Darwin's Theory of Evolution: A Fair Discussion | ِEpisode #21 | Journey of Certainty
Peace be upon you
In this episode, we'll evaluate
the most important pillars
of what is known as
Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution'
Charles Darwin is an English naturalist
who reported many observations
—some he had collected during his travels
and some observed by others—
like the morphological and anatomical
similarities between different organisms
and their geographical
distribution patterns
Based on these observations
he assumed that all living organisms
come from a common origin
through processes of
evolution and diversification
where the organism undergoes
slight cumulative changes
then nature sifts and chooses
Thus, beneficial changes
are preserved by nature
resulting in a new species;
over thousands and millions of years
According to Darwin
nature has exterminated
an innumerable number
of transitional forms
where harmful or useless
changes occurred
In addition to nature's sifting role
He hypothesized that nature contributes
to the development
of new traits in organisms
So, when an organism
acquires certain traits
—in response to the environment—
it passes on these traits
to its offspring;
in line with Lamarck's hypothesis:
that the long-necked giraffe
was once short-necked
but environmental changes
and the need to stretch its
neck to eat from the tree tops
elongated its neck across generations
until it became what it is today
The crucial point here is
Darwin's assumption that
living organisms resulted
from these changes coincidentally
in other words:
without intention
According to Darwin,
There was no plan of creation
in the production
of these numerous species
He emphasized this
in many of his writings
Darwin published his ideas in 1859
in his book:
"On the Origin of Species"
He then wanted to provide
a detailed mechanism on how
acquired traits are inherited
So, years after "On the
origin of species", he published
his hypothesis 'Pangenesis'
where he assumed
that, when nature affects
the cells of the organism
these somatic cells secrete small
particles, which Darwin called 'gemmules'
that aggregate in the
reproductive organs of the organism
and get passed to its offspring
But, where did the 'common origin'
come from, Darwin?
Where did this primordial form
—upon which you built your ideas
and to which you ascribed
all living organisms— come from?
Darwin did not explain that in his book
But, in his correspondence
with the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker
he conjectured that the primordial form
originated in a warm pond
by factors such as light,
heat, and electricity
Thus, Darwin endorsed
the notion of 'spontaneous generation';
prevalent in his time
This notion presumed that living organisms
could develop spontaneously
from inanimate objects
For example, it was believed that
insects originated from leftovers
and maggots from rotten meat
These are, in short, the pillars
of Darwin's theory of evolution:
1- A living organism somehow
emerged from inanimate matter
2- A nature that grants living
organisms new traits
that transform them
to different species
3- Acquired traits are inherited
4- A nature that selects and
compounds complex biological systems
through simple successive changes
The conclusion (the tabletop) is that:
Living organisms evolved without
intent or will from an intending
doer who knows what he's doing
And on this tabletop, Darwin loaded
all living organisms in the universe
Now...What is the overall
evaluation of these pillars upon
which Darwin established his conclusion?
As for 'spontaneous generation'
it is a myth that has been
refuted experimentally;
most famously by Francesco Redi's
experiment (200 years before Darwin)
Also, Louis Pasteur's experiment
published five years after Darwin's book
proved that the organisms
—once believed to be
spontaneously generated
from inanimate objects like leftovers—
actually come from contaminated air
and not from the food itself
Indeed, sterilization by
'pasteurization' and pasteurized milk
are derived from Pasteur's name
The truth is that it is
rationally refuted
to imagine a living organism
spontaneously emerging
from inanimate objects!
However, they insisted on
testing it
and when they did
the myth was refuted scientifically
as well as rationally
As for nature adding new traits to
an organism through use and disuse
—like the example of the giraffe's neck—
it is also a myth;
refuted by Gregor Mendel's discoveries
Mendel, years after Darwin
proved that genetic traits
of offspring, no matter how varied
will not include anything
outside the genetic pool of ancestors
It's also been refuted by
findings in epigenetics
which show that external
and environmental factors
can alter how genetic
material is read in an organism;
activating certain traits
and supressing others
but they cannot add genetic material
that didn't exist in the first place
As for inheritance of acquired traits
it is a myth
as simple observation proves
For example, the muscles
that a blacksmith and a carpenter develop
in their work
aren't inherited by their offspring
However, Darwin's disciples insisted
on experimenting with this hypothesis
Weismann, for instance
cut off the tails
of 19 generations of mice
and their offspring
only to find out
—after all that headache—
that the offspring of these
mice continued to grow tails
In other words
the acquired trait:
the severed tail
wasn't passed down to offspring
Now, what's left of
the pillars of Darwin's theory?
You will say,
"Natural selection is valid."
My reply would be
that the valid part of natural selection
is neither Darwin's invention
nor his brainchild!
It's well known that it is harder
for a weaker animal
to acclimate to difficult
environmental conditions
But Darwin's 'natural selection'
goes beyond this
to mean the emergence of
complex biological systems
from simple random successive changes
Do you want to understand what
natural selection means to Darwin?
His wild imagination
brought forth the idea that
nature and 'use and disuse'
gave ancestors
simple physical structures
that may have provided some benefit
So, natural selection saved them
without any foresight that
the accumulation of these structures
would later produce
a fully integrated organ;
like the bird's wing or the animal's eye!
To understand Darwin’s logic;
imagine a scrap landfill
which is passed
by huge numbers of blind people
and each of them randomly
picks up a piece of scrap
Then, they enter a building
via a one-way door
that shuts
after each person gets inside
Millions of years pass by with
blind people picking up scrap and
going into the building;
where they'll eventually die
One day, you open
the door of the building
and a giant Boeing plane bursts forth
piloted by a blind man
and soars into the sky!
You wonder: "How could
the blind man make the plane?"
You are told that he
did not intend to make it
but what happened is that
a blind person before him
picked up a piece of scrap
that was useful, survived longer,
and passed it on
to those who followed
One picked up a cloth
which protected him from the cold
Another picked up a flat piece of
metal that shaded him from the sun
One picked up a plane control stick and
used it to stir his food while cooking
Another picked up a sheet of glass
and used it
as a shield in his
war against blind enemies
So the blind across different generations
passed on scrap to their descendants
Then —unintentionally and without anyone's
intervention— the pieces came together
to form this great plane
that simply took off
Don't you dare
harbor the illusion
that someone intended the
plane to be built or flown!!
By the same logic, Darwin
considered that natural selection
blindly patched up
the structures of living organisms
So, for example, saying:
"Wings help birds fly"
is describing their pseudo purpose;
an imaginary purpose, not real!
Also, to Darwin, sight is
a pseudo purpose for the eye
because there is no
willing, intending doer
who intended for the eye to see
or the wing to flap
Rather, all this resulted from
accumulations of blind chance!
This is the 'blind natural selection'
joke that Darwin came up with
Apart from sounding absurd
to every sound mind
it's been invalidated by
the scientific discoveries
of 'Irreducible Complexity' in all
detailed structures (of organisms)
and their relationships
In other words, the structures
and organs of living organisms
are so complex and integrated
that all parts need to exist
at the same time
for the system to function
Thus, gradual evolution of the
different parts is not possible
even at the level of the
smallest unit of life: the cell
which Darwin saw as a mere smudge
under the microscope of his day
Therefore, the natural selection
portrayed by Darwin is also a myth!
Upon such myths
—refuted by mind, senses, and experiments—
Darwin built the most ridiculous
and stupid idea in history:
that this finely-tuned
and magnificent creation
came by unintentional chance events
and that it requires
no knowledge or wisdom!
Now, what's left of
Darwin's theory?!
His delusions
which seem like an entry
into a 'Wildest Imagination' contest
where natural scientists compete
to make the audience laugh
What's left is his imagination
which is like bedtime stories
of the Frog Prince,
the Swan Princess,
and Cinderella's mice
turning into beautiful horses!
But with one addition: the conversion
into horses required a very long time!
An imagination that puts feathers
on mosquito-chasing dinosaurs
then they fly
An imagination where a black bear
swimming for hours
with its mouth open
to swallow as many insects as possible
is likened to a whale
that opens its mouth to swallow fish
and —based on this 'similarity'—
Darwin wove a tale of
a whale evolving from a bear;
as in the facsimile copy of the first
edition of 'On the Origin of Species'
page 184
Some might say:
"But what about Darwin's knowledge?
What about the numerous
observations he collected
in his book and
the accuracy of his observations?"
My reply is that Darwin was like a
program with a large amount of input
but with the wrong equation
to link this input
thus resulting in a wrong conclusion!
Therefore
Darwin's substantial information
wasn't of much benefit to him
It is very important to understand
that these observations
of birds, reptiles, insects, etc.
are not part
of the theory of evolution
We're here discussing the theory itself
that Darwin put forth
to explain his observations
Apart from his observations
and his coinage of the term
'natural selection'
—with the wrong meaning—
Darwin's 'innovation' was invalid
while his valid input was not new
Yes, Darwin's 'innovation' was invalid
while his valid input was not new!
Therefore, it's a mistake to say:
"Darwin's theory has errors."
because Darwin's theory
is essentially a combination of errors:
Myths refuted by mind and science,
logical fallacies, and absurd fantasies
to reach the conclusion that
the fine-tuning and precision in organisms
does not require intent,
will, or knowledge!
Here I want to remind you
that our episodes
offer a methodology
to adjust your compass
The methodological rule
we learned today is:
Falsehood can only
be founded on falsehood
It can never stem from
correct knowledge or a sound mind
Wherever you apply this rule
you'll find it to be true
We saw an example
in today's episode: Darwin's myth
that 'organisms are a product of chance'
Some might wonder:
"Didn't scientists after Darwin
fill in the theory's gaps
and correct its errors?
How do you account for
the fossil evidence?
the molecular biology evidence?
The embryology evidence?
Vestigial organs?
Can't we reconcile
Darwin's theory with Allah's existence?
If it is a myth, as you say, why do
most Western scientists believe in it?"
We will answer all these questions
methodically, Allah willing
starting with the claim that
the theory's gaps have been addressed
and its errors corrected
in our next important episode
So stay tuned!
Allah is the Granter of Success
Peace and Mercy be upon you