← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you. We hear about the worshippers of cows, the worshippers of fire, the worshippers of devils, but have you ever heard of the worshippers of microbes? Have you heard of people who have reached the extent of deifying microbes with attributes of will, choice, knowledge, and creation? Come, let's see how false science leads its followers to this stage of ignorance. This episode, one of the most important episodes of the Journey of Certainty, is full of surprises, so follow along with us.
In the previous episode, we saw how three strongholds of the theory of evolution collapsed at the hands of its own followers:
Two strongholds remain: blind natural selection and random changes. Let's tighten the noose.
Discuss the "Convergent Evolution" argument using placental and marsupial mammals.
Introduce the bat and whale echolocation system as another example.
Discuss "Cichlid fishes" and the "Parallel Evolution" argument.
Critique the naming strategy of evolutionists.
Highlight the difference between a robust theory and one that constantly changes names to avoid collapse.
Present the "extraordinary coincidence" admission from Nature.
Discuss "Co-evolution" and the question of randomness.
Conclude with the admission that natural selection is "guided" and the fall of the second stronghold.
Clarify the two aspects of the question about random changes.
Present evidence from Nature articles and Professor Denis Noble's statements about mutations not being random but "directed" or "selected."
Declare the fall of the final stronghold.
Discuss the evolutionists' refusal to admit defeat despite the collapse of their theory's pillars.
Explain how "evolution" has become synonymous with "no creation."
Critique the insistence on a "no intelligent designer" conclusion.
Address the question: "Who is doing the guiding and selection?"
Show how evolutionists attribute agency to inanimate objects, laws, and even microbes (microbial intelligence, clever microbes, brainy bacteria).
Connect this attribution of divine attributes to creatures as "worshipping microbes."
Cite Quranic verse (Ghafir:69).
Draw a parallel to idol worship (rats in temples).
Mention attributing intelligence to atoms and laws (Hawking, Dawkins).
Address the argument about the high percentage of scientists supporting evolution.
Challenge them to specify which evolution they support, given the vast disagreements.
Reiterate that their stance is a predetermined, blind creed against creation.
End with a prayer and a salutation.
We ask you, followers of the theory of evolution: Are the marsupials and placentals related according to your evolutionary trees? They say, "No, their origins separated before 160 million years." So why are they very similar in shape despite their significant differences in genetic coding and biological systems? Is this the work of randomness and chance? Or is it a Creator who made it a sign of His power?
They say, "Never, never, but this is a phenomenon called 'Convergent Evolution' - convergent evolution. Meaning, unintentional random changes, but their environment was similar, so natural selection worked on them in the same way, and gave similar results in two creatures with no relation." Their environments were similar; so natural selection worked in the same way! Ah!
Okay, bats and whales, do they resemble each other? Of course not, as baby bats weigh one gram, while the sperm whale weighs 50 tons. The most important question, are their environmental conditions similar? Of course not, as bats live on land, and whales in the sea, completely different natural conditions. Ah! So it is assumed that your blind natural selection works on bats and whales in completely different ways. So why do we see common systems between them? Why do we see that both bats and whales have a very similar "Echolocation" (sonar) device, a device that emits sound waves and receives them to determine the direction of their prey? Why did this device not appear in other mammals closer to bats, according to your trees? And the closest to bats in terms of living on land? And thus the effect of your natural selection. Does this not indicate an All-Knowing Creator, who gave everything its creation and then guided it? So He gave these two creatures this device that they need.
They say: No, but this is another type of convergent evolution that works even with different conditions of natural selection. So, what about the cichlid fishes? With the phenomenon that amazed you. Fish in different lakes, yet there are great similarities between them. You say that these fish in different lakes have one origin, but they separated into lakes. If the origin is one, how do we see that this origin diversified into many forms in one lake, and into many forms in another lake, very similar to the first? We are not talking about what happened between marsupials and placentals, like a marsupial squirrel resembling a placental squirrel. We are talking about one fish that diversified into many forms - according to your words - in one lake, and a similar fish that diversified into many similar forms in another lake. If you convince someone that randomness and blindness produce two similar beings, who will you convince that they produce two similar groups of beings from one being?
They say: We will call this phenomenon "Parallel Evolution" - parallel evolution. People, we are not asking you what new name you gave your myths, we are asking for an explanation that the rational mind can accept. But this is their way! All the facts of the universe destroy your theory? No problem, give each of them a name, to make the listener feel that you are aware of these facts and yet find no threat to your theory, but rather you have found a scientific explanation and adjusted the theory to accommodate this fact. And they are fully aware of this. They explain to you the facts that destroy their myths in detail, and all of this under the title: Evolution from such and such species. So the psychological message reaches you that if there is any threat to their theory in this fact, they would have noticed it, while the reality is that they have covered up the glaring contradiction by playing with names.
Did you see our neighbor's white car? The soda you mean? Ah, I saw it. No, no, his white car. No, no, the black one and I recognized it. The soda is it, white, ya zam. That's his name, black not white. You can take from all the funny names of the theory the word evolution and put in its place the impossible, the impossible parallel, the impossible convergent, the impossible quantitative, the impossible discontinuous... and so on... You will find someone saying: This is a feature of the theory of evolution, to be malleable, to accommodate modern discoveries.
There is a big difference - brothers - between having a theory based on something, on solid pillars, logic, sense, and experience, then an observation comes that contradicts some of its details, so you modify these details to accommodate the observations. And on the other hand, that the theory is a set of fabrications, and does not stand on anything, and all the observations come to destroy its pillars and empty it of its content. And yet you insist on this theory, by changing the names and proposing more assumptions that have no evidence, just as our friend did with his theory about the conspiracy of the sons of his neighborhood.
We return to ask the followers of the theory: "We want a scientific explanation, enough names. Did the phenomenon of the cichlid fish - for example - result from randomness and blind selection?" They answer you in this paper from Nature saying: "Explaining this phenomenon by convergent evolution requires an extraordinary coincidence." And I - frankly - almost laugh at this statement. All that came before did not require an extraordinary coincidence for them, but this phenomenon itself requires an extraordinary coincidence!
When we used to tell them: Living things are a complete, complete system. There is a predator, and there is prey. And among the birds, there are those that feed on flowers and return the favor; by transferring their pollen grains to reproduce. And the long flowers have long-tongued bees to transfer their nectar. And the fig tree opens; for a type of insect to transfer its seeds to the fig flowers for the purpose of pollination, and this type of insect benefits by laying its eggs in these opening grains. And for every type of fig, there is its own type of insect. And small marine creatures clean the gills and teeth of large fish; by eating the parasites and food residues in them; so both parties benefit. And in the intestines of one human, there are trillions of diverse bacteria that he benefits from. And countless other complementary relationships. All of this is the result of ordinary coincidences?! They say: "Yes, and we will call what happened 'Co-evolution' - synchronous evolution."
Let us ask you by your names, our question is clear: Did randomness and ignorance produce all these creatures, male and female, and then produce this integration between them, in this precise, strict, and harmonious system? They said: Yes, by chance. The scientist who respects himself - brothers - follows the evidence where it leads, while followers of superstition want to drag the cart of superstition in the opposite direction of the evidence. On the other hand, they finally admitted - with the phenomenon of crustacean fish - that there is something that requires an unusual coincidence. Fine, and therefore? They said: And therefore it seems that natural selection is guided along specific routes. And as in other scientific papers, it says in summary: "It is true that natural selection has no specific goals - meaning it is blind - but it seems that evolution proceeds within certain trajectory constraints." And other phrases, even titles, such as: "Selection constraints." They even describe these constraints as: absolute or strict. Constraints, constraints, constraints. So, you are saying that blind natural selection is being guided, so it is no longer - thanks to this guidance, direction, and constraints - blind. And thus, their second fortress, the fortress of blind natural selection, has fallen.
Do you then admit the fallacy of the myth? No, they retreated to their last stronghold and said: "Changes are random, even if selection has determinants, and we will adjust the theory to Evo-Devo." Come, let us tighten the noose on them; for we have reached the first and last stronghold, the stronghold of random changes.
Are changes, such as mutations for example, random? It is important here, my brothers, to understand what is meant by the question; for it has two aspects:
The weight of the truth forced many followers of the myth to retreat from the idea of the randomness of changes. Some used phrases like: "evolutionary bias," "determinants of evolution," "Constraints on Evolution." Others stated that changes are not random, starting from this famous paper in Nature in 1988 titled "The Origin of Mutations," and as in this paper in Nature in 2014, which reviewed many phenomena, then said: "They show that variation is not random." The statements continued that mutations are not random but directed, and that this contradicts a fundamental principle in neo-Darwinism. Terms like "directed mutations" and "selected mutations" began to proliferate in research.
Professor of biology Denis Noble stated at a world physiology conference in 2013 with this dangerous statement: "So, Denis Noble says that it is difficult - if not impossible - to find random changes in the genetic material, and that all patterns of changes are not random." He reiterates this statement: "So, he reiterates that mutations are not random, and that cell proteins - or at least some of them - did not evolve through the gradual accumulation of assumed mutations."
Thus, the first and last stronghold of the myth has fallen. Neither did organisms form through random mutations, nor does their adaptation result from random changes. The last stronghold has fallen, and it has become clear that these strongholds were made of cardboard. So, when we came to see what was inside, we found it like a mirage in a lowland which the thirsty man takes for water; but when he comes to it, he finds it to be nothing. There is nothing left for the myth of evolution. There are no countless organisms left, nor the slowness of gradualism, nor gradualism itself, nor the protection of selection, nor the randomness of changes.
And consequently, what did the followers of the myth do? Did they admit the fallacy of their myth? No, Professor Denis Noble and others proposed an extension of the theory of evolution. While the paper in Nature came saying that mutations are not random under the title: "Does the theory of evolution need a review?" Oh my God! This reminds me of the sight of two doctors at a skeleton, one says to the other: Do you need treatment? The other replies: I see him fine, the pressure is good, the pulse is excellent, and the breathing is fine.
So, the followers of the myth cannot get out of the box. It must be evolution, but what do we put after the word evolution? This is what we will disagree about. There is nothing left of evolution - and yet - the predetermined ideological result remains. The blind faith that must remain is: no creation. Notice, my brothers, the word evolution in all these theories and modifications, its literal meaning has become: no creation. No creation of organisms by wisdom and will. This is the true literal meaning of the word evolution. This meaning must remain with the priests of the myth at any cost. And all paths must lead to the myth. Therefore, they conclude their comic modifications of the theory by saying: "This modified model of the theory solves Darwin's puzzling question without the need for an intelligent designer." Just as Hawking made his joke that gravity created everything, and that this dispenses with the need for a Creator. This is the result that must remain at any cost. The theory has been completely emptied of its content, its foundations have completely collapsed, and yet, the result must remain, even if hanging in the air: that there is no creation by intention and will.
Alright, after they said that changes are directed and not random, and selection is directed and not blind. The question must be asked: who carries out this direction and selection? Here, we see them attributing actions to anything material, no matter how trivial the attribution, and they do not attribute them to the All-Knowing Creator whom eyes cannot comprehend, but everything points to Him.
They attribute the direction to evolution, as in this paper in Nature, which states that evolution was able to reduce harmful mutations, meaning, it prevents their randomness. Evolution? Evolution is dead, my friends! Evolution, after its fortresses were demolished, turned out to be a ghost that was not there in the first place. Or do you - I wonder - believe in the miracles of the dead!!
And sometimes they attribute the action of selecting mutations to cells, as in this Nature paper which concluded that cells may have mechanisms to choose which mutations occur in them. Meaning, cells, before they even exist, decided to work with the appropriate mutations, decided to work with the mutations appropriate for their existence, and thus evolution occurred.
And sometimes they attribute the choice to microbes to the extent that they have reached using the term: "microbial intelligence" - the intelligence of microbes. And they define it as: the intelligence shown by microorganisms. And terms and titles like: "Clever Microbes" - intelligent bacteria, cells are incredibly intelligent, intelligent bacteria "Brainy Bacteria", bacteria choose "Bacteria choose", bacteria decide "Bacteria decides", bacteria are more capable of making complex decisions than thought, bacteria are big thinkers "Big thinkers". They even went so far as to attribute intelligence to viruses, viruses are surprisingly intelligent.
And we here - brothers - are not talking about literary expressions, but about the real attribution of acts of will and choice to microbes. Because they do not believe in a Lord who gave everything its creation and then guided it, a Lord who is watchful over His creation, and all creatures are manifestations of His greatness. So to whom do they attribute the amazing complex precise behavior that creatures show? And to whom do they attribute choice, knowledge, and creation? So they had to attribute divine attributes to creatures, even to microbes. Thus, they became - in this way - the most like "worshippers of microbes". Worshippers of microbes. "Have you not seen those who dispute about the signs of Allah - how they are turned away?" [Ghafir:69]. Have you not seen those who dispute about the written signs of Allah, and His signs observed in the universe, where they are led? And where does their obstinacy and arrogance end? How do they become microbes in human intelligence, by attributing intelligence to microbes!
In Rajasthan, India, there are temples where the deity is rats. I would not be surprised if the followers of superstition one day established temples and made their deity bacteria. Some of them even went so far as to attribute actions to inanimate particles, saying that there is intelligence at the level of particles and molecules, and that the existence of internal intelligence in matter confirms the absence of God. They even went beyond attributing actions to matter to attribute them to laws, meaning, to nothingness (nothing) as Stephen Hawking did when he attributed all creation to the law of gravity. So Dawkins praised him, saying: "Darwinism has driven God out of biology, and physics was less clear, and now Hawking delivers the knockout blow."
This is Richard Dawkins, who, as we explained in the previous episodes, has many models of his lies, deceit, delusion, and madness, and who some of the Arab charlatans say about him: - Richard Dawkins coincidentally and luckily is still excited today with this experience. A man - glory be to God - disagrees with him, agrees with him, the man is a scientist, he has the mentality of a scientist, the feelings of a scientist, he sanctifies science, is delighted with science, rejoices in science, it's not normal. These are the scientists who enlighten the sons of Muslims. And thus does desire do to its people, when they make disbelief in the Creator a goal, then they volunteer everything to serve this goal. People who have decided in advance not to believe "And the signs and warnings avail not a people who believe not." [Yunus:101].
In conclusion - my brother - when the followers of superstition try to impress you with the proportion of scientists supporting evolution, far from lying in the proportion - as we will see, God willing - ask them the following simple question: the proportion you mention, 98%, 99% supporting which evolution exactly? We saw in the previous episode how different they are, and they are also very different in terms of the details of today's episode. Are mutations random or non-random? Is selection directed or non-directed? They are very different in that. So say it openly, you want to tell us: that this proportion of your scientists insist in advance that there should be no creation, and then they do not agree on anything. And look, how blind and predetermined is this position!!
So may Allah guide those who hear us from the sons of Muslims who have been affected by the pollution of superstition. Guide us and guide them to the truth by Your leave. You guide whom You will to a straight path. And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.