The Cocktail - Why Allah Creates Flightless Birds
May Allah's Peace and Mercy
be upon you
In the episode, "Caught you"
we discussed this claim:
"Therefore.. therefore, there are
defects in creation.
You will even find defects in the
structure of humans... and animals...!
You may think: 'May Allah forgive me!'
Yes, there are defects and, till now
none of them have been
proven to be otherwise."
We mentioned that such claims
include a logical fallacy called
shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proving that randomness
and unintentionality can bring about
such design and precision in organisms
falls on them not us!
Moreover, they cling to what
they claim are 'defects'
then ask you to prove
that they are not
We showed, in detail
how it is becoming increasingly clearer
—through true science—
that what they call 'defects'
in the design of the retina,
the extra appendix,
and the vas deferens
are, in fact, amazing proofs
of mastery and precision
Our examples today, dear viewers
are from the animal world
and the surprises here are even bigger
than those of the previous episode
They say: Animals have defects and
redundant organs which indicates
that they were not designed
by an All-Knowing Creator
What use are wings for flightless birds?
What use are pelvic bones for whales?
Today, we'll discuss wings and
leave the unique and amazing story
of the whale's pelvic bones
for the next episode
Wings in flightless birds
They say:
"What are these wings for?
An ostrich has wings but can't fly, right?
The emu has wings but can't fly
neither can the rheas. Why is that?
The penguin also has wings and can't fly
and Galapagos have wings but can't fly!
Of course they can't answer.
They'll scratch their heads and wonder:
'Indeed. Why?'
Evolution tells you the answer is easy."
Wait a minute!
Before hearing the answer from evolution
I did indeed scratch my head
then took the time to do some research
and ask the penguin:
"Is it true what some say
about you and me?
That we have defects and useless organs?
Or is it all lies and deceit?
I, for one, found out in the previous
episode that what they call
defects and redundant organs
in my human body
was all lies and deceit.
How about you?"
The penguin didn't say
—like the poet Eliya Abu-Madi—
"I don't know"
but said (figuratively):
"Come with me on this journey
—courtesy of the BBC—
to learn the answer."
The penguin went on...
"For me to live in the
extremely cold polar climate
my body must be full of fat
And to maintain my body fat
I need to fish underwater."
But, Mr. Penguin!
How can you dive underwater
with so much body fat;
which should make you float?
The Penguin answers:
"See these so-called 'useless' wings?
Check out how they function
Watch me flap them to dive
through the water at high speed
deeper and deeper
just like a bird flying high in the sky
Look how I use my wings
to steer right and left as I please."
But... how do you launch out
of the water at such rocket speed?
The penguin replies:
"See these same wings;
which they claim are useless?
They are amazingly designed!
Look what I can do
I can first swim up to the surface
and splash around
Do you know why?
To fill my wing feathers with air bubbles.
This is aided by special glands
that coat my feathers with
an oily waterproof substance
Look at the tiny bubbles gathering
between the feathers
When I dive again
the water will compress my wings
and the trapped bubbles.
This reduces my body's density
which allows me to reach the water surface
at an astounding speed
while releasing the air bubbles;
just like a jet plane!
The bubbles also reduce
the friction between
me and the water which facilitates my exit
So with my wings, I dive to earn my bread
and with them, I launch out of the water
Without these so-called 'useless' wings
I wouldn't even be able to live!"
"This is the creation of Allah. So show Me
what those other than Him have created.
Rather, the wrongdoers are clearly astray."
(Quran Translated Meaning 31:11)
We didn't even mention the design
of the circulatory system that supplies
the penguin's wings with energy
or the special properties of
hemoglobin and myoglobin
that help the penguin stay underwater
for 20 minutes straight
or the bone density of the wing, which
enable diving and launching back up
See how the things portrayed
as shubhas (doubts) are transformed
—by science— into new evidence
for the Greatness of Allah Almighty
We observed this in the retina
and other organs (in the previous episode)
And we see it again in the penguin's wings
which the myth disciples
present as a shubha (doubt)
when, in reality, it is a sign of
greatness, wisdom, and ability
What about the ostrich?
It also has wings but can't fly
Try to watch a documentary
on ostriches
and you'll see how this bird
—which can run at 80 km/h—
uses its wings as brakes
to reduce its speed
and make sudden turns during chases
or when escaping predators
and how it uses its wings to scare off
the animals attacking its eggs,
for parading around
during mating, etc.
Then, after all this, go back
and listen to them as they say:
"The Creationist cannot explain to us
why these birds have wings,
yet, can't fly!"
Moreover, dear viewers
note the "circular reasoning" fallacy
as they speak about birds' wings
Circular reasoning
is a well-known logical fallacy
where the proof of the claimant
is the thing he's trying to prove
i.e. the claim is the evidence itself
When these people say
that these wings are useless
We ask, "How do you determine
if they're useful or not?"
They'll answer, "According to whether
they aid survival or not;
based on natural selection
These wings do not help the animal survive
and therefore have no benefit
So, they must have come about by blind
chance; not by wise design."
Meaning, they assume
that the myth of evolution is true
and that its survival criterion
—i.e. what's useful for survival—
is the right criterion
so, they conclude that
these wings are useless
because they don't aid in survival;
as they claim
which means
there is no intentional creation
Therefore, evolution is true!
Circular reasoning at its best!
This is similar to saying:
"I am an honest person!
So, if I say that I do not lie
then my claim is true.
Therefore, I am honest."
The evidence is derived
from the claim itself!
We say:
The harmonious belief system
which is compatible with true science and
free from your fallacies
tells us that the Creator
sometimes creates things for beauty
as He said about some animals:
"There is beauty for you in them
when you bring them home to rest
and when you take them out to graze."
(QTM 16:6)
Even if we assume that the wings
and tails of beautiful birds
like peacocks and others
don't help them survive
Let's also assume that you've examined
the birds' emotions and sexual desires
and proven that wings and tails
do not help in mating
It enough that they show any sane person
that such beauty must have a Creator
So how about when we realize
that these wings
are not only aesthetically pleasing
to us (His servants)
and useful to the birds
but also crucial to their survival
as we saw
in penguins and ostriches
Finally, dear viewers
I thought long about
the title of this episode
We usually explain a logical fallacy
or psychological manipulation
and give examples of it
In previous episodes, we discussed:
1. "mixing the myth with facts"
2. "let me do the thinking for you"
3. "Address them as children"
4. "Shifting the burden of proof"
What should we call today's claim:
Wings are for flight
and since penguins and ostriches can't fly
then their wings are useless
This is proof that living organisms
came about through chance evolution?
After what we've learned
what should we call such statements?
Are they another example of:
"address them as children"
where they patronize their followers?
Or an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy
as they're either ignorant or pretending
to be about the body parts of organisms
and using their ignorance as evidence
Or a "God of the gaps" fallacy
where they fill their knowledge gaps
by attributing actions to the myth?
In other words, since these wings are
useless, then what else could it be
other than evolution
which produced these wings?!
Or is it a "false premise" fallacy
where they start with a premise about
the uselessness of these wings
then come to conclusions
based on that premise;
without giving the listener
a chance to check its validity
Or is it the "circular reasoning" fallacy
we explained earlier?
Or is it the fallacy of
"shifting the burden of proof"
where they ignore all examples
of mastery and fine-tuning;
not only in living organisms
in general
but also in the very animals
whose wings they use as shubhas (doubts)
So, instead of proving that chance,
randomness, and blind selection
can produce all this
they shift the burden of proving
the wings' function unto us
Or is it "...Darkness upon darkness!..."
(QTM 24:40)?
I am seriously undecided on
what to call what they're doing!
so I leave the answer to you
Peace be upon you