Episode 21 - Evolution Theory, Darwin's Theory... Fairly

Peace be upon you...

Introduction to Darwin's Theory of Evolution

In this episode, we will evaluate together the most important pillars of what is known as Darwin's theory of evolution. Charles Darwin is an English researcher in the history of natural biology who mentioned many observations that he collected during his travels and reported from others, such as the morphological and anatomical similarities between different types of organisms and their geographical distribution patterns.

Based on these observations, he assumed that all living organisms originated from a common ancestor that underwent processes of evolution and diversification, where the organism undergoes simple, cumulative changes, and then nature selects; the beneficial changes are kept by nature, resulting in a new type of organism over thousands and millions of years! While nature, according to Darwin, eliminated an innumerable number of transitional organisms in which harmful or non-beneficial changes occurred.

In addition to the role of selection, Darwin assumed that nature contributed to the emergence of new traits in organisms; so when an animal acquires certain traits as a result of its environment, it passes these traits on to its offspring, agreeing with Lamarck's assumption that the giraffe, which is characterized by an extremely long neck, once had a short neck, but with the change in the natural conditions around it and its need to stretch its neck to eat from the top of the trees, its neck continued to lengthen generation after generation, until it became what it is today.

The most important thing in the subject is that Darwin assumed that living organisms resulted from these changes by the sum of coincidences; meaning without intention.. without intention! And in his words: "There was no plan for creation" in the discovery of these numerous species, which he confirmed in many places in his writings.

Darwin published these ideas in 1859 in a book titled: "On the Origin of Species" and then wanted to give a detailed mechanism for the inheritance of acquired traits, so after years from his book "Origin of Species" he published his hypothesis which he called "pangenesis"; in which he assumed that when nature affects the cells of an organism, these somatic cells secrete small substances that Darwin called "gemmules" which concentrate in the reproductive organs of the organism to be passed on to its offspring.

And where did the common ancestor come from, Darwin? Where did the first organism come from, which you built your ideas on and attributed all living organisms to? Darwin did not clarify this in his book! But he stated in his correspondence with the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker that his view is that the first organism originated in a warm pond from factors such as light, heat, and electricity. Meaning Darwin agreed with the idea of "spontaneous generation" which was common in his time; where it was thought that living organisms could form automatically from inanimate objects. It was thought, for example, that insects arise from food remains, and that fly larvae arise from pieces of rotting meat.

Darwin's Basic Theory Pillars

These, in brief, are the pillars of Darwin's theory of evolution:

1. A living organism is generated in some way from inanimate objects.
2. Nature gives the organism new traits that can transform it from one type to another.
3. Acquired traits are inherited.
4. Nature selects in a cumulative manner; leading to more advanced organisms, thus composing complex biological systems from simple, sequential changes.
5. The conclusion that living organisms evolved without intention or will from an intentional, knowing actor.

On this basis, Darwin attributed all living organisms in the universe.

Evaluation of Darwin's Theory Pillars

And now... what is the overall evaluation of those pillars on which Darwin built this conclusion?

1. Spontaneous Generation of Organisms from Inanimate Objects

As for the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate objects, it is a myth that was debunked by experiments, the most famous of which was Francesco Redi's experiment before Darwin by two centuries, and Louis Pasteur's experiment, which was published five years after Darwin's book, in which he proved that the organisms that were believed to have been generated spontaneously from inanimate objects, such as food remains, actually came from outside the food materials with the contaminated air. To Pasteur is attributed the process of sterilization "pasteurization", and pasteurized milk.

The truth is that spontaneous generation is irrational in the first place; to imagine a living organism arising thus spontaneously from inanimate objects! Nevertheless, they insisted on experimenting! They experimented... and the myth fell by experimental science, in addition to reason.

2. Nature Causing New Traits and Their Inheritance

As for nature causing new traits in the organism through use and disuse, such as the example of the "giraffe's neck," it is also a myth that was debunked by Gregor Mendel's discoveries, who proved - after Darwin by years - that the genetic traits of offspring, no matter how many they are, will not go beyond what is originally present in the parents.

It was also debunked by epigenetic discoveries, which showed that external and environmental factors can change the way genetic material is read in an organism; to activate a trait that was dormant or suppress a trait that was active, but they do not add genetic material that was not originally present.

As for the inheritance of acquired traits, it is a myth debunked by ordinary observation; for example, the muscles of the blacksmith and the carpenter, which they acquired in their lives, are not passed on to their children. Nevertheless, Darwin's followers insisted on experimenting! They experimented... and Weismann continued to cut the tails of 19 generations of mice only to be surprised, the poor man, after much effort, by the birth of their children - every time - with tails anew! Meaning the acquired trait, which is the cut tail, did not pass on to the offspring.

3. Natural Selection According to Darwin

What remains of Darwin's theory then?! You will say: natural selection is correct! So I say to you: the correct amount of it is not an invention of Darwin, nor is it from his ideas; everyone knows that the weakest animal will find it difficult to adapt to harsh environmental conditions!

However, Darwin's natural selection went beyond that to mean - also - the occurrence of complex biological systems from consecutive, random simple changes. And in order to understand what Darwin's natural selection means, his broad imagination came up with the idea that nature, use, and neglect produced simple physical structures for ancient creatures that could have served the creature in something, so natural selection preserved it, which did not know that the accumulation of these structures would produce a complete, integrated member like the wing for the bird, or the eye for the animal.

To understand Darwin's logic in this, imagine a land full of junk, through which large numbers of the blind pass, and each of them picks up a random piece of junk, then enters a large building whose door is closed after each entrant. Millions of years passed, and the blind pick up the junk and die and are buried under the building's ground. One day, you open the building's gate, and a huge Boeing airplane rushes out of the gate, piloted by one of the blind, and flies with it in the sky!

You wondered: how did the blind man manage to make the airplane?! You were told: he did not intend to make it! Rather, what happened with the blind before him is that whoever picked up a useful piece of junk for him; persevered and passed it on to his successor! Among them, one picked up a cloth and wrapped himself with it from the cold, another picked up a flat piece of iron and shaded himself from the sun, a third picked up an airplane control from the junk and moved his food with it while cooking, and a fourth picked up a bottle and took it as a shield in his war with his enemies among the blind! And they came in consecutive times, and passed on their pieces to those who came after them, and the pieces were composed without intention, nor by the act of a doer, until this great airplane that you saw was formed! So beware, then beware, that you imagine that someone intended an airplane to be formed or to fly!

With the same logic, Darwin considered that natural selection patched the structures of living creatures blindly; for example, the wings of birds helped the bird to fly; (pseudopurpose) meaning a false goal, not a real one! And the eye's vision is a false goal; because there is no willing, choosing doer who intended the eye to see, or the wing to flutter, but all this came with the accumulation of blind coincidences!

This is the point of blind natural selection that Darwin presented to us, and in addition to its absurdity to every sound mind, scientific discoveries have proven its impossibility with the existence of irreducible complexity in every detail of creatures and their relationships; that is, the structures and members of living creatures are highly complex and integrated, so they cannot exist except with the presence of their parts at one time, otherwise they will not perform their function, and thus they are not subject to the idea of gradual formation, even at the level of the smallest living unit; the cell, which Darwin did not see under the microscope in his days except as a simple stain! Therefore, natural selection as Darwin depicts it is also a myth.

Summary and General Evaluation

On these fallacious ideas that have fallen in terms of reason, sense, and experience, Darwin built the most absurd and stupid idea in history: that all the precision and perfection we see in this creation came by chance without intention or need for science or wisdom! His fantasies remained, which seem to be his contribution to a competition titled: The Widest Imagination, in which natural scientists compete to amuse the listeners. His imagination, which resembles bedtime stories about the frog prince and the swan princess, and Cinderella's mice, who turned into beautiful castles! But with one addition that it took a very, very long time! The imagination that puts feathers on dinosaurs as they chase mosquitoes and fly.

And the imagination that jumped into Darwin's mind about the black bear swimming for hours in the water with his mouth open to let in as many insects as possible, reminding him of the whale that opens its mouth for fish to enter, and since there is a resemblance; it seems that the whale evolved from the bear in Darwin's logic! As in the "fax me" version of the first edition of his book (The Origin of Species) page 184.

Someone will say: but what about Darwin's science? What about the numerous observations he collected in his book, and the accuracy of his observation? We say: Darwin was like a program, with many inputs, but the equation that connects these inputs is wrong, so it gives a wrong result; therefore, Darwin's abundance of information and breadth of knowledge did not help.

It is very important - brothers - to understand that these observations of birds, reptiles, insects, etc., are not part of the theory of evolution, but rather our speech about the theory that Darwin claimed to be an explanation for these observations. Apart from the observations, and his formulation of the term natural selection - which is misleading to him - Darwin's new ideas are not correct, and his correct ideas are not new. Yes; Darwin's new ideas are not correct.

Therefore - brothers - it is wrong to say: "Darwin's theory had errors"; rather, Darwin's theory is originally a collection of errors; myths that reason and science have refuted, logical fallacies, and silly fantasies to reach the conclusion that precision and perfection in creatures do not require intention, will, or knowledge!

I remind you - brothers - that our episodes are methodological episodes to set the compass, a methodological rule we learned today: that falsehood is not based on falsehood, and cannot be based on correct science or sound reason, and wherever you apply this rule, you will find it applicable; we saw a model of it today with Darwin's myth "that creatures came by chance"!

Follow-up Questions

Some will ask: but did not those who came after Darwin fill the gaps in the theory and correct its errors? What is your response to the evidence from fossils? From molecular biology? From embryology? From vestigial organs? Can the theory be reconciled with the existence of God? If it is a myth - as you say - why do most Western scientists believe in it?

We will answer - brothers - in a methodological way, with God's permission, and we will start with the claim of filling the gaps and correcting the errors, which is the subject of our next important episode, so follow with us... and with God alone is the success. And peace be upon you and the mercy of God.

With God alone is the success. And peace be upon you and the mercy of God.

Response to the Claim of Filling Gaps and Correcting Errors

In the previous episode, we explained that the fundamental pillars of Darwin's theory are baseless fallacies that have collapsed both rationally, sensibly, and experientially. Today, we answer an important question: Have those who came after Darwin filled the gaps in the theory and corrected its errors?

The truth is that Darwin's followers realized that Darwin's theory—in its original form—cannot withstand scientific criticism. They began making hasty attempts to reform and modify it. These attempts led to what is known as the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" or "Modern Synthesis," which attempted to integrate Darwin's ideas with the discoveries of modern genetics.

1. Integrating Mendelian Inheritance

The first of these attempts was to integrate Mendelian inheritance after the rediscovery of Mendel's work in the early twentieth century. Scientists realized that the mechanism of inheriting traits is not as Darwin imagined with "gemmules" or the inheritance of acquired characteristics, but rather it occurs through genes that are passed from parents to offspring. This correction completely eliminated Darwin's idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which was a fundamental pillar of his theory.

But the question here is: Is this filling a gap or demolishing a fundamental pillar? When it is proven that a fundamental pillar of the structure is completely wrong, this does not mean that you have filled a gap, but rather that the original structure was flawed from the beginning.

2. Random Mutations as a Source of Variation

The modern theory also replaced Darwin's idea of nature creating new traits in organisms with the idea of "random mutations." Instead of the environment creating new inheritable traits, it is now believed that random genetic changes (mutations) are the primary source of variation on which natural selection acts.

Here too, we are faced with the replacement of an entire pillar of the original theory. Darwin did not speak of random genetic mutations as a source of variation; he believed that changes occur as a result of use, disuse, and the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

3. Natural Selection and Its Role in Evolution

As for natural selection, the modern theory retained it but with a deeper understanding of the genetic mechanisms through which it operates. However, the core problem we mentioned in the previous episode—that blind natural selection can build irreducible complexities—remains. The modern theory has not provided a convincing explanation of how highly complex biological systems could have arisen step by step through random mutations and blind natural selection.

4. Evidence from Fossils

Regarding the evidence from fossils, which is said to support the theory, the reality is different. The fossil record—despite its vastness—does not show the gradual transitional sequences that the theory of evolution predicts. On the contrary, the fossil record shows the phenomenon of the "Cambrian Explosion," where most major animal groups appeared suddenly in a relatively short period of time, without clear transitional ancestors.

The gaps in the fossil record are still enormous, and many of the alleged "transitional fossils" are in fact contentious interpretations or have been refuted later. For example, the "Archaeopteryx," which was considered a transitional link between reptiles and birds, is now seen as a complete bird with unique characteristics, not necessarily the ancestor of all birds.

5. Molecular Biology and Embryology

Molecular biology and embryology have revealed astonishing levels of complexity and integration within a single cell and in the developmental stages of living organisms. This immense complexity, which Darwin could not have imagined, makes it very difficult to conceive of the gradual emergence of these complex systems through random mutations.

For example, molecular machines inside the cell, such as the ATP synthase motor or the blood clotting system, are examples of "irreducible complexity" that we have discussed. The removal of any part of these systems makes them completely non-functional, meaning they could not have evolved step by step.

Embryology has shown that the developmental process of living organisms is highly precise and regulated, requiring precise direction of genetic information. The idea that this complex process could arise by chance or through random accumulations seems far from scientific reality.

6. Vestigial Organs

Regarding vestigial organs, which are said to be remnants of organs that were functional in our ancestors, this claim has been significantly weakened with scientific progress. Many organs that were considered vestigial, such as the appendix or the tonsils, have been found to have important functions in the immune system or elsewhere. Even if there are truly vestigial organs, their existence does not prove the mechanism of Darwinian evolution but only indicates changes that have occurred over time, which no one denies.

Reconciling the Theory with the Existence of God?

As for the question: "Can't the theory be reconciled with the existence of God?" The answer is that it is not possible to reconcile Darwinian evolutionary theory—in its essence, which denies purpose and will in creation—with belief in God, the wise Creator. The essence of Darwin's theory is that living organisms arose by chance, without purpose or will from an intentional, knowing, and choosing Creator. This directly contradicts the concept of the Creator God who perfectly and wisely creates.

Some believers have tried to reconcile the two by saying that God created the universe with natural laws, including the law of evolution. However, this reconciliation does not solve the fundamental problem, which is that Darwin's theory—in its original and modern forms—sees no need for divine purpose in the origin of species and their complexities. It offers a purely materialistic explanation that leaves no room for direct divine intervention or purpose in design.

Why Do More Western Scholars Believe in It?

As for the question: "If it is a myth—as you say—why do more Western scholars believe in it?" This is an important question, and it has several dimensions:

1. Academic and Social Pressure: In Western academic circles, the theory of evolution is considered the only acceptable explanation for the diversity of life. Deviating from this consensus may expose scientists to stigma or even job loss or loss of research funding. There is immense pressure to adopt this intellectual framework.
2. Materialistic Philosophical Background: Many Western scientists operate from a materialistic philosophical background (Naturalism), which assumes that everything in the universe can be explained by natural laws alone, without the need for any supernatural intervention. In this framework, the theory of evolution is the most consistent explanation with this philosophy.
3. Confusion Between Observations and Interpretation: Many scientists confuse correct observations (such as small changes within species or adaptation to the environment) with the Darwinian interpretation of these observations. The existence of change does not necessarily mean that Darwin's mechanism is correct.
4. Ignorance of Critical Details: Some scientists may not be deeply aware of the scientific and philosophical criticisms directed at the theory, or they may focus on their narrow areas of specialization without considering the big picture.
5. Lack of an Acceptable Material Alternative: Even if there are significant gaps in the theory of evolution, the materialistic scientific community rejects any explanation that involves intelligent design or divine intervention, considering it "pseudoscience." Therefore, they cling to the theory of evolution as the best available material explanation, even if it has shortcomings.

Conclusion

Thus, the claim of filling the gaps and correcting the errors in Darwin's theory has not strengthened the original theory but has led to the replacement of its basic pillars with others, and it still faces deep scientific and philosophical challenges, especially regarding the origin of irreducible complexity and the absence of transitional sequences in the fossil record.

This shows us that falsehood is based only on falsehood, and attempts to patch it up do not make it true.

In the upcoming episodes, we will elaborate more on these points, present more evidence and proofs of the weakness of this theory, and show how true science and sound reason lead to belief in the Great Creator.

Stay with us... And success is with Allah alone. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.