mechanism is destructive, and Neo-Darwinists knew such a fact regarding their failed trials to make it look like the ‘ Dome Of Their Church in the Institute of Darwinism’ to believe in factually; that’s very inconsistent on one hand. On the other hand Darwin himself admitted that his assumption regarding ‘ natural selection’ as an evolutionary mechanism - in nature ( the physical field ) - ‘ can do nothing by itself ’; accordingly it might be a scientific delusion within the actual reality in life and/or of biolife - especially in presence of ordered unique complexity - and its spontaneous development on the basis of accurate, very reliable and stable genetic coding foundation(s) within the nature. These factors are universally accepted and are never be regarded as exceptional - across the history of existence and/or bio-life existence - upon Earth ..!

1.5: Furthermore ; by reference to an interesting scientific literature’s review research work which had been collected , summarized and published by the scientific writer and journalist named: Richard Milton who discussed in his book (6):‘ The Facts Of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism ’ published by Fourth Estate LTD Publisher, London , UK 1992. Where Milton here - in detail - gathered significant and weighable scientific evidence and/or scientific critics against Darwin’s Theory and neo-Darwinists (6); a cleverly written reference to read for further details of the debate. Here my mind - came across with an interesting fact which blows up the scientific attention - being related to both accuracy and the realistic reliability of the scientific method(s) used in the measurements of age by the isotopes; as for example(s):

1.5.1: The Potassium- Argon Radioactive Dating Method used by geophysicists to detect the age of a rock sample obtained from the volcanic lava in Mount Kilauea (Hawaii) was geologically calculated /estimated by such a laboratory detection as 3 billion years of age ; in contrary to the fact that these geological lava rocks is only 190 years old in its actual physical historical reality (6) .. !

1.5.2: In Oxford University Carbon-Dating laboratory; R.Milton(6) indicated a serious factorial source of scientific-experimental error(s) where the radioactive Carbon 14’ measured rate of generation in the atmosphere was exceeding its rate of extinction by 38 % ; instead of being in equilibrium. Their surprising isotope(s) measurement disclosed - in other simple analysis to their data - that the production exceeds the decay by a percentage upto 38% . This - accordingly might mean in conclusion - that the age of Earth atmosphere could be less than 30,000 years .. what will be our answers - regarding such an assumed evolution theory - if the earth atmosphere can be considered factually as thirty thousand years only ..!

1.5.3: In page 55 -table 1, Richard Milton(6) presented another factual controversy regarding the measurements by applying various scientific experimental methods; identified as being Short Time-Scale Geochronometies Methods used to estimate / indicate the age of the Earth planet where these estimates were: Radiogenic Helium in Atmosphere (<>

2. There is no scientific evidence(s) or scientific findings which can translate - indepth - the issue about how such a theoretically proposed “ Evolutionary Mechanism: as natural selection ” can have the spontaneous power(s) to evolve - by itself - under any realistic natural or under any experimental circumstances; Even upon studying the evolutionary mechanism(s) theoretically in light of the probability and chance(s) within the exact factual reality of our biophysical world and/or biolife in existence. In addition, Darwin's Theory does not have its supporting evidence in origin of life and its developmental genetics among related and/or unrelated species and kingom (plants and animal kingdoms in relation to humans ) the matter can not even regarded sololey upon evidence of genetics but it has to be interrelated to the levels of genes , molecules forming the genes, atomic structures within molecules and subatomic structures to the levels of positrinos, neutrinos, electrons, protons, neutrons .. etc. at its 28 subatomic structures - being integrated to act altogether - at materilalistic molecular/atomic and/or subatomic / energy levels to explain how in lights of the psuedo- / misleading views of darwins and his darwinists followers to explain how evolution happened with evidence in lights of these realistic factual issues in the universe and the Earth life's actual relialities ..!

3. The presence of massive scientific research work which highlighted - with its published findings ( 3, 4,6,7,13,14,15,16,17,18 ) upon the fossils and its geological history on Earth- a very dramatic fact of significant impact(s): It simply indicated an absolute controversy - against ‘ Darwin’s and neo-Darwinists’ - in their theories and/or assumptions as well as it ascertain their delusive Darwinists’ views to exist in life factual scientific reality ..!

3.1: Life had appeared on Earth all of a sudden as plants, animals and human beings (3,6-8,12). 3.2: The evolution of man from ape-like ancestors - according to the imagination themes and scenarios of Darwinists, Neo-Darwinists and Evolutionists - putting their major four evolution cat gories; are not linked to the presence of any developmental chain including animals-like Apes into Humans beings (3,14,15,16,17,18):

a. South African Ape (Australopithecus): It represent nothing but an extinct old ape belonging to an ordinary ape species and it does not - in any mean- resemble humans, in addition the full anatomical, physiological and histological including genetics evidence’, these related studies are absolutely absent as evidence.! So the foundation of the theory - in application - fails truly to provide its acceptable evidence since the year 1859; this highlighted opposing view can be supported by the research work of two well known American and British expert scientists C.Oxnard and S.Zuckerman (3,14,15) whom have indicated these above mentioned scientific facts very clearly. b. Evolutionists claimed -thereafter- that man evolved from a next antecessor stage ‘Homo’ which they consider more developed than Australopithecus including: b1: Homo Habilis b2: Homo Erectus b3: Homo Sapiens Where there is no actual realistic scientific evidence of the evolution among those men tioned there later classes of apes ..! Here modern scientific studies (3, 16,17) indicated that:

3.2.1: Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus had lived - at the same time - in various Earth regions of our world where there is no successive chain of development or any fossil found related intermediates providing the fact of their intensive research ..!

3.2.2: Furthermore; the specific segment defined as Homo Erectus have lived till the modern time(s) while both the Homo Sapiens including : Homo Sapiens Neandarthalensis and Homo Sapiens, sapiens { representing modern man } coexists in the same zone and/or geographical region(s). (3,17). It might - at this end - be important to highlight what Stephen Jay Gould - University Of Harvard - indicated in his scientific analysis and/or final conclusion (3,18):
‘ what has become in our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominidis { i.e. South African, the Robust Australopithecines & Homo Habilis } none clearly derived from another ? Moreover, non of the three displays any evolutionary trend(s) during their tenure on earth..! In addition, M. Harting have highlighted another scientific game - being played still by Darwinists - regarding the fossil records stating: “ More recently, some ( Darwinists ) have proposed that evolutionary change occurs rapidly and in small, isolated populations. But such explanations can never turn the fossil record into an asset for Darwinism ”(7). Under such a scientific case circumstances it becomes apparently very questionable that any high school student or any individual searching for a tested scientific fact and/or true scientific believe that the whole theory, assumptions and claims - of Darwin’s and His followers called Neo-Darwinists - to be absolutely invalid, rejectable due to its non-factual factual scientific evidence regarding the presence of antecessor (3,6, 15,16,17,18) and even be considered extremely delusive to any reasonable scientific knowledge - beyond doubt(s) - leaving Darwinists nothing of a left underwear to cover up their so called ‘ scientific theory ’ or ‘ Darwinism Evolution ’ ..! .. Nothing either in its questioned ‘ Darwinism Philosophy ’ and/or ‘ Darwinism Ideology ’ being related to similar concepts which I am going further to strike it in my oncoming coercive intellectual debate and claim - against all of them - thereafter..?!!

Other literatures’ findings withstand even against the philosophic view(s) of Darwinism and its questionable application(s) and failure in order to give us any detailed scientific practical explanation(s). These critics which can not seriously support - in any realistic approach or practical way - the ‘ Theory of Evolution ’ especially if being referred what I have already highlighted in my issue number (1), (2) & (3) above; a matter which is suggesting that this Evolutionary Theory is incapable and fully discredited to prove itself as it can not still bypass its own theoretical boundary or bypass the opposing scientific explanatory limitations, its voids and/or troubles for giving us the practical logical explanation(s) for everything alife supported by detailed evidence without showing us more gaps / holes ; as well as it can not still bypass our TMPT acceptable scientific test(s) with any reasonable result to be credible; or to bring - for us as Surecrats - an enough detailed evidence that supports its imaginary conclusion(s). In fact, Darwin’s Theory is presently facing further fundamental challenges than ever before and it is also facing numerous scientific critics which voids Darwin’s, Darwinism’s and neo-Darwinism’s scientific credibility and its acceptance - based upon scientific facts and evidence - although they are kept trying harder to more control and to absolutely dominate over the scientific research work contents, the research investments and/or directions as well as their persistent efforts to influence and further control the scientifc institutions and its funds via their political influence, wrongly biased cultural -educational propaganda and opportunistically redirecting very questionably a considerably big part of the taxpayers’ financial research fundings for long while obstructing more beneficiary research work; improperly without being questioned, growing under the presence of ‘secular democracy ’, ‘secular communism’, ‘ secular socialism ‘ and even under fascism.etc. It is historically recorded and it is occurring still until nowadays; providing the fact that:

- Since 1854, the ‘ Evolution Theories ’ in assumptions, in research and in its experiments still questionably failed- from the scientific point(s) of view - to give us any partial and/or full explanation that the natural process shaped ‘ Earth Life Forms ’ and/or ‘Origin Of Life ’ despite the given 149 years of time. Such evolutionary research efforts and its massive states’ tax-payers funds being granted -by the secular democratic systems - is to spoil the Naturalists’ Evolutionists and their waste to our human and financial resources that should be carefully managed to allow other research works that are needed for better human development ..!

- There are a significant increasing number of scientists opposing Darwin’s theoretical assumptions and to neo-Darwinists un-explanatory mutations’ leagues. This rapidly forming anti-Darwinists’ wave is presently lead by some respected scientists’ and many neural voices are involved in such a struggle creating: scientific, philosophic and ideological disputes to the point where it has even taken recently offensive legal dimensions within the educational system(s), in order to correct the Darwinists’ educational curriculum and controversial unidimensional teachings, being forced upon the young pupils and the students at schools as the cases in North America for example. These fights are using the human invented secular law(s) with its trial and error amendments; as being a direct by-product of the so called “ Democratic Closed Model of Thinking and delusively Believing ”; many are being commonly applied within the democratic / communist judiciary court(s) in a questionable trial for oppressing, repressing the basic human rights and confiscating the human freedom for better knowing .?!; to get the needed relief(s) via justified trial(s) to study, to reevaluate critically and to search - in practice -other opposing valid approach(es); The first debate fight(s) had already happened between Darwinists and the Intelligent Design Creationists - in such a limited ascending physics’ view - or ascending metaphysical approach of the Evangelical Creationists and soon another stronger scientific battle and an ideological wave conflicts are coming soon into this dramatic scenes when our ITAIR and the Metaparaphysics Philosophic Theory / The Monotheistic Philosophic Theory TMPT will be introduced to educate the public, the students with its credible revolutionary scientific claims, philosophic claims and Religio-theological claims as well; where it is supported by the foundation of our new opened model(s) in both thinking and believing which must be going to be within reach of everybody for better knowledge including helping the children and the young adults in schools (formal education) and out of schools (non-formal eduction) to learn the knowledge for the best and by trying to minimize the learner’s factor of ignorance as teaching the contraversy in both theory and application - within our Coll-Coop Educational System - will not only be strategic or scientific issues but it will be certainly political and ideological with the introduction of Surecracy. It may appear here to become a realistic must and even a serious necessity in order to find out new problem solving approach(es) and to discover new ways of using practically our moderate developmental approach that we present in our thesis for the goodness of everybody ..!.

- The ancient Monotheistic Islamic History - in its earlier decades and/or centuries - taught us its supportive theological - ontological subjective views to encourage and to urge all human beings towards studying, learning and even discovering the nature of God’s creation(s) - without fear - thus enriching our knowledge and experiences in both the scientific and the philosophic arena. Such an Islamic Science provided Europe and Asia with a significant qualitative and quantitative scientific knowledge to forward their dark Middle- age(s) of ignorance where massive amount of our Arabic - Islamic books - preserving the humanity developmental educational and scientific treasure(s) from being lost and/or destroyed.. History will revive itself again by this initiating spark of Surecracy, gaining the patronage by our thesis and its in-depth research work..!

I do not have presently any doubt that the world honest political leaders, the ambitious neutral scientists and many of the philosophers as well as those newborn Surecratic believers will all find - here with us - a significantly strong initiating research work and a good foundation with the introduction of TMPT; where the questionable scientific and/or philosophic ‘uncertainty’ will find out its way towards having a realistic and practical values , using our problem solving approach(es) and/or the Surecratic solution(s), redirecting us towards the factually needed ‘ Relative Certainity’ in any related study or branch of knowledge that is applying these affirmed concepts of ‘ The Metaparaphysics Philosophic Theory: TMPT ’ ; supported by the defined logical and ontological parameters of ‘ Surecratic Determinism: SD ’ even to guide science, its research and ethics.

Here; Surcratic Determinism is regarded as the truthful will of the individual(s) which is supported by both the reasonable subjectivity and/or objectivity in knowledge. It is being a very crucial positive determinant-factor to resolve the problem(s) and/or to approach a needed ‘ Relative Degree Of Certainity / Certitude ’ - as a function of time - upon the application of TMPT Model. Such an acceptable approach will be further used - with its flexible, practical and/or realistic strength to further debate and to relatively challenge the mental corruption, the troubles leading to the astray being brought - to all of us - for example by Darwinism..! In my short summery - as a writer in such a first Surecratic scientific debate- someone might find within our study- a helpful educating knowledge in one single cycle of TMPT and also may find out a special illuminating challenging approach which has its conceptual and its applicable / practical view..! Taking our steps forwards; towards uncovering the Questionable Delusion(s) of philosophical, ideological Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism; it might be important to highlight another related challenge; by reference to our Monotheistic Religion Biblic Authorities - particularly indicated the Holy Quran {Year 570} - which had realistically challenged these delusions of atheist scientists - including many Darwinists and Neo-Darwinists - where it is highlighted the following scientific-theologically related subjective fact: The Holy Quran Provided - all of us - with a serious theological - scientific and/or a striking Ontological-Subjective fact ; regarding the ‘Origin Of Life and of the Universe’ with its notion(s) which had been highlighted clearly in Sourah Al-Khaf in (Chaper 18) / Verse (Ayat 51) saying literally in God’s own words and clearly presenting the following translated statement: ‘I (God) never called them (men) to witness the creation of the Heavens and the Earth, Not (even) their own (human) creation; not is it for me (Godself) as helpers such as lead (men) astray’ (20). Where Darwin’s Theory and Neo-Darwinism Mutations still apparently failed not only to give us a scientific reasonable full explanation about reality of origin of life but also it failed to provide us with anything of universal human value(s) in Darwinism as a philosophy, or morality (compared to monotheistic theology)or in formulating an acceptable human paradigm / dogma for a universal human ideology under their Darwin’s questionable promotion(s) evoking its related inhuman Nazism and/or Racism where superiorism identifies certain white race(s) as top race in a fully materialistic problematic culture(s) and Fascism politics ..!

This will certainly take all of us forward to the second step of this debate; dealing with: The philosophic and the religio-moral criticism(s) against Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution, Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism:

If the scientific evidence - upon any theory requires- a comprehensive intellect and sophistication in terms of accuracy and reliability for the tests being used, which must be performed in reality { as in theoretical and experimental biology }to verify the conceptual hypothesis / assumptions of the theory and/or to test its detailed given scientific information, its related observations and data that are referred to the said theoretical assumptions - { Here its is narrated to human reproduction, embryophysiological aspects, probabilistic in relation to inference and to the specified complexities ..etc. in our scientific study for example}- within our opened model of thinking TMPT.. In an opposite direction as to following TMPT approach in one hand .. Darwinists, on the other hand; continued to sustain their arrogance, inflated egos and reinforce their pseudo-scientific delusions as facing all the presented controversial scientific evidence(s) and hearing much of the opposing critics; while simply not answering it properly, ignoring and even evading these scientific valid concerns.! It all happens because Darwinists are sincere followers in their questionable commitment towards the ‘ Philosophical Naturalism’ than to Science itself. This later presented philosophic term is defined - from our Surecratic opposing point of view - as a ‘ closed system of thinking and of believing’ because it significantly assumes that the entire releam of nature has to lay within such a closed system of material causes and its narrated effects; it can never account into their questionable consideration anything from ‘ outside ’ their imaginary circle that starts and ends solely by the physical field..!

Although Naturalism doesn’t seem to deny or affirm the mere existence of the creator but it still deny within its basic foundation - in contradiction - any supernatural causes and/or supernatural inference to any highly possible intelligent designer to be having any influence upon any natural event; this is because of the fact that the Darwinists Philosophy - is trying hard to limit and to fully control all the definition(s) of science - throwing away the ‘ Super Natural ’out from their view and/or their dictionary; at least from the beginning.! In addition to these valuable critics; both ‘ Phillip Johnson and Mark Hartwig ’ wrote that Atheistic Evolutionism still represents - thereafter - the sole present possible explanation which is scientific to be adopted by the restricted view(s) of Darwinists. They also narrated - in such an area of the philosophy of science - more critics and counteracting explanatory analysis by stating (7): ‘ Scientists do not approach Darwinism the way they approach other theories, because they (by bias) assume it is true, they never seek to test their theory, only to confirm and to extend it. Disconformity evidence - as Phillip Johnson says - is either explained away or {fully} ignored; because to Darwinists such evidence can not (ever) exist ’(7)

Thus, Darwinists regard that ‘ such a pseudo-fact of biological life ‘ evolution ’ - in their perception(s) - to be as always true by definition, and therefore any further negative / critics’ information is uninteresting and generally should not be allowed to be acknowledged, discussed or even to be published, leaving other scientists and philosophers nothing of an alternative to be accepted for them under such an ignorant domination ..! Such a handicap philosophic and unidimensional so ‘Scientific Darwinism Approach’ seem to further extend not only upon restricting the scientific comparative view(s) and its needed studies upon some very valuable religious ontological-subjective facts which might have a specific informative scientific evidence or scientific impacts, showing its capability and bearing relative certainity to pass the scientific test(s) of significance; In contrary, Darwinism - without a given authority upon human freedom of knowing - questionably are expanding its overwhelming hands and its dominating powers upon the systems of education and the scientific research institutions supported by such an athietic evolution theory to narrate forward a unidimensional approach - as forcing science to solely work within their controlling limited view of their philosophy : ‘ Philosophical Naturalism ’ within a closed system of materialistic thinking - contrary to the scientific opposing evidence against ‘philosophical naturalism’ - resulting in promoting their sole Darwinism view(s) in our public schools - using the academic, taxpayers money funding of the governmental resources, human resources and questionably supported by the secular courts’ judiciary system brought to us by such a ‘ troubled democracy ’ - in order to omit and to freeze any other scientific reasonong and philosophic knowledge that can debate Darwinists by the opposing scientists; as challengers, debating the Darwinists intellectually corrupted theories - as any other trial for the introducion of alternative(s) to improve the human factor of knowledge and to minimize the factor of human ignorance is rejected, thus putting the envisions of opposing scientists under ‘ the Darwinists’ custody ’ or ‘ so called scientific restriction ’ or ‘ an intellectual jail-like isolation ’, Darwinists partially succeed - under such a spread out atheism and being supported by an incapable democratic, man-made trial and error secular laws - to oppress any opposing competent theory including ‘Intelligent Design’ teaching(s) in the public or state schools; but soon another bigger intellectual fights will be certainly coming from the bottom to the surface and vise versa to turn over the table upon Darwinists and Democracy via the introduction of our new debate and our igniting war of coersion, dceclared against the ‘ Darwinism’ particulary as our ‘ Surecratic Deteminism ’ is presently revolting as well; bringing to the human knowledge the completed challenging concepts of ‘ The Metaparaphysics Philosophic Theory TMPT’ with its credible theoretical, mathematical and practically applied developmental model(s) in science.

In Our TMPT approach - Contrary to Philosophical Naturalism - where the later is being adopted by Darwinists, whom did not present to us yet any valid or credible concept regarding certainity which put Darwinists to be distant from any absolute scientific certitude or even any relative scientific / philosophic certainity within what they define as ‘ Philosophical Naturalism ’- The Metaparphysics Philosophic Theory TPMT with its enlightening factor of ‘ Surecratic Determinism (SD) ’ ; will be more capable of explaining not only the entire releam and reality of nature - on more significantly revellent and/or acceptable scientific theoretical assumptions that search(es) for the ‘ Relative Certainity’ , starting from the ‘ Uncertainty ’ concepts where the entire existence including ‘ Nature’ laying within the consideration of ‘ An Open System Of Material(s) { Ms }and Of Energies { Es }of different types’ ; where its related integrodynamic actions, interactions and reactions may result into any existing and/or observable effect(s), collectable data and valid credible flow of information of the various verified knowledge resources .! which can definitely be influenced - at any time - by anything from ‘outside’ and inside the boundary or the boundaries including both ‘ the natural ’ and ‘ the supernatural ’ one(s) in co-existance within the reality and within our human consciousness/conscienceness where the probabilities of ‘ chance and necessity ’ extended to the uniqueness of any ‘ intelligent design(s)’ - for example not as limitation - can be still studied, examined or tested in light(s) of our debating TMPT , being a rebilion and even a revolutionary theory in its various applications.

This later alternative approach is strongly believed - in lights of science, philosophy and comparative religion research analysis - to bring out an extremely practical intellectual model and psycho-moral model as well with its highly flexible theoretical useful applications in science, philosophy and religion(s) as well as for testing monotheistic and non-monotheistic religions and philosophies. The Metaparaphysics Philosophic Theory TMPT might be considered a new truly helpful way of revolutionizing both the human intellect and the human psycho-moral capabilities while it is going to work for securing the individual(s) /or the group(s) as well as the researcher(s) with a considerably stable ground and it is sparking the truly dynamic moralo-psycho-intellectual developing process(es) to search for a better level(s) of acceptable certainity and a more credible tested knowledge in a process continuous progress as we have explained earlier.
Our model doesn’t only rebuild an integrodynamic-interactive connection between the aspects of information / knowledge identified theoretically and practically in light of scientific determinism; but this TMPT Model / theory has its correlated links with philosophy via studying and/or evaluating the information in light(s) of philosophy of science as well as the philosophy of monotheistic religion(s) and whether these information could bear within itself any developmental facts to stand in the support of human scientific knowledge. If knowledge is identified as an existance and an information upon the foundation of energy {E} [ whether it is contained within an intelligent or a non-intelligent system ] then the imaginary boundary / the applied probabilistic bound in each one of the three fields: the physical, the metaphysical and the para-physical where extrapolation of knowledge and energies can be acceptable in lights of both the scientific and the philosophic related determinism; then it makes a simple, but very intelligent and a powerful meaning to any common sense to state that TMPT Model exceeds the limitted capabilities of Darwin’s Theory and Neo-Darwinists theories in both the scientific and the philosophical fields.

The extrapolation of Darwin’s Theory, Neo-Darwinism from a psuedo-scientific and a psuedo - philosophic considerations and its applications have resulted into bloody ideologies. It regenerate Racist Human Ideologies and philosophies: as within the socio-political arena which had led to the foundation of its introduced, very questionable destructive ideological - political leagues and its bloody by-products against the human needed development in all era of conscienceness and moderate reality. Darwinism has resulted into the secretion of its own by-products including: Fascism{ Nazism, Neo-Nazism } and Communism (3,8). It even expands further its exportation into some ethnic groups adopting racism , terrorism associated with various forms of violence. In the Western World of Democratic Capitalism especially from the 19th to the 20th century ; Darwinism applications into economics, politics and sociology had obvious negative impacts and destructive applications especially involving the Third World Developing Countries; it resulted into imperialism lead mostly by Western Democratic Capitalism of the Developed world till nowadays. Darwinism significantly applies within the design(s) of economics and of banking systems.. etc. which need further studies. Darwinism applications in the scientific - philosophic related secular fields as in some era of psychology had its own negative by-products, which influenced both psychiatry and psychology, being possibly used to enforce the domination of psychology / psychiatry over religions and questionably empowering psychologists / psychiatrics over the society as superior manipulators, where many individuals claimed ‘Betray Of Psychiatry ’ against basic human rights as report(s) of the Human Right(s) Commission(s) in USA might indicate. ‘Psychiatric Darwinism Philosophy ’ - being adopted by atheists’ materialists - seemed jumping into power while drugging patients / people by billion dollars’pharmaceutical prescriptions in a rapidly growing bussiness..! Darwinists seem secularly trying - in the name of science - to displace via their psychiatric-pyschological theories - in quest- the reasonable pyscho-moral stability of man and similarly displacing the monotheistic psycho-morality which is descended in monotheistic religion(s) and within its developmental unique positive influence upon the human psycho-moral values and human normal behaviors, where it can be significantly observed within the Monotheistic Religion(s): Jeudo-Christianity and especially within Islam with its most developmental impacts and its most capable relevant approach(es) to treat psychological, social, judiciary and religious beliefs’..etc. problems. It happens in association with presenting new alternatives and solutions even in the scientific area such as economy, politics, education..etc. as well as establishing new guidelines for science such as our introduction to metapsychology and in relation to sociology ..etc. in Quran ; a matter which The Monotheistic Philosophic Theory { The Metaparaphysics Philosophic Theory: TMPT } has attempted to bring about and/or highlighted in both its theoretical basis and its practical applications. In this book, it is believed that I have tried my best in bringing of the most relevant example(s) used to moderate and to civilize our human knowledge via the study of both Islam and Qur’an as being introduced in my first book and in my second desk reference book: Surecracy.

Research work Copyrighted (C) 2008; by the author Sherif abdel-Kerim, Founder Of The International Surecratic Movement (ISM international) Canada.

References:

1.Charles Darwin’s On the Origin Of Species by Means of Natural SelectionPublisher John Murray, Lodon,UK 1859
2. The Origen Of Species , (A review)Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia: P 1-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_Origin_of_Species ; 2007
3..Harun Yehya ,Faschism - The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism :Misconception of Evolution : P220-235 Arastirma Publishing , Istanbul ,turky 2002.
4.Michael J.Behe,The Edge Of EvolutionThe Search for the Limits Of DarwinismFree Press, New York , toronto 2007.
5.William A.Dembski & Charles W.ColsonThe Design RevolutionInterVarsity Press, Illionois, USA , 2004
6. Richard Milton,The Facts Of Life: Shattering the Myth of DarwinismFourth Estate LTD Publisher, London , UK 1992
7.Mark Hartwig,Missing Evidence: P1-2, ARN Access Research Network Http: //www.arn./org/docs/hartwig/mh_missingevidence.htm
8. Harun Yahya,Darwinism and Materialism: P 1-6,ECHEAT: ‘ It’s Not Cheating, It’s Collaborating ’Free Essay Downloaded - by the writer- http: //www.harunyahya.comto http:// www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=32467
9. Wikipedia Encyclopedia,Intelligent Design,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design , 2007.
10. Henery M.Moris ,(Founder and former President of the Institute of Creation Research)Evolution and the Pope : P1-6the Pope’s accepts Evolution ! October 22,1996,http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-pope-acceots-evolution.htmUnited States of America.
11. Doug Linder (2004),The Vatican View of Evolution: The story of Two Popes,Http:// www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
12. Leslie E. Orgel,The Origin of Life on Earth, Scientific American , volume 271: P78October 1994, USA.
13. Michael Behi,

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design InferenceAn original paper presentation in C.S.Lewis Society, Cambridge University, USA in summer 1994.
14.Soly ZuckermanBeyond The Ivory Tower: page 19, 75-94Toplinger Publications, New York 1970.
15. Charles E.Oxnard,The Place Of Australopithecines In Human Evolution: Grounds For doubt.Nuture,Vol. 258: page 389., USA.
16. Allan Walker, Science Volume 207, 7 March1980, page 1103.A.J.Kelso, Physical Anthropoogy , first Edition: page 221 , J.B.Lipincott Company, N.Y. (1970)M.D.Leakey,Olduvai Gorge Vol.3: p 272 , Cambridge University Press (1971),
17.Jeffery Kluger,Not So extinct after all: the primitive homo erectus may have survived long enough to coexixt with modern humans ; Time ,issue 23rd December 1996.
18. Stephen Jay Gould,Natural history, volume 85 : Page 30 (1976) USA.
19.Stuart Freedman and John Clauser,Experimental Test Of local Hidden Variables TheoriesPhyscal Review Letters Volume 28 , pp 938, year 1972.
20. Abdullah Yusuf Ali,The Meaning of THE HOLY QUR’AN : page 723,Amana Publications , Maryland ,USA 1989.

Surecracy Reviews The Controversy Within The Intelligent Design Theory (Evangelicalism) and Darwin's Theory / (Neo-Darwinism) Delusions In Evolution:

Recently; Surecracy has taken its own approach to independently evaluate - other coexisting systems of thoughts and/or of believes, which are dominating to give and to address to the public some answers to the usual repeated question that most of the individual(s) and people ask : From where we came or originate into life upon Earth ? Are we created by a superpower (God) or Have we evolved in such physical world - naturally - randomly by chance and/or necessity ?! .. In every society and/or culture people got - since the beginning of human history - various answers or no reasonable answer at all leading many of them sometimes to atheism ..!

Surecracy has focused itself presently - in the North American / European community - upon the observation(s) that there are two major leagues trying to jump over everybody: one is representing pseudo-scientific assumptions - in quest - manipulated by Darwin's Theorists and Neo-Darwinists / Neo-Darwinism as well as the second other league lead by pseudo-theologists, pseudo-philosophers supported by some evangelical scientists leading the Evangelicalism / Creationism Movement(s) whom are adopting Their Intelligent Design Theory in Western Democratic Societies and in the presence of the associated Catholicism linked to Rome ..

Surecracy focused in this short article upon the presence of any controversy to the human intellectual and/or psycho-moral conscienceness with what is being collected - in terms of provided knowledge - under our observation where it is floating onto the surface while being linked directly and/or indirectly to Democracy; which created as a secular system a split between the state and and the moral belief with its education, a split between science and religion as well as a split within the integrity of human conscienceness. Reactionary to such a split that happened since old Rome and Athens.. In this particular aspect regarding origin of man, the Western Philosophies trying to intervene to bias human theological relevant consciencesness played a significant part upon Monotheistic Realism and the truth within the monotheistic Messiah resulting - as for example not for limitation - into the formulation of Catholicism, Protestantism, evangelicalism ..etc. - to found the religion belief just upon faith not upon a relevant moralo-psycho-intellectual monotheistic balance.. On the other hand the materialistic intellectual side lead by pseudo-scientists - especially whom are anti religious - tried to find also through their imaginary assumptions; an answer as from where life and man originated ? Each side seem to bring about more controversial issues to any normal stable human conscienceness where it is significantly noticed that each side fail to fill the gaps needed with enough evidences to accept their claims as we may explain later on within our summarized Surecratic Claim and Argument.

The International Surecratic Movement,

Copyrights (C) 2008, Calgary, Canada.