Episode 10 - Darwinian Blind Faith in Explaining Innate Phenomena
Introduction: Blind Darwinian Faith
Peace be upon you. In this episode, we answer the question: Has any of the natural phenomena been proven to have evolutionary causes? Or do atheists and evolutionists have blind faith that fills their gaps in knowledge?
When atheists deny the existence of God, and consequently deny that there is a natural disposition that God has created in people, they fall into a dilemma where they do not have an explanation for any of the natural phenomena, such as the tendency towards religion, moral tendencies, the feeling of purpose, free will, and instincts. These are phenomena that appear to be non-material.
Therefore, they have sought material explanations for these phenomena and claimed that all of these phenomena have material causes within the framework of Darwinian evolution. Either the specific natural phenomenon is the result of a certain gene or a group of genes, or it arises from other characteristics related to genes that nature has selected, or the specific natural phenomenon or natural phenomena have been selected Darwinian without knowing how this phenomenon appeared in the first place, but it appeared and then was selected.
The question is: Is their claim based on scientific evidence? As for the third possibility, "we do not know how it appeared," it is a reference to the unknown, a statement that atheists do not accept from believers in God in explaining phenomena.
Natural Phenomena and Material Explanation
The explanation that can be examined and tested is linking natural phenomena to genes. To claim that a certain characteristic in a being is related to a certain gene, there are specific scientific methods to prove the existence of this relationship.
Linking to Genes: Scientific Methods
The first method is the addition of a gene (Gene Insertion) to a fertilized egg or the deletion of a gene (Gene Deletion) and monitoring whether this leads to the appearance or disappearance of a certain characteristic. This is possible in animals, such as what is called knockout mice (Knockout Mice). However, it has not been done in humans, in addition to the fact that it involves complex factors such as compensatory mechanisms (Compensatory Mechanisms) that may compensate for the deleted gene, for example.
The possible method in humans is to conduct a genetic scan and prove that individuals with a certain characteristic or tendency have a gene that others who do not have this characteristic or tendency do not have, or that they have genes that are represented (Expression) differently from others in what is known as epigenetics (Epigenetics), for example. This method has linked some physical characteristics and diseases to genetic causes.
Darwinization of Everything: Natural Phenomena
So, we return and say: Atheists and Darwinists have carried out a process of "Darwinization" (Darwinization) of everything, and among the things they have Darwinized are natural phenomena. There is a long list of books based on this premise, such as: "The God Gene," "The Evolutionary Basis of Moral Tendencies," "The Evolutionary Basis of Freedom," "A Darwinian View of Parental Love," "The Evolution of Sexual Desire for Mating," and many others.
Now, let us go beyond the claim of Darwinists that there are characteristics that appeared in ways we do not know but were selected, because the phrase "we do not know" is not a science that can be tested. The remaining link is to genes. So, based on the scientific methods presented to prove the genetic relationship with characteristics, is there any scientific evidence for the claims of these authors? Has any gene responsible for any natural tendency been identified?
Critique of Darwinian Claims
Absence of Scientific Evidence on Responsible Genes
The shocking answer: No. Rather, these are claims without any scientific basis, meaning blind Darwinian faith. These books go beyond the question of "Is there a material cause for the natural phenomenon?" and consider the answer to it as settled and the existence of it as an assumed truth, and move on to topics such as discussing the evolutionary benefit of the existence of the natural phenomenon in barren constructive speech.
Criticism of Darwinists Themselves
This Darwinization of everything without evidence has been criticized even by some atheist Darwinists themselves, including the atheist Darwinist professor of environment and evolution Jerry Coyne (Jerry Coyne), where in his book titled "Why Evolution Is True?" Coyne said: "There is an increasing and disturbing tendency among psychologists, biologists, and philosophers to Darwinize every aspect of human behavior, turning those studies into a collective scientific game. Reshaping the ways things might have evolved based on wide imagination is not science, it is just storytelling."
The Case of "The God Gene" by Dean Hamer
Well, as an exception, we see Dean Hamer (Dean Hamer), unlike other authors, who spoke about a specific gene to explain the tendency towards religiosity in humans. However, this Hamer, as we will see, is a failure of claims without evidence, but rather his claims are denied by other researchers. His book "The God Gene" was based on a single study that was not published and whose results were not repeated by any researcher after him who tried to replicate it, as Carl Zimmer (Carl Zimmer) stated. Even some atheists themselves mocked his claims, saying: "There is no God and no God gene."
The Complexity of the Relationship Between Genes and Characteristics
The truth is that those who claim that a specific gene can be found linked to a certain natural tendency are either ignorant of the science of genes in a shameful way, no matter what titles of doctorates they carry, or they are deceiving their audience. Our information from years ago about the relationship between genes and characteristics is much more complex than we thought, as in this scientific paper published in the well-known journal "Nature" in 2008, which shows that the decoding of the genetic code in the "Human Genome" project disappointed our hopes, where we found that even physical characteristics such as height and mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, which appear to have a genetic link, even these cannot be attributed to a gene or even to a specific group of genes, and that the matter is much more complex than what was studied in schools and universities.
Other studies state that a single behavioral characteristic may be linked to thousands of genes, each contributing a minor contribution to this characteristic. Despite this, studies acknowledge the inability to determine these hypothetical genes, if we grant them that there is an association in the first place. The matter is clearly very complex and ambiguous.
Nevertheless, people like Hamer come to tell you "the God gene," and you see in the Western media headlines like: "This specific gene determines whether you will vote for Republicans or Democrats," in simplifying the issue, trivializing, and deceiving people's minds. We do not wonder that these funny claims pass through the minds of some young people far from the scientific atmosphere, but it is really surprising that these claims are circulated by people who have the minimum principles of scientific research or doctors or students in the medical and biological fields.
Darwinian Fallacies and Blind Faith
Before I continue, I would like to say: I do not see any theoretical objection to the idea that God Almighty may create in humans genes that enable them to form natural tendencies. We have explained in the fourth episode of the series why, if this is indeed the case, it is another evidence of the existence of the Creator and His greatness.
The Flaw in Materialistic Interpretation
However, the truly flawed, the extremely flawed, is that materialists base their interpretation of natural phenomena on the existence of these genes or on evolutionary methods that have not yet been discovered as an alternative to the existence of the Creator, and they do not have any evidence for them. They deny what all evidence points to based on something for which there is no evidence.
The flaw is that atheists deny our spiritual belief in the existence of Allah, for which there is evidence, while they have no qualms about believing in the existence of these genes or explanations that have not been discovered and for which they have no evidence.
The flaw is that atheists claim that our belief in the existence of the Creator is a way of filling in the gaps in knowledge, meaning that we do not know the cause of some phenomena, so we assume the existence of Allah to explain them. This is not correct in the Islamic doctrinal system, while atheists practice this blind Darwinian faith to explain phenomena that their materialism has failed to explain.
They denied the existence of the Creator, so an alternative was necessary, the materialistic alternative that denies the soul and innate nature. So, they built on this alternative theories, claims, stories, wrote books, and gave lectures on nothing, on a great illusion. Is there a more blind faith than this? Is there a greater renting of the mind than this? Is there more scientific bias and preconceived judgments than this?
Contradiction with Reality and Experimental Science
These accusations that they hurl at Muslims, is there anyone more deserving of them than these atheists and Darwinists? They claim a conflict between Islam and reality, and a conflict between Islam and experimental science, even though in their statements, for example: "There is no free will in a human being, but genes move him," the peak of contradiction with reality is revealed, which imposes that man has free will no matter how much they deny it, and the disrespect for experimental science is evident in the claims of genes without evidence. All of this is the price of opposing the natural evidence of the existence of Allah the Almighty.
Conclusion: Deception in the Name of Science (Prelude to the Next Episode)
We have thus come to the end of our discussion on natural evidence, and we do not want to elaborate much and deviate from the topic. However, we would like to mention an example of the deception practiced by atheists and Darwinists in the name of science, which is the justification of sexual deviance by claiming the existence of a genetic basis for it. Let us see one last example of the taxes of denying the innate human instincts and attempting to explain them purely materialistically, which we will discuss in the next episode, God willing. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.
Conclusion: Deception in the Name of Science (Prelude to the Next Episode)
We have thus come to the end of our discussion on natural evidence, and we do not want to elaborate much and deviate from the topic. However, we would like to mention an example of the deception practiced by atheists and Darwinists in the name of science, which is the justification of sexual deviance by claiming the existence of a genetic basis for it. Let us see one last example of the taxes of denying the innate human instincts and attempting to explain them purely materialistically, which we will discuss in the next episode, God willing. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.