← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Friend of Muawiyah: Muawiyah. Muawiyah: Yes. His Friend: What do you know about the Netherlands? Muawiyah: Sir, the Netherlands has a football team... His Friend: No, no, the Netherlands as a country, not as a team? Muawiyah: To be honest, my information is not much. His Friend: Do you know that the Netherlands has an area of 41,543 square kilometers, but its population is only 17 million! And yet, it is the second largest country in the export of agricultural and food products in the whole world! Muawiyah: Unbelievable?! His Friend: Yes, unbelievable, and in 2011, the Organization for Cooperation and Development ranked it as the happiest country, and in terms of per capita income, it was the tenth country in terms of per capita income... Muawiyah: Honestly, I congratulate you on this information. His Friend: May God bless you, my love, I lived in the Netherlands for 5 years, in these 5 years I learned their language, I read their books, I read about their secrets of success, I read 12 books about their success and the secret of creativity that they actually have, a great civilization. Muawiyah: You are amazing, honestly. His Friend: My love, but the idea, when I read this, I came up with a theory. Muawiyah: I see. His Friend: My theory says that the secret of the Netherlands' success is the tomato. Muawiyah: The tomato?! His Friend: Yes, the tomato is... Muawiyah: Why the tomato, I mean?! His Friend: The Netherlands makes up a quarter of the world's tomato exports, and in the tomato is all the vitamin of success. Muawiyah: I see, sir, I congratulate you on this information, but I was, I mean, I believed your information, but your conclusion is not logical. His Friend: How is my conclusion not logical?! Wait a minute, when I asked you about the Netherlands, you don't know anything about the Netherlands, so since I know more than you about the Netherlands, my conclusion is the correct one.
This is what the proponents of the myth of evolution do skillfully, mixing observations with hypotheses... between facts and myths. Hours of extensive explanation about the details of life, discoveries, and research, then mentioning the myth in the margins to make it easy to swallow, to make it seem as if the facts mentioned and the myth of evolution are two parts that cannot be separated.
(In English) A package, they must be taken together, so this person says his words are scientific, and he speaks of experiments and precise observations, while the truth is that he has inserted a lie or a misinterpretation, and employed all these observations in the completely wrong direction, regardless of whether he is convinced of this lie or not.
You may discuss with one of them and he will say to you: What do you know about the finch? What do you know about the goby fish? About the Italian lizards? About the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics? And about the bacteria that digest citrates? You ask him what these examples have to do with it? He will say to you: All of these have undergone microevolution, which we see before our eyes, random mutations in the genetic material that produced by chance beneficial traits for the finch, the goby fish, the lizards, the bacteria, so they became more capable of adapting to a certain environment, and thus natural selection occurred, and all of this in a limited time.
And therefore, with hundreds of millions of years, bacteria could have evolved into all kinds of living organisms through random mutations as well, meaning if we prove the occurrence of microevolution in a few years, we can imagine that macroevolution, which results in different types of organisms, can occur in hundreds of millions of years.
And your friend will elaborate on the changes that occurred in the structures of these organisms, then he will say to you: You do not know about these things and you are discussing evolution, you ignorant! Until you feel that you are stuttering in front of this scientist who knows much more than you, and that he has built his convictions on science.
And when you examine it scientifically, you will be surprised to find that he -simply- lies or is lied to, all the examples he has gathered to make you think that they are examples of random mutations that the environment agreed to by chance, but in reality, according to scientific research, they are examples of adaptation with precise design mechanisms, with no room for randomness at all; so that you find in these organisms and in their genetic material and the way they are read the ability to change their characteristics to adapt to environmental changes in a way that indicates that they and their environment are designed by an All-Knowing, Powerful, Wise, and Sustaining Creator, as we saw clearly, brothers, in the episode of the bacteria that digest citrates, and as we will explain more later -God willing- about the other examples they mention.
While the follower of the myth claims that they are random mutations, meaning he dazzles you with the abundance of examples, and lies in the place of testimony, and the truth is that all the examples he mentioned are evidence for you, not against you.
A big mistake that even some opponents of the myth fall into is that they say: We do not deny microevolution, but we deny macroevolution, which turns one organism into another type of organism, the bacteria evolved but remained bacteria, and Darwin's finches evolved but remained finches, no brothers, no, evolution is random changes and blind, cumulative natural selection, this is how they define it, and this is the meaning of the term according to its proponents.
So when you agree with them on what they call microevolution, you are agreeing that randomness gives organisms beneficial characteristics, which is a false matter both logically and scientifically, and all the examples they provide are of exquisite, precise adaptations, with no room for randomness at all, so it is not macro, nor micro, nor nano, nor femto (in English) evolution.
It is not said here, "There is no dispute in the terminology, the names are not important," but the priests of the myth bet heavily on playing with the names, they want to appear as liberators of thought, seekers of scientific imagination, and deep thinkers when they say: microevolution occurs in years, so why does not macroevolution occur in hundreds of millions of years? So that you appear, you who deny their saying, superficial and narrow-minded, while the naming of adaptations as microevolution is in fact a distortion of the facts; adaptations are true, and microevolution is a delusion and a lie.
Adaptations mean wisdom and intention and predetermined design, and evolution means randomness and chance, so naming adaptations as microevolution is like naming science as ignorance and wisdom as frivolity, this is what we mean by mixing facts with myths, mixing observations with theory, and paying attention to it is very important, brothers, just as your friend mixed his correct information about the Netherlands with his theory about the vitamin of success in the tomato.
Mixing truth with falsehood is an old method that Allah -the Most High- condemned in the People of the Book. "O People of the Scripture, why do you mix the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know [it]?" (Al-Imran 3:71). Thus, they mix facts with the falsehood of superstition and conceal the facts that would dismantle their superstitions.
In addition, cosmic observations that point to Allah are mixed with desires, so much so that you can hardly see a documentary without it being filled with scenes that invoke instincts and distort the mind, as if it were an inspiration from Satan to his devotees so that faith does not seep into the hearts upon witnessing the wonders of creation, and the tongue does not move to say: "Our Lord, You did not create this in vain, glory be to You [then] save us from the punishment of the Fire" (Al-Imran 3:191). Instead, desire prevails and heedlessness takes over by recalling these scenes.
Therefore, the first method we spoke about, my brothers, is mixing truth with superstition. You listen to entertaining scientific talk and feel that it has added much to your knowledge, so you are amazed, then with a magical touch, this talk is used to promote superstition.
Train yourself, my brother, to distinguish between information and conclusion. What you tell me, O one who addresses me, is it a realistic piece of information or a conclusion from you? If it is information, give me the evidence for it, and if it is a conclusion, then I must verify the accuracy of your conclusion; because the accuracy of the information does not necessarily mean the accuracy of the conclusion. Be a deep critic and differentiate between truth and superstition, and peace be upon you.
(Sound effects)