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.