← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you. The question that was asked with every episode: why do we assume that the theory of evolution conflicts with Islam? Now, after we have discussed the topic in detail scientifically, we will summarize the answer for you. As we promised you that these episodes would be methodical, establishing rules for thinking, our answer in this episode and the following ones will contain much of these rules, God willing.
Some of our speech today is brief, akin to titles, and we will elaborate on it and mention the evidence for it in the following episodes.
It is very important at the beginning to know: what exactly are we talking about? Because when it is said (theory of evolution), I might be talking about one thing, and you might have something else in mind.
The theory of evolution does not simply mean the descent of organisms from a common ancestor; but their descent from this common ancestor by a series of accidents; without the intention of anyone, and without the need for an omniscient and omnipotent Creator. This is the common denominator between the theory in its original form, which was produced by Darwin, and all the modifications that have been made to it since then until today, as we have explained in detail in the episode: (Worshippers of Microbes).
The most widespread form of this theory is the one that claims that this descent from a common ancestor was through random changes and blind selection. For brevity: if we say (theory of evolution) in this episode, the intended meaning is this most widespread form.
There are followers of the theory who deny the randomness of the changes or the blindness of the selection, and yet insist that (there is no Creator nor intention). And all of them in this want to be in harmony with their materialistic foundations in explaining the universe and life, and we have seen in the episode: (The Abducted) how they were unable to achieve harmony; but were forced to speak of foolish ghibah instead of the true ghibah, about the fact that there must be a Creator.
This is the technical meaning of the theory of evolution: creatures without a Creator. And this is the one we have repeatedly said is a myth, the most foolish and stupid idea in history. And this is the one we have shown through the past 24 episodes how much of the logical fallacies and deception that have been practiced to dress it in the garb of science.
Our problem is not with (the theory of evolution) that it denies the independent creation of creatures as some people think; but our problem with it is that with this definition it kills the mind and consolidates the crooked arguments and falsifies science.
Do you deny (the theory of evolution) for religious reasons? Then we say: Correct, we deny your myth for religious reasons; because our true religion is based on addressing the correct mind, so if the mind is lost, the religion is lost with it. And because preserving the mind is a necessity of our religion; the mind is the basis of accountability. While your myth only expresses the demolition of the mind, so it is necessary - for the sake of our religion - to protect the mind from your myth.
Yes, we deny your myth for the sake of our religion; because natural science in our religion points to Allah, calling to His fear, and it is based only on sources of knowledge emanating from the system of faith in the Creator as we explained in the episode: (The Abducted). If one is lost, the other is lost. While your myth only expresses the falsification of science. So when we prove the falsity of your myth, we are preserving the mind, science, and religion together.
Okay, what if we try to reconcile the myth - with its randomness and lack of intention - with belief in the Creator? By assuming a role for the Creator in the origin of the universe and the origin of life and its diversity, but while maintaining randomness and blindness as pillars of the theory?
The answer is that this is an attempt to reconcile the stupidest idea in history with the greatest truth in existence. An attempt to reconcile materialism - which wants to exclude the Creator specifically - with the method that is based on the acknowledgment that there must be a Creator.
We will show that any attempt to graft Darwin's tree with the tree of belief in the Creator will produce extremely distorted fruits, including atheism in the names and attributes of Allah, meaning distorting them from their original meaning, which leads to doubt in the Quran and to disbelief as a final result. Likewise, we will show that the proponents of this confusion between randomness and chance; and the existence of a role for the Creator are chewing on Darwin's steps through which he was able to kill the mind and gradually pass on his myth.
This is the position on (the theory of evolution): false innately, rationally, scientifically (science), and religiously. And we mention that we use the word (science) instead of science to confirm that science is not limited to science based on observation and experimentation; but what the mind indicates: science, and the true news: science, as we explained in the episode (The Abducted).
After this explanation, I feel as if someone is saying: So is this your biggest problem with (the theory of evolution)? Randomness and chance and that there is no Creator? Okay, we agree with you, so you don't have a problem with (guided evolution)?
What do you mean by "guided evolution"? That Allah created beings from a common origin with intention and will, not randomly or haphazardly?
This, my brothers, is no longer evolution and has no relation to the theory of evolution, which its proponents agree negates the action of the Creator within it. They say: there is no purpose in the existence of beings with this diversity, nor is their integration purposeful, nor are their members purposeful; but rather, it is coincidence upon coincidence. It is based on the randomness of changes, the protection of selection, and claims design errors due to the lack of intention.
When you say "theory of evolution," it is not just about a "common origin"; rather, it includes all these distortions. When you say "guided evolution" from a Creator, this means: "no creation" with guidance from the Creator. It is a self-contradictory statement. It is never correct to associate the term "theory of evolution" in this way, especially since the war of terms is very influential, and followers of the myth of evolution heavily rely on manipulating terms.
This is the stance on guided evolution, a self-contradictory term, and contradiction is false.
Alright... without guided evolution, creating beings from a common origin? Let us agree first that we have finished the topic of evolution, meaning we have agreed on the answer to the question: Is a Creator necessary? And we answered "yes" - the answer indicated by innate disposition, reason, and science - and moved on to the question: How did the Creator create? Meaning we buried the word "evolution," and our entire discussion now has no relation to it.
We are now discussing the method of "creation"; the concept that is against "evolution," and our question: How was this "creation" done? It is possible for the Creator to bring beings from a common origin, or to create each one independently, or to keep some as they are and vary others.
Alright, from the perspective of science? Science will tell you: We apologize for not being specialized. Why? Because the field of science is to observe tangible things and their effects in the witnessed world that we live in. However, the manner of the initial formation of beings is a matter of the unseen, not subject to sensation, observation, or experimentation.
The existence of a division between the two worlds: the unseen and the witnessed world, is a fact indicated by sources of knowledge, including science. It indicates that there must be a precursor to matter, energy, and the laws that science studies, a primary cause that dominates everything and is not dominated by anything. Matter, energy, and laws; meanings and inanimate objects: they do not create, nor do they excel, nor do they innovate.
Similarly, the manner of the initial creation of living beings is outside the customary laws of life, preceding them. Preceding the reproduction of animals from male and female; for a series of pairs must be interrupted at the beginning, this is a rule dictated by reason. The manner of finding this beginning is a matter of the unseen.
But, can we not deduce from examining fossils and their distribution across layers, the similarities between beings and their geographical distribution, and their genetic material: their differences and similarities, can we not deduce from all of this how the first creation was either independent or from a common or shared origin?
The answer, my brothers, is that the single result in all of this can be reached by more than one method. If two beings are similar, it is possible for reason that they are independent creations that are similar, or that one was produced from the other, and there is no way to limit the two possibilities to one through science.
One of the fundamentals of experimental science is that if I enter the lab and follow specific steps to produce a chemical compound, the most I can say is that these steps lead to this compound. If I know that there is more than one way to produce this chemical compound, and then I see the same compound in someone else's hand, I cannot judge that they produced it with the same steps as me; they may have produced it through other reactions.
This is a scientific principle that is accepted and practiced, and if any researcher builds a discussion of their scientific results - for any experiment - on anything other than this basis, their research and conclusions will be rejected. This is for compounds whose methods of preparation can be known, so how about the initial unseen creation of diverse beings? Which is not like human actions and is not limited by their choices.
You may say: Alright, why did you allow yourself to refute the "theory of evolution" with science, and now you do not want to refute or prove the methods of creation with science either?
We return and say, my brothers, these are two questions: Is a Creator necessary? And how did the Creator create? The "theory of evolution" says: No, there is no need for a Creator. It closed the door to the unseen with that and went on to require explanations for life from the witnessed world. We have proven in the episodes of the series - from its beginning until now - the falsity of these explanations: by innate disposition, reason, and science. The theory committed to the witnessed world as a single explanation, so we bound it with that and refuted it with its evidence and tools. We showed that the science it claimed is innocent of it, rather it demolishes it from its foundations. Then we proved that the theory was forced, instead of opening the door to the true unseen, to assume unseen matters whose foolishness we explained.
As for when we say that science is not specialized in explaining the manner of the first creation, we answered with innate disposition, reason, and science to the first question that: Yes, a Creator is necessary. These sources of knowledge all indicated - including science - that He is an absolute Creator, of absolute will, and that His actions are not subject to material laws, but laws are only descriptions of some of His actions that we see in the witnessed world; as for what is in the unseen, it is not the domain of science, but its domain is the witnessed world and the cosmic laws that the Creator has arranged the universe and life upon.
Alright, so how do we know? How do we know if the Creator brought beings from a common origin or created them independently? How do we know the answer to this "unseen" question? Here, my speech and answer are directed to Muslims who believe in the authenticity of the Quran; because in this station of the "journey of certainty," we have not yet discussed the evidence that the Quran is from the Creator of the universe.
The answer, my brothers, is that matters that reason and science cannot determine their nature have no answer except through the truthful report. We, as Muslims, have been indicated by the evidence that we will discuss later that the Quran is from Allah. He alone, glorified be He, can inform us of the manner of creation if He wills.
Did the verses clarify the manner of creation for beings in general? The answer: No. Rather, it is as if they indicate God's monopoly on this knowledge: "I did not witness their creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their creation of themselves" [Al-Kahf:51]. Nevertheless, revelation has informed us of something from this unseen, such as the origin of the material from which Adam was created. And from the perfection of God's wisdom is that He reassured people of the truth of these unseen news by mentioning evidence from the witnessed world that can be observed through science, such as the stages of the formation of the fetus.
You may say: But what about the saying of Allah the Most High: "Say, 'Travel through the earth and observe how He began creation.'" [Al-'Ankabut:20] Do you not see that this verse encourages us to cross the threshold of the unseen and speak about what happened before the world of testimony, and to reach the methods of the first creation through observation and science?
The answer - brothers - is that Allah does not burden one with the impossible, and the verse has many beautiful implications that we will discuss in an upcoming episode, God willing. There is no need to abandon all these implications and burden the verse with this meaning that contradicts a well-established rule indicated by the Quran, which is the stopping of man at the threshold of the unseen.
And we return to say: We, as Muslims, have organized sources of knowledge, each with its limits. We do not impose science on the unseen. For example, if we were to find traces of Adam - peace be upon him - himself, would we be able to find a material explanation for the emergence of life in him? A mass of clay that was then a breath of spirit became teeming with life, a unique way preceding the year of reproduction from eggs and sperm.
Isa - peace be upon him - used to create from clay in the form of birds, then he would blow into it and it would become a bird by the permission of Allah. If we were to find traces of these birds, would it be within the scope of science to know the material secret of their formation? Or would this be futile and a mix-up?!
When the followers of the (myth of evolution) denied this distinction between the world of the unseen and the world of testimony and imposed science on both, they turned it into a false science and came up with funny statements to explain the origin of life as we have seen.
So, does looking at fossils - for example - not help at all? It does help you to contemplate the power of Allah who created beings in various and complex forms from ancient times. It helps you when you see that there is no trace of randomness, chaos, and failed attempts to produce beings above the earth, below the earth, in the present, or in the past. And whoever searches for a trace of that will return with his sight empty and helpless. It helps you to look with the eye of a beneficiary thinker, not the eye of the rejecter of the unseen without evidence.
This is the conclusion on the manner of creation:
Is it our purpose in the (Journey of Certainty) to investigate the verses and hadiths mentioned in the beginning of creation to see if they indicate a specific manner? No, this is not our purpose, as it is not one of the fundamentals of building certainty. Rather, we will warn in an upcoming episode about the danger of adapting the verses to fit the myths of false science; because this behavior is contrary to certainty and harmful to it.
If these rules are established within us - brothers - we will realize the problem faced by many of those who speak about science and revelation regarding the first appearance of beings; and in other topics as we will see examples of them in the upcoming episodes, God willing.
Among them are those who try to undermine the credibility of the unseen news in the revelation with science or with the myths attributed to science. And among them are those who try to seek credibility for the unseen news from science or the myths attributed to science. And this direction, although it appears to be a belief in the revelation and the Quran, is also false.
And among them is he who says: Understand the revelation through interpretation before science refutes it. And he wants us to deal with the verses of the revelation as if they are fluid in meaning, malleable according to the emerging myths - far be it from the speech of Allah - and made science the ruler and the revelation the ruled in matters of the unseen, for which there is no way to know except through the revelation.
All of these - despite the diversity of their directions - are united by three problems: They did not distinguish between science and the myths attributed to it; then they did not only impose science on the world of the unseen, but they also imposed these myths on the world of the unseen, and then they did not appreciate the speech of Allah as it should be appreciated. "And indeed, it is a mighty Book. Falsehood does not approach it from before it or from behind it; a revelation from a Wise, Praised One" [Fussilat:41-42]. It is not refuted by falsehood, nor does it testify to its truth with falsehood, nor is it interpreted with falsehood. It is a mighty, dominant, ruling Book that is not ruled, a leader not led. "Indeed, it is a decisive word, and it is not a jest" [At-Tariq:13-14]. Not as the jesters want in its interpretation and adaptation to fit the myths, so they raised the myths from their swamp and tried to lower the revelation from its heights to bridge the gap between them.
And if what has preceded is established within you, you will also know that the question: What if it is proven in the future that the (theory of evolution) is correct? This question contradicts the simplest axioms of the philosophy of science. Because science will not come to you in the present or in the future with evidence of something outside the scope of its research, let alone come with evidence of a myth that contradicts all the generators of knowledge on which science is based.
This is our answer to the question: (The First Creation). And peace be upon you.