← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you.
On December 2, 1991, "free" elections were held in a sisterly Arab state to determine whether the people wanted to renew the presidential term of His Excellency the President, and naturally, His Excellency had no competitor, but rather the voter had to choose between agreeing or disagreeing with His Excellency the President. The elections resulted in His Excellency the President winning with a percentage of 99.99%.
In the same manner, and with the same credibility, we hear that 97%, 98%, 99% of Western scientists support the theory of evolution. A statement claimed by scientific websites supporting the myth, and repeated by some.
Dr. Nidal Qassoum says: "Why don't we say 98%, 99% of scientists in the world: biologists, and others... chemists, physicists, astronomers... accept this theory and are absolutely convinced by it?"
And Dr. Adnan Ibrahim adds: "In a statistic conducted in 1995, it states... that approximately 99.85% of 100%, meaning almost 100% except for a few... 99.85% of American geologists and biologists support the theory of evolution."
So, these ratios are repeated by some as one of the evidence for the validity of the theory, on the basis that if the Western scientific community—which is characterized by absolute freedom, scientific integrity, and neutrality—is almost entirely convinced by the theory, then it must be true. Let's get to know some of the documented facts that will shock you and completely change your impression of this rosy picture! Then, I will tell you about my personal experience regarding the freedom of expressing one's position on evolution at the American University where I studied.
We will start with a film: "Expelled" (The Expelled), in which the American Jewish lawyer Benjamin Stein conducted interviews with doctors and researchers who were dismissed from their jobs and deprived of scientific research support simply because they doubted the "theory of evolution." Will we take everything mentioned in the film as a given? Of course not, my brothers, but I followed up on the stories mentioned in it and looked into the responses of the followers of the theory to know the truth.
To understand the interviews, the term "Intelligent Design" will be repeated, which means that the universe and life did not come about by chance, randomness, or blind selection, but rather there must be someone who designed it.
Dr. Richard Von Sternberg: A specialist in evolutionary biology, he worked as an editor for a scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. He published an article by Dr. Stephen Meyer, which proposed that Intelligent Design could be the explanation for the origin of life. The head of the department described him as an intellectual terrorist because he gave the subject of Intelligent Design some credibility. Dr. Sternberg was dismissed from his office, his religious and political affiliations were investigated, and he was pressured to resign, or at least, according to the account of the myth followers, he was not offered a job as a researcher at the institute, and his scientific life ended at this point. Dr. Sternberg used to publish research, but after that, no job and no research. Because he dared to publish an article that touches on the sanctity of the myth.
Dr. Caroline Crocker: An immunopharmacology specialist at George Mason University. She mentioned Intelligent Design in a biochemistry class, so the head of the department summoned her and told her that she would be disciplined. "You will be disciplined" And at the end of the semester, she lost her job. She tried to find a job elsewhere, but she found herself as if she had been put on a blacklist by the evolution lobby and its extended network, so no one appointed her. Followers of the myth say: No, but she found a job in a community college. I will not go into the life story of each of them, my brothers, but it is enough to know that she was academically harmed for opposing the myth.
Dr. Michael Egnor: A neurosurgeon and academic professor. One day, he dared to write an article stating that doctors do not need to study evolution in response to an article published by the myth followers. The Darwinian lobby attacked him and practiced intellectual terrorism with obscene insults, and calls flooded the university administration suggesting that it was time for Dr. Michael to retire.
Professor Robert Marks: A professor of electrical engineering at Baylor University. When the university discovered that his research was related to his belief in Intelligent Design, the university forced him to return and refund the grant allocated for his scientific research, and they closed his research page on the university website so that he could not request support from any other institution for his research.
Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez: An astronomer who worked at the University of Iowa and was distinguished, and published in major journals such as Nature, Science, and Scientific American. One day, he dared to publish a book entitled: "The Privileged Planet" which mentions that the Earth was created with care and purpose, so he was expelled from the University of Iowa State in 2005, and gave this advice to those who think of daring to state that the universe was created with care and purpose. And this doctor remained expelled from university work and research for 8 years, no university dared to appoint him, then he was finally accepted at Ball State University, so the Darwinian lobby was enraged. But Dr. Gonzalez pledged that he would not teach Intelligent Design in his lectures. And the university confirmed that it would monitor Gonzalez to ensure that he would not raise this topic again, as in the magazine "Science." Meaning the man repented, my friends, he repented and will not say again that the universe was created with care and purpose. He will not oppose the claim that it is a universe that came about by blind chance without a goal, purpose, or an actor, so they gave him a chance!
After all this, do not be surprised, my brother, when you learn that some scientists refused to show their faces in the documentary film "Expelled" for fear of losing their jobs. These are some excerpts from the film: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." Do not be intelligent. You have to bow to the myth's sanctity and do not even hint that the universe was created with purpose and will, or else, the fate awaiting you is expulsion from the university, perhaps not being appointed in other universities, stopping research support, stopping promotion, defamation, criticism, attack, mockery, and describing you as an intellectual terrorist. These are inquisitions belonging to the myth, which remind us of the church inquisitions.
I was wondering... Chemists who know that more than 90 natural elements have been discovered in this existence. Their neutrons and protons are arranged in nuclei of a specific size with precision, attracting electrons in orbits with the necessary dimensions. These elements react with precise chemical laws to form compounds that make up the bodies of organisms. How can these scientists believe the nonsense of evolution?
Let's hear the answer from Professor James Tour from Rice University as he talks about intellectual freedom in expressing one's position on the "theory of evolution." Professor James Tour is a professor of chemistry, nanotechnology, and computer science, and is ranked among the top 10 chemists in the world by Thomson Reuters based on his outstanding achievements. He has published over 650 research papers and holds over 120 patents.
Dr. James says: "So, Dr. James tells you: someone who does not understand how organic materials are chemically composed, understands evolution, it would be easier to laugh at him with phrases like: atoms gathered and formed amino acids by chance, genetic material gathered by chance. While James tells you: as someone who knows a lot about organic synthesis, I do not understand evolution. It is an expression that those who understand chemistry see evolution as nonsense. Okay, if it is nonsense to this extent, why do not the great scientists in their fields deny it? James tells you: a professor of this stature, whispers with the great scientists in chemistry, but they are all afraid to declare their lack of conviction in the myth of evolution publicly in front of people."
We have spoken about the terrorism practiced against those who oppose the myth of evolution from biologists, astronomers, engineers, and chemists. What about geology? Michael Cremo, the geology researcher, tells you about the cases of terrorism and dismissal from work that were practiced against researchers who came up with geological discoveries that contradict the scenarios and estimates of the myth of evolution, such as Dr. Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who published her results completely opposing the myth of evolution and supporting the results of many researchers before her. She received an attack from the supporters of the myth, and Dr. Virginia was expelled from her university. She wrote to the editor of the journal "Quaternary Research," complaining about this blind attack from researchers who reject any result that contradicts their Darwinian dogma. You can hear more facts in this video by our brothers "Muslim Researchers" titled: (Michael Cremo Exposes the Manipulation of the Ages of Organisms and Humans).
Professor of law Phillip Johnson, who was an atheist and a follower of the myth, then believed in creation. He answers the question: Why do not more scientists express their rejection of the theory of evolution? He replies: "Okay, if this is the case in universities, what about schools? Do students in America learn freedom of thought? And that they have the right to question the validity of every idea, every belief? Let's see."
The state of Louisiana issued a decision that students in schools should be taught that there are two interpretations of life: the theory of evolution and creation. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana's law was unconstitutional, as it violates the freedom of belief. It considered the theory of evolution as science and creation as religion, which is prohibited from being taught. So, the deniers of the theory avoided the word "creation" and came up with the term "intelligent design." Think, dear student... Did this universe and life come about by blind chance? Or is there necessarily a creator behind it, regardless of who that creator is? What do we call it? And do we worship it or not? Let's see what the American judiciary's reaction was.
The film "Day of the Trial" produced by supporters of the theory of evolution explains what happened in the city of Dover, Pennsylvania. A school board, elected by the parents of the students, decided to add a book to the curriculum that presents another viewpoint: that the universe and life did not come about by chance. Thus, students would read in their curriculum that the theory of evolution is not an absolute truth and that it contains flaws. Some teachers and parents were enraged and complained to the American judiciary—yes, to the judiciary! Judge John Jones (John E. Jones III) presided over the trial in the case, which lasted for months, with the American public closely following what would happen in this case with great interest; it was a war between supporters of the theory and its opponents. The result of this war would determine what many schools could do afterward.
On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his lengthy ruling, which stated: "Our conclusion: It is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school classrooms." In an interview, Jones justified his ruling by saying, "If you teach the children nonsense, the result will be nonsense." It was also ruled that the parents and their lawyers should be compensated with more than a million dollars for the damages caused by those who tried to teach intelligent design as science, as these individuals were not imposed by anyone but were elected by the parents themselves. As a result of the ruling in the case, the American magazine TIME chose Jones as one of the most influential 100 personalities of that year.
Someone might tell you: You have a conspiracy theory about everything! Call it a conspiracy, not a conspiracy, call it whatever you want. When there is a complete system and a lobby that rushes to crush anyone who opposes Darwinism and honors and rewards those who support it, our question here is: Is this a free atmosphere? Or is it like the atmosphere in which His Excellency the President wins with 99.99%?
In the same documentary about this story, you will find them talking about the burning of a poster brought by one of the students, which supports the theory. They talk about its removal from the wall and its burning by unknown individuals, just as they talk about the burning or tearing down of a picture of His Excellency the President. You can imagine... how many times will the teacher think afterwards and hesitate if he thinks of referring, even just referring, to the fact that the universe and life have a creator. If it is just a reference to the error of the idea of chance and randomness, and that behind this universe there is intelligent design, in such general terms. If this leads to the dissolution of the school board, the prosecution of its members as defendants, and exorbitant fines, then what if you mention the word creation and creator! The same is true in Britain, for example, where independent schools are required to teach the theory of evolution. This is the atmosphere of freedom in Western schools.
Imagine when children are indoctrinated in schools: that His Excellency the President is the cause of all the good that exists or can exist, and generations are raised on this. Then a smart person comes out and says: There is no doubt that His Excellency the President is right, for 99% of people love him.
In America, students are asked in biology classes in schools: Do you believe that humans are still evolving? "Still evolving"? As in the book Holt Biology. Of course, the answer here is either: Yes, evolution is still happening, which is an acknowledgment of the theory, or: No, evolution has stopped, which is also an acknowledgment of the theory; because it means that it was evolving and stopped evolving. So, what if the student does not want to acknowledge that humans have undergone (Evolution) evolution at all? No, no, no, you are not allowed to think this way. And yet, where do you find this stupid question? Under the title: Critical Thinking! And thus, students' free thinking skills are taken away, with Darwinian brainwashing.
During my doctoral studies, I met a brother of Pakistani origin named Hassan Khan. He was studying at Rice University. A literature professor at the university chose for them the book "The Divine Comedy," which contains offensive drawings of our Prophet, peace be upon him. The professor also showed the students a complete video of the sexual act between a man and a woman as part of the literature course. Hassan objected and filed a complaint with the university administration, to which the professor responded and was supported by the students: that all of this is freedom guaranteed by the American Constitution. Freedom! Freedom to mock whoever they want from God and from the prophets of God! Freedom to encourage all vices under the name of "sexual freedom" to the extent that condoms are distributed in schools. Freedom of sexual deviance! Freedom to teach children and students that this universe came about by chance and randomness! But you do not have the slightest freedom to raise in the students the thought that: Students, think! Does not everything in this existence indicate that there is someone who created it and brought it into being intentionally and willingly? But it is necessary to dry up the sources of intellectual terrorism by eliminating any attempt to raise a generation that revolts against His Excellency the theory. Such is the slavery of this age, and they consider themselves free.
So, brothers, we have talked a lot about intimidation. Is there an incentive for those who bow to His Excellency the theory? Of course, imagine a poetry competition in which poets compete to praise His Excellency the President, and the winner receives a prize of one million dollars from public funds. You might find poets who describe nature in beautiful language and end the entire poem by saying: Our sky was not raised, and our earth was not flattened, and our universe was not created, were it not for you, O Sultan! It is necessary to include His Excellency's name at the end.
The same thing happens in the world of scientific research. This is what we saw clearly in the episode: "In the Era of His Excellency the Theory." When major organizations such as NASA and NSF announce grants for research in the field of the origin of life, you find them starting from the premise of evolution as an undisputed fact. Evolution has happened, no doubt, no doubt, no discussion, but what kind of evolution? Whoever is ready to find the answer, we will give him a grant. How much was this grant for the year 2017, for example? (8) million dollars. Of course, the researchers will drool and compete to obtain the grant. And the magazine Nature announces another grant of (8) million and fractions. Why? For research that discusses how the theory of evolution can be modified? It is certain that there must be evolution, but what form of evolution? So, if a researcher wants to prove the falsity of the entire theory, will he get any material support from major institutions with any hummus? No, you are not committed, you are not even alive! Which university is this that will host you, so that we can attack and have it expel you?
I remember, brothers, in 2001 when I was studying for a PhD in molecular pharmacology in Houston, America, one of the courses was titled: "Biochemical Pharmacology." It focused on the intricate, wonderful, and beautiful details of genetic material. During one of the lectures, I said to the professor and the students: "I cannot imagine how someone as ignorant as I am can believe that all of this happened by chance!" The professor of the subject became agitated, and a heated debate ensued. During the break, he took me aside and said to me: "Eiad, I cannot imagine that you will return to Jordan and teach the theory of evolution! If you do not believe in it, you are dangerous to the scientific community." "You are dangerous to the scientific community." This is how those who do not believe in the myth are threatened and suppressed. Afterwards, they talk to you about the 99%.
We have seen together in an episode: "Fraud in Science: Homosexuality as an Example" how those who criticize sexual deviants are criminalized and any researcher attempting to correct abnormal psychological tendencies is also criminalized. We have reviewed the regulations of organizations such as the World Health Organization and the American Health Organization to combat homophobia, which are similar to anti-terrorism regulations and how educational institutions are urged to promote the acceptance of deviance. We have seen the suppression of any scientific research that contradicts this and the story of Dr. Robert Spitzer as an example. We have seen this with no room for doubt that the freedom and neutrality of scientific research in America is a ridiculous myth, nothing more. And that science (experimental science) is used as a tool to impose political agendas of the dominant lobby groups. So why should anyone be surprised after all this that there is a similar fight against those who oppose the myth of evolution?
After all this, brothers, talking about the percentage of scientists who support the theory of evolution is as laughable as talking about 99.99% supporting the greatness of the president. In this terrorist atmosphere, percentages mean nothing.
This is the first point. The second point is that those who repeat these percentages, and the parrots among the Arabs, take them from websites that support the myth. And we have seen repeatedly in previous episodes that followers of the myth do not hesitate to lie to support the greatness of their myth. And what we have seen of the lie in the percentage of 99% similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes in the episode "The Cheater" is sufficient for that. Yet, we find among our own people those who are impressed by these percentages, who continue to repeat them in forums and take them as an excuse to turn off their own minds and the minds of their followers completely, and to convince them of the nonsense of the myth.
So if the followers of the myth say: the percentage of doctors is 97% or 99%, we do not believe them but we say to them: first say the percentage of scientists who appear to support the myth; whether out of fear, greed, conviction, or fleeing from the statement of the existence of a Creator to any alternative, no matter how ridiculous. Do not say the percentage of scientists who support, or are convinced, or believe in the myth. And even this percentage you lie about.
Despite all that we have seen of intellectual terrorism, there is a large number of doctors who openly oppose the myth and bear what they face of pressures, and some of them have included their names in a well-known list called "Scientific Opposition to Darwinism" and prefaced with the sentence: "We doubt the claims of the ability of random mutations and natural selection to explain the complexity of life. A thorough examination of the evidence for the theory of Darwinism should be encouraged."
The mentioned list contains a large number of senior researchers such as James Tour, Philip Skell, and those affiliated with well-known universities such as Harvard, Rice, Cambridge, and Oxford. These individuals have been able to prove themselves and impose themselves through their scientific excellence despite the intellectual terrorism of the myth's thugs. It is not an advantage for them in employment that they oppose the greatness of the myth. And this will not be something they boast about to get the job at the university or gain the favor of the myth's lobby groups. But they compensate for that with the strength of their performance and their research in their various fields, which benefit scientific institutions materially and in reputation. And this is a message, by the way, to Muslim students to excel in their studies, and to specialists to excel in their work and master it. For that is more likely to impose themselves, defend their creed, and make it difficult to bypass or marginalize them.
In addition to that, there is the role of the strong church institution in America, which is divided between those who are reconciled with the Darwinian lobby and those who fight it. This church institution also has its own budgets and influence, which creates an outlet for academic opponents of the myth. Yes, there are many doctors who announce their rejection of the myth and publish their research in that regard. And this is also an answer to some of the victims of the myth among our youth, who parrot - unfortunately - "If you object scientifically to the theory of evolution, write a scientific paper and publish it in a scientific journal" as if they have seen what is published.
Despite the lack of neutrality and despite the dominance of the Darwinian lobby, there are many peer-reviewed studies that declare the rejection of the theory of evolution and that this universe must have a design and a designer. You can find on this website [Discovery.org], for example, a list of hundreds of these peer-reviewed studies published in internationally renowned journals. And you can find on the site a summary of each of these studies. The one who parrots the words of the myth's magician will be ashamed of himself if he reads these studies and the enormous effort that has gone into them. There are also dozens of scientific books criticizing the myth, many of which are by holders of doctorates in their specialties. All of this is in the Western world that some of our youth are infatuated with. And I have not spoken about the Muslim scientists who also have their own scientific output and their mark, and who reject the myth.
By the way, brothers, I myself - and I think many of my brothers who are specialists also share this - do not sign the aforementioned petition of those who reject the myth. We do not "doubt" the claims of the ability of random mutations and natural selection to explain the complexity of life - as the petition says - but we are convinced that these claims are the stupidest and most ridiculous idea in history.
The conflict is ongoing, and followers of the myth in different countries monitor schools that oppose their myth, believe in creation, and call them a list of shame and determine their locations to work on inciting them and issuing laws to stop them. A war in every sense of the word, and the well-known magazine Nature, the patron of the myth, tracks any country that allows the teaching of creation and considers it a surrender to creationists. And some non-Muslims stand firmly in this war to the extent that one of them prefers to leave his job rather than study a false myth that contradicts his mind, his knowledge, and his religious beliefs. At the same time, we see - unfortunately - teachers affiliated with Islam in international schools teaching their students the nonsense of the myth to preserve their job, as their love for the true religion is less than the love of those for their distorted religion.
We have shown, my brothers, in this episode that there is intimidation in the scientific community practiced by the superstition lobby. When schools are forced to teach children that the credit goes to His Eminence, washing their minds from the softness of their nails, and when those who oppose His Eminence lose many job opportunities, or may even face trial, and when researchers are lured with financial support if they are thrown in the name of superstition, then talking about the proportions of supporters of His Eminence becomes ridiculous and valueless. We have also shown the truth of what some claim, that the rejecters of superstition are scattered, not paid attention to in the scientific community. The "AAAS" issued a statement in February 2006, saying: "The theory of evolution is no longer - almost - opposed." Or when they mislead you that there are no detailed, scrutinized scientific publications that refute superstition.
The most important thing of all that remains, my brothers, is the question of how to reject a theory supported by 99% of scientists? This question was objected to me when I published every episode. I deliberately delayed the answer to it after I published twenty-two episodes of detailed scientific detail to tell you: We are not parrots, nor algae on the margins of science, to look where people are going to follow them. If you, the follower, appreciate your mind and respect it, then you look at the evidence, not at the percentage of followers of a saying to imitate them. We will not conclude, as some do - unfortunately - that the percentage of support for the theory of evolution is 97%, and therefore the acceptance of the theory of evolution is directly proportional to the increase in the scientific degree. What do I do? Do I also believe in evolution just to gain this prestige and become on par with scientists?
I delayed the response to this point to see the truth with its evidence, and after that, no matter how high the percentage of supporters of superstition, this will only make us wonder at the blindness of Allah on the insights of those who turn away from Him so that they do not see the rising sun.
What harm is there in the midday sun in the horizon shining, That he who does not have sight does not see its light.
When the truth is so clear, the denial of its denier has no value, no matter how many scientific certificates he has. Knowing the truth requires the purity of the heart and the purity of the soul, not just the intelligence of the mind. We have seen in the episode: "The God of the Atheists' Gaps," how these "scientists" insist on denying the Creator, no matter the cost of following their whims and their psychological complexes from the heritage of the church and the distorted religion. If I appreciate myself and respect my mind, I will not employ people whose psychological complexes guide them. Rather, the denial of these people is another evidence of the ability of the Creator who says: "Have you then considered him who has taken his desire as his god, and Allah has sent him astray knowingly, and sealed his hearing and his heart and set on his sight a cover? Then who will guide him after Allah? Will you not then remember?" [Al-Jathiyah: 23]
Therefore, we delayed this episode, the percentage of scientists supporting and opposing is not evidence, nor an argument we argue with. Rather, arguing with numbers is a known logical fallacy, and we leave logical fallacies to those who employ and rent minds. We have talked about this percentage from the point of view: - By the way - your percentage is false, meaningless. And after what has become clear to us from the facts in the previous episodes, the expression: "The percentage of scientists supporting evolution" is a self-contradictory expression (self-defying) because it means the percentage of scientists supporting superstition. And those who support superstitions are not scientists, as we have shown in the episode: "Removing the Shubbar."
And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.