Why Does the Theory of Evolution Contradict Islam
Our problem with the "theory" of evolution
isn't that it denies independent creation
as some may think
Therefore, when the myth disciples say:
"You deny the theory of evolution
for religious motives",
we say, "True"
"So you have no problem
with guided evolution?
Do you have a problem with the concept
that Allah created organisms
from a common origin?"
"What if the theory of evolution is
proven to be true in the future?"
Peace be upon you
This question is asked
after every episode:
"Why do you assume that
the theory of evolution
conflicts with Islam?"
Now that we've scientifically and
thoroughly discussed this topic
we'll summarize the answer for you
We promised you that these episodes
would be methodological
and that they provide the principles
for sound reasoning
So, our answer in this episode
and what follows
will follow these principles
Allah willing
Some of what we'll say today
will be brief like headlines
to which we will provide more detail
and evidence in the following episodes
First, it is very important to know
what we're talking about specifically
so that both of us are referring
to the same thing when we say:
"the theory of evolution"
The theory of evolution does not
simply mean that organisms
descended from a common ancestor
Rather, it means
that they descended
from this common ancestor
through a series of coincidences
without intent
and without the need
for an All-Knowing All-Capable Creator
This is the common denominator
for all variations of the theory;
from its initial form by Darwin
and throughout all its subsequent
modified versions
as we explained in detail in the episode:
"Worshippers of Microbes"
The most prevalent form of this theory
is that organisms descended
from a common ancestor
through random changes
and blind selection
To be concise, when we say
"the theory of evolution" in this episode
we are referring
to this most prevalent form
Some disciples of the theory deny
the randomness of change
and/or the blindness of natural selection
Yet, they insist
that there is no creation or intention
because they want to be consistent
with their material explanations
for the universe and life
We saw in the episode:
"Has Materialism Hijacked Science?"
how they were not able
to remain consistent
and needed to resort to foolish Unseens
instead of the true Unseen:
that there must be a Creator
This is the de facto meaning
for the theory of evolution:
Creatures without a creator!
This is what we have repeatedly
called a myth;
the most ridiculous and stupid
idea in history!
We've shown in the past 24 episodes
the multitude of logical fallacies
and deceptions employed to embellish
this myth and make it appear scientific
Our problem with
the theory of evolution
is not that it denies the independent
creation of organisms, as some may think
But that
—by its very definition—
this theory destroys the mind,
interjects deviated inferences,
and falsifies science!
Therefore
when the myth disciples say:
"You deny the theory of evolution
for religious reasons",
we say: "True"
We deny your myths for religious
reasons because our true religion
is based on addressing a sound mind
So, if the mind is lost
religion is lost alongside it
Also, protecting the mind
is a necessity in our religion
as it is the basis for accountability
while your myth can only survive
by destroying the mind
Therefore we must, for religious reasons
guard the mind against your myth
Yes, we deny your myth
for religious reasons
because in our religion
natural science leads to Allah
and causes us to fear Him
It can only be founded
on the sources of knowledge
that stem from the system of belief in
the Creator, as explained in the episode:
"Has Materialism Hijacked Science?"
So if one is lost
the other is lost too
While your myth cannot exist
without the falsification of science
When we demonstrate the invalidity
of your myth, we are protecting
the mind, knowledge, and religion;
collectively!
Well, why not try to reconcile
the myth —with its randomness
and purposelessness—
with belief in the Creator;
by assuming some role for the Creator
in the emergence of the universe and life
while keeping randomness and blindness
as pillars of the theory?
Our answer is that
this is an attempt to reconcile
the most ridiculous idea in history
with the biggest truth in existence;
an attempt to reconcile materialism
which specifically aims
to exclude the Creator
with a system that is based on
the necessity for a Creator
We will show that any attempt
to graft Darwin's tree
with a branch from the system
of belief in the Creator
will produce rotten deformed fruit
including the distortion
of the Names and Attributes of Allah
(deviating from their true meanings)
which creates doubts in the Quran
and eventually leads
to disbelief in Allah!
We will also show that those
who combine chance and randomness
with some role for the Creator
are following in the footsteps of Darwin
on his journey to assassinate the mind
and gradually interject his myth
This is our stance
on the theory of evolution:
It is invalid by innate nature, mind,
science, and religion
As a reminder, we use the word
'science' instead of ilm (knowledge)
to affirm that knowledge is not limited
to observational and experimental science
So, deductions of the mind are ilm
as is authentic testimony;
as we showed in the episode:
"Has Materialism Hijacked Science?"
After this explanation
some might say:
"Is this your biggest problem
with the theory of evolution:
the issue of randomness and chance
and that there is no Creator?
Fine, we agree with you
So, you should have no problem
with 'guided evolution'?"
What do you mean by 'guided evolution'?
"That Allah created organisms
from a common origin with Intent
and Will;
without randomness or chance."
This is no longer evolution
and has nothing to do with
the theory of evolution
whose followers agree
on denying the Creator
and agree that all this diversity,
integration, and harmony
in organisms is unintentional;
just a series of coincidences
based on random changes
and blind natural selection
and they claim flaws in design
due to the absence of Intent
When you say 'the theory of evolution'
it doesn't only mean 'common origin'
but also includes all such absurdities
When you say:
'evolution guided by a creator'
it means: no creation with
the guidance of a Creator
which is a self-contradictory phrase
It is absolutely wrong to normalize
the term 'theory of evolution' thus
especially since the war of terminology
is very impactful
and the disciples of the evolution myth
rely heavily on misleading terminology
This is our stance on guided evolution
It is a self-contradictory term
which is therefore invalid
"Ok, let's set guided evolution aside;
do you object to the idea
that Allah created organisms
from a common origin?"
Let's first agree that we're done
with the topic of evolution
and that the answer to the question:
"Must there be a creator?" is: "Yes"
as proven by innate nature,
the mind, and ilm
Then, we moved on to the question:
"How did the Creator create?"
So, we've buried the word 'evolution'
and none of our current discussions
have anything to do with it
We are now discussing
the method of creation
which is the opposite of 'evolution'
Our question is:
"How did this creation happen?"
Logically, everything is possible through
the Absolute Power of the Creator:
creating organisms from a common origin,
creating each independently,
or keeping some without change
while diversifying others
How would science answer such a question?
Science would say:
"Sorry, this isn't my area"
Why?
"Because science is confined to
observations of tangible things
or their effects in our seen world;
while the formation of the first organism
is in the realm of the unseen
which falls outside the sphere of sense,
observation, and experimentation."
The separation of the two worlds:
the unseen world and the seen world
is a fact indicated by the sources
of knowledge —including science—
as there must be a first cause
for matter, energy, and the laws
studied by science:
A first cause that dominates everything
and is not dominated by anything
Matter, energy, and laws are simply
concepts and inanimate constructs;
they do not create or perfect anything
Similarly, the method
of initial formation of organisms
is outside the known laws
of the universe and precedes them
It precedes the reproduction of animals
from male and female
as the chain of reproduction
must have a beginning
This is deduced by the mind
and investigating the beginnings
is a matter of the unseen
But can't we deduce
by examining fossils and
their distribution
across the earth's strata;
by investigating the similarities
across organisms,
their geographical distribution,
and the differences and similarities
in their genetic material;
can't we determine from all of this
whether the first creation
was independent
or from a common origin or origins?
The answer, dear viewers
is that the same result
can be arrived at
in more than one way
If two organisms are similar
then logically they could have been
independently created as similar
or one of them could have been
produced from the other
There is no way to narrow it down
to any single possibility using science
One of the basics of experimental science
is that when I produce
a chemical compound in the lab
following specific steps;
the most I can conclude is that
these steps produce this compound
If I later find out that there is more
than one way to produce this compound
and that someone else was able
to produce the same compound
I cannot conclude that they produced
it using the same steps I used
as they could have produced it
through other reactions
This is a recognized and agreed-upon
scientific principle
If the discussion on the results
of any scientific experiment
is in conflict with this principle
the research and conclusions
will be rejected
This is for compounds with
well-determined preparation methods;
so how about the unseen
first creation of organisms;
completely different from human actions
and unlimited by human choices?
You might say:
"Why did you allow yourself to invalidate
the theory of evolution with science
but now you refuse to use science
to prove or disprove
the methods of creation?"
We repeat, dear viewers
There are two questions:
1- Must there be a Creator?
2- How did the Creator create?
The theory of evolution which says
there is no need for a Creator
closed the door to the unseen
and searched for explanations
for life
in the seen world
We have shown throughout this series
that these explanations are invalid
by mind, innate nature, and science
The theory confined itself to
explanations from the seen world
so we used its evidence and tools
against it
We also showed how science
—which the theory claims to respect—
is innocent of it
and destructs it from the core
Then we showed how
—instead of acknowledging the true unseen—
the theory resorted to assumed unseens
that we demonstrated as foolish
While, when we said that
explaining the beginning of creation
is outside the sphere of science
we used innate nature, mind, and
science to answer the first question:
Yes, there must be a Creator
All these sources of ilm,
including science show that
He is a Creator with Absolute Power
and Absolute Will
and that His actions are not subject
to material laws
Rather, the laws are simply
descriptions of some of His Effects
that we observe in the seen world
As for the unseen, it does not lie
in the domain of science
Rather the domain of science is
the seen world and the cosmic laws
which the Creator decreed
for the universe and life
How do we know then?
How do we know if the Creator created
organisms from a common origin
or created them independently?
How do we know the answer
to this question about the unseen?
I'm now directing my words to Muslims
who believe in the truth of the Quran
because up to this point in
"The Journey of Certainty"
we haven't discussed the proof
that the Quran is from
the Creator of the universe
The answer, brothers and sisters
is that the things which
which can't be determined
by mind or science
can only be answered
by authentic testimony
For us Muslims, the evidence
—which we'll discuss later—
proves that the Quran is from Allah
Only Allah, Glory be to Him, can inform
us about His method for creation
if He wills
Do the verses detail the method
of creation (for creatures in general)?
The answer is no
They seem to indicate
that Allah has kept this knowledge
exclusively to Himself:
"I did not make them witness to the
creation of the heavens and the earth
or to the creation of themselves..."
(Quran Translated Meaning 18: 51)
Revelation informs us
about some of this unseen
such as the original substance
for the creation of Adam
It is a manifestation of Allah's Wisdom
that the truth of the Quran's testimony
about the creation of the first man
is confirmed by the verses
on the observable world;
later verified by science
such as the stages of fetal development
You may ask: What about the verses
which can be translated as:
"Say, [O Muhammad], 'Travel
through the land and observe
how He began creation'..."
(Quran: 29:20)
Don't you see that this verse
encourages us
to venture into the unseen world,
study what happened
before the seen world,
and discover the methods
for the first creation;
through observation and science?
The answer is that Allah does not
demand the impossible from us
and this verse has many beautiful
meanings that we'll address
in a future episode, Allah willing
There is no need to ignore
all these meanings and
give the verse an interpretation that's
contrary to a clear rule in the Quran:
Do not trespass to the unseen
without valid proof
We reiterate: As Muslims, we have
our organized sources of knowledge
and each has its limits
We do not impose science on the unseen
Say, for example, that we find traces
of Adam himself, peace be upon him;
would we be able to find a material
explanation for the origin of his life?
A mass of clay was created, a soul
breathed into it, and it came to life;
a unique method preceding
the law of reproduction
of its offspring
through ova and sperm cells
Jesus, peace be upon him
created bird forms from clay
and blew into them.
They become birds by Allah's Will
If we find traces of these birds
would science be able to know
the "material secret" of their creation?
Or would all this
be a futile mixup?
When the disciples of the evolution
myth denied this distinction
between the unseen and seen worlds
and imposed science on both worlds
they turned it into pseudoscience and
produced absurd explanations
for the origin of life;
as we saw
Does that mean that examining fossils
(for example) is useless?
On the contrary, we benefit
by contemplating the Power of Allah
Who created organisms in so many
complex forms, a long time ago
It helps us see that nowhere
above the earth or beneath it;
at any time in the present or the past
is there any trace of randomness,
blindness, confusion,
or failed attempts
to produce the organisms
Anyone who looks for such traces
will fail
Exploring the fossils gives us
an outlook of learning and contemplation;
instead of wild guesses
involving the unseen!
To summarize the stance
on the method of creation:
Logically, the Creator
is Capable of anything
As for science
this method not its domain
Religiously, we abide by
what is stated in Revelation:
the Quran and the authentic Sunnah
Is it our aim in
"The Journey of Certainty"
to examine the verses and Hadiths
about the beginning of creation
of organisms
to see if they indicate a specific method?
No, that's not our aim
as it is not a basis
for building certainty
In a future episode we will
draw attention to the danger
of molding the meanings of verses
to suit the myths of pseudoscience
as such methods result
from an absence of certainty
and they also destroy certainty
Once we set these rules, dear viewers
we will realize the problem
with many of those
who try to match Revelation
to science
with regard to the emergence of
organisms and many other topics
We will review a few such examples
in future episodes, Allah willing
Some try to invalidate
the authenticity of Revelation's accounts
of the unseen through science
or through myths attributed to science
Others seek validation for the
accounts of the unseen through science
or through myths attributed to science
This trend, even though
it appears to be an affirmation
of Revelation and the Quran;
is false
Some say:
"Rescue Revelation by stretching
its interpretation
before it's invalidated by science"
and want us to view Revelation
as verses with fluid meanings;
easily molded to fit the latest myths!
Far be it from Allah's words!
They made pseudoscience
the yardstick for unseen matters
that can only be known
through Revelation
All of them, despite their different
methods, have three problems:
1- They did not differentiate between
science and the myths attributed to it
2- They not only imposed science
on the unseen world,
but also forced these myths on it
3- They also did not appreciate Allah's
words, which can be translated as:
"...And indeed it is
an unassailable Scripture,
no falsehood can approach it
from before or behind it;
It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom,
Worthy of all Praise." (Quran 41:41-42)
So it cannot be
invalidated by falsehood;
or validated by falsehood
or interpreted through falsehood
It is a majestic dominant ruling book;
sovereign and not subservient;
a leader that is led by none
"Surely this Quran is a decisive word,
and is not to be taken lightly."
(QTM 13:86-14)
Not as the followers of falsehood
would like it re-interpreted
or adapted to suit their myths
They raised the myths from
their swamp
and tried to pull down Revelation
from its exalted status
to bridge the gap between them
If you understand what we discussed
you will know that the question:
"What if the theory of evolution is proven
to be correct in the future?"
contradicts the most basic axioms
in the philosophy of science
because science will never provide
—now nor in the future—
proof for something outside its scope
let alone provide proof for a myth
that opposes all the sources
of knowledge
upon which science is based
This is our answer to the question
on the beginning of creation
May the peace of Allah be upon you