Episode 30 - The Cocktail - Evolution Myth Followers' Question: Why Would God Create Birds with Wings That Don't Fly?

Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.

In the episode of "Ahrajtuk," we discussed the statement: "Therefore, there are flaws in creation. You will find flaws even in the composition of humans, flaws in the composition of animals, I seek forgiveness from Allah, there are flaws, and it is not yet proven that they are flaws." We mentioned what this claim contains from a style called in the science of logical fallacies: "Shifting the Burden of Proof."

The burden of proof falls on them to demonstrate that randomness and lack of purpose can result in all this precision and design in organisms. They cling to things they claim are flaws, then demand that you prove they are not flaws. We explained in detail how it becomes clearer and clearer - with the correct science - that what they claim are flaws, such as the retina of the eye, the appendix, and the vas deferens, are in fact exquisite evidence of precision and perfection.

Our example today, brothers, is from the animal world, and its surprise is greater than the surprises of the previous episode. They say to you about animals: "There are errors and redundant members that indicate that they did not come with the design of an omniscient Creator. What is the use of the wings of birds that do not fly? What is the use of the hind bones in the whale? What is the use of the excessive length of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe?"

Let us address one of these points today and postpone the second and its unique shocking story for the next episode.

Wings of Birds That Do Not Fly

They say: "What is the purpose of these wings? The ostrich has wings and does not fly, right? The emu has wings and does not fly, the rhea does not fly, why? And the penguin also, with wings and does not fly, and the Galapagos cormorant with wings and does not fly. Why?" Of course, he will remain silent and scratch his head, why? Indeed.

Evolution tells you: the answer is simple. No, before we hear the evolutionary answer, I scratched my head indeed and tasked myself to research, and I asked the penguin: Is it true what some say about me and you? That we have flaws and useless members? Or do you see what they claim is false and slander and defamation?

As for me, I saw in the previous episode what they claimed about the errors and redundant members in my human body is false and slander and defamation, so what about you? The penguin did not answer me with "I do not know" in the manner of Ilias Abu Madi, but he said to me in his own language: Accompany me on a journey in this video produced by the BBC to know the answer.

The Penguin: Wings for Diving and Ascending

The penguin said to me: Even though I live in the extremely cold polar regions, my body is full of fat. And to maintain this fat, I must go down into the water to hunt.

But, penguin! How can you go down with your body full of fat that will make you float on the water? He answered me: Have you seen these wings that they say are useless? Come see what I do with them. Look at me as I strike the water with them and dive deeply into the sea at a high speed, just like a bird in the sky. Look at me as I use my wings to direct myself left and right as I wish.

But... how did you manage to get out of the water with such rocket speed? The penguin answered me: Have you seen these same wings that they claimed are useless? They are designed in a wonderful way. Look at me, what will I do. I will ascend to swim and play at the surface of the sea first, do you know why? To fill my wing feathers with air bubbles, my glands that secrete a fatty substance that repels water help with that.

Look at the air bubbles as they gather between the feathers, then I will go down into the water again so that the water can press my wings and the bubbles they contain, and this reduces the density of my body. Now, I can ascend to the surface of the sea at an enormous speed, releasing air bubbles as if I were a jet plane. These bubbles reduce the friction of my body with the water, making it easier for me to exit.

With my wings, I go down to earn a living, and with my wings, I ascend, and if it were not for my wings, which they claimed are useless, I would not have lived at all. (This is the creation of Allah. So show Me what those whom you worship besides Him have created. Rather, the wrongdoers are in clear error) [Luqman:11].

This, and we have not spoken about the design of the circulatory system that supplies the penguin's wings with energy, about the specific characteristics of the hemoglobin "Haemoglobin" and myoglobin "Myoglobine" pigments that help the penguin stay underwater continuously for 20 minutes, about the density of his bones and wing bones that enable him to dive and ascend.

And look, brothers, how what some consider a suspicion turns, through science, into new evidence of the greatness of Allah the Almighty. We saw that in the retina of the eye and others in the previous episode, and here we see it in the wings of the penguin, which the followers of superstition took as a suspicion, and it is full of verses of greatness, wisdom, and power.

The Ostrich: Wings for Maneuvering and Defense

What about the ostrich? It has wings and does not fly. Task yourself, O questioner, to follow a documentary to see this bird, whose speed reaches 80 kilometers per hour, how it uses its wings as brakes to reduce speed and sudden turns during chases or escape from predation. How it uses its wings to frighten animals that attack its eggs? And for display during mating, and others, and others.

Then, after all that, go and listen to them say: "Now, the creationist or the design advocate cannot explain to us why these birds have wings and do not fly."

Circular Reasoning Fallacy

In addition to all of this, brothers, notice the circular reasoning fallacy in the discussion about the wings of birds. Circular reasoning is a well-known fallacy in the science of logical fallacies, in which the claimant makes his argument from the same claim he wants to prove, meaning the claim is the same as the conclusion.

When these people say that these wings are useless, what makes you judge that they are useful or useless? They will say: helping the animal to survive according to the concept of natural selection. These wings do not help the animal, and therefore they are useless, and therefore they came about by blind chance, not by wise design.

Meaning, they assumed that the myth of evolution is correct, and therefore its criterion for what is useful and what is not useful is a correct criterion, which is its help in survival. So they judged that these wings are useless because they do not help in survival according to their claim, and therefore there is no intentional creation, so evolution is correct. This is circular reasoning. It is like me saying to you: I am truthful, and because I am truthful, if I tell you that I do not lie, I am truthful in this claim, and therefore I am truthful. The evidence is taken from the claim itself.

So we say to them: The consistent and coherent faith system, free from your fallacies, says that the Creator creates things for beauty, and He said about some kinds of animals: (And for you is beauty in them when you bring them in [for pasture] in the evening and when you send them out [to pasture] in the morning) [An-Nahl:6]. So even if we assume that the beautiful wings and tails of birds like peacocks and others do not help in survival, and even if we assume that you have learned about the feelings of these birds and their sexual inclinations and proven that they do not help in mating, it is sufficient that they indicate to the reasonable that there is a Creator for this beauty. So how, when we see that these wings are not only beautiful for us, the servants of Allah, and not only useful for these birds, but they reach the point of being essential for their lives as we saw in the penguin and the ostrich.

Conclusion: Multiple Fallacies

In conclusion, brothers, I was truly hesitant in giving a title to this episode. We are accustomed to mentioning a logical fallacy or a psychological trick, then giving examples of it. In previous episodes, we mentioned the style of mixing superstition with facts, the style of "use your brain and talk to them like children," and "shifting the burden of proof."

What do we call their statement today: "Wings are for flying, and since the penguin does not fly and the ostrich does not fly, then their wings are useless." This indicates that living beings came about through random evolution. What do we call this talk of theirs after what we have seen?

Is it another example of "talk to them like children," which they use to belittle the minds of their followers? Or is it the fallacy of appealing to ignorance, where they ignore or dismiss the function of a part of a living being's body and make their ignorance an argument? Or is it the fallacy of the God of the gaps? They have gaps in knowledge, which they fill by attributing actions to superstition, meaning that since there is no use for the wings, it must be evolution that brought about these wings.

Or is it the fallacy of misleading with false premises? Where they start with the premise that wings are useless, and lead the listener to conclusions they arranged based on this premise without giving him a chance to examine the validity of the premise itself? Or is it the fallacy of circular reasoning as we explained? Or is it the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof? Where they ignore all examples of perfection and precision, not just in living beings in general, but in the same animals whose wings they used as doubts, and instead of proving that randomness, chance, and blind selection can bring about all of this, they shift the burden of proving the function of birds' wings onto us. Or is it darkness upon darkness?

I was truly hesitant, brothers, what do I call it and I leave the answer to you. Peace be upon you.