← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you. Human evolution from lower creatures, this is what the theory of evolution claims. However, the Quran states that we are the children of Adam, whom Allah created with His own hands, and from him, He created his wife. Here, various viewpoints have emerged among Muslim believers in the theory of evolution. Some say: "Let us reinterpret the verses of the Quran to align with the theory of evolution." Others say: "We should consider the story of Adam in the Quran as a symbolic narrative." And there are those who say: "We will deny the Quran and believe in science instead."
In this episode, we will discuss the scientific research presented by those who consider human evolution to be a scientific fact. We will attempt to outline the correct scientific methodology together, hoping that we may be among those whom Allah guides to the truth, as He says: "{Thus Allah guides those who believe to the truth concerning which they had differed, by His leave. And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path}" [Al-Baqarah: 213]. So, follow along with us.
What is commonly propagated by followers of the theory of evolution in their popular magazines, books, scientific websites, and educational lectures for the general public is that humans evolved from common ancestors with animals. This evolution went through transitional stages from semi-human creatures to modern humans, whom they call Homo sapiens. They claim that this modern human first appeared in Ethiopia approximately one hundred and ninety-five thousand years ago, as stated in a paper published in "Nature" in 2005. Then, after tens of thousands of years, their descendants spread to the rest of the world.
They assert that these alleged creatures, from which humans are said to have evolved, have transitional characteristics that fit the time period in which they were discovered, in terms of skull shape, size, skeletal structure, and genetic material. Arab proponents of the theory of evolution use these images as backgrounds for their lectures.
So, are you saying that humans in our current form first appeared approximately one hundred and ninety-five thousand years ago in Ethiopia? Yes, approximately, give or take five thousand years. Is there a clear sequence in human ancestors that fits the time frame in the evolutionary line? Of course, of course. And every fossil we find supports the sequence we hypothesized before its existence and does not deviate from that framework, right? Yes, of course.
What do you do with the human fossil discovered in Morocco in 2017, which is estimated to be three hundred thousand years old according to experts, and was titled: "Fossil discovered in Morocco reorders the family tree of Homo sapiens"? No problem, we will "stretch" the timeline backward and say that the first human appeared approximately three hundred thousand years ago, as on the Smithsonian website.
Let's go back further. What about the fossil discovered in Spain in 1995, which consists of a skull and skeletal remains estimated to be older than seven hundred and eighty thousand years, meaning much older than the alleged three hundred thousand years, making it eight hundred thousand years old? Despite this, it is clear that they are like us, they were very confused in their interpretation, and decided to consider it a semi-human creature, naming it "Homo antecessor," and unleashed their imagination to depict it as primitive as this statue in the Australian museum. The confusion in its interpretation still persists. Just a few months ago, the journal "Nature" published a study reaffirming that the face of what they called "Homo antecessor" is like ours. The journal "Science" also spoke about the confusion in placing it in the evolutionary sequence.
Well, no matter what you do to explain this difference of hundreds of thousands of years, what will you do with the skull discovered in Kenya in 2001, which they named meaning "Kenyan Flat-Faced Man"? They estimated the age of the skull to be three and a half million years old. Even an article in the journal "Nature" expressed its great shock at it, and the article was published saying: "The evolutionary history of man is complex and unclear. It seems today on the verge of throwing more confusion due to the discovery of a new type dating back three and a half million years." Also, the journal "Science" in an article titled: "A skull that adds more mystery to the origins of man," says in its introduction: "The discovery of a skull and fossil remains dating back three and a half million years in northern Kenya shakes the tree of human evolution from its roots." "Science" also published in another article saying: "Experts agree that this fossil will complicate efforts to track the twisted path of human evolution." Agreed! While proponents of the theory of Arab evolution mislead their speech that experts agree on a clear sequence of human evolution. By the way, the Darwinists in the end did not classify this fossil within the human race, but they are confused that its characteristics do not fit this time period according to the alleged evolutionary line.
The Darwinists did not recover from this blow in 2001 until another slap came in 2002 with the discovery of skulls in Chad, which they named "Toumai," estimated to be 6 to 7 million years old, as published in "Nature," with characteristics that do not fit this time period according to the alleged evolutionary line. Bringing it close to human skulls means that it is supposed to have appeared relatively late. If they accept that its age is six to seven million years, then it will not be possible to accept that many types that came after "Toumai" are ancestors of humans and belong to the same evolutionary lineage, because these types are less similar to the contemporary human skull than "Toumai." Meaning, it is not possible for the older gender to be closer to humans than the intermediate gender. Even this article in "Nature" said: "Toumai is the peak of this iceberg that may drown our current ideas about human evolution." And the anthropological expert Bernard Wood said: "When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution appeared as a ladder." All of this is still a matter of dispute. Note again, this is from an article in "Nature," one of the world's most famous magazines and the most supportive of the myth of evolution. What is the relationship between these fossils and which one is the ancestor of man? If any of them is an ancestor of man, all of this is still a matter of dispute. Therefore, my brother, when you see someone presenting you with such funny drawings that show human evolution as a straight line, know that he has not updated his information since 1963, from the days when Bernard Wood went to medical school.
Then, in 2005, "Nature" published an article that began by saying: "Until a few years ago, it was believed that the evolutionary history of our human species was direct and somewhat simple," until it said: "But recently, confusion has been sown in the tree of human evolution." Then the article proceeded to state the discoveries that caused this confusion. Then, in 2015, bones were discovered in Tanzania that resemble the bones of the modern human hand and added to their confusion, as their age was estimated to be more than 1.84 million years, and "Nature" published about them. In the same year, 2015, a fossil was discovered in Ethiopia with characteristics that do not fit the alleged evolutionary plan, and "Nature" published about it, and Professor of Anthropology Colin Groves commented, saying: "We do not know how many types existed" meaning of the alleged ancestors of man "and we do not know which one follows which one." And he said about this fossil: "It is as if an apple cart has been overturned upside down."
Has the picture become clearer in the last three years? No. But many confusing discoveries have been discovered, so much so that the scientific editor of the "BBC" website commented on Rinkon's statement in the article published a few months ago on 2-4-2020, saying: "At one time, we imagined that human evolution proceeded in a linear fashion, where modern man appears at the end of the line as the pinnacle of evolutionary progress, but wherever we look now, we see increasingly that the real picture was much more chaotic than that."
It was certain to the Darwinists for a long time that the first man appeared in Ethiopia, and they drew a story of his lineage moving to other parts of the world. But this certainty was completely scattered by these discoveries that appeared in Morocco, Kenya, Chad, and Tanzania. They said: Then let us say that the origin of man was in Africa in general, as these countries are all in Africa.
In Africa? What do you say then about these fossils in China that were published in 2017 and said about them: "Strange fossils from China show Asian origins for our human species and rewrite the story of human evolution"? China is not a problem, it is true that it is not the same continent as Ethiopia, but at least it is from the same planet! 2020 and this is the reality of the evolutionary scenarios of man: scattered, drowned, confusing, twisted, complex, mysterious, chaotic, shaken from its roots, like an apple cart overturned upside down, with the expressions of the evolutionists themselves. Their expressions make me imagine the followers of the myth running like the imaginary creatures they assumed, running breathlessly after the mirage of their myth.
Well, what do they do? Since every evolutionary line of man collapses with every new discovery, they have resorted to drawing branched trees, so that if something new is discovered, they branch a branch from the tree and place the fossil on it and that's it. And they avoid drawing a direct relationship between one creature and another, which is a twist that is very important to stand at. Meaning, the fossils that ruined their previous fantasies and expressed their annoyance with them, they add them somewhere in the tree. You look and see many names and many imaginary faces, so you think that all of this is evidence of human evolution, while it is the opposite, turning the destructive evidence of evolution into evidence of evolution in their way that we came to with many evidence. And these trees vary from site to site according to what their imaginations start from, as in these pictures from "Human Origins" and "Nature" and "Science" and the known magazine "Earth" and the British Encyclopedia "Encyclopedia Britannica" and the Australian Museum website and others.
What does "common ancestor" mean? They say, for example, that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. Some people think that this common ancestor is a known creature, with fossils indicating its historical existence. Not at all, but rather it is a hypothetical creature. As in "Nature," they assumed its existence and gave it another name: a common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees. Is there any scientific evidence for it? Any information about it? Not at all, but its evolutionary existence must be invented. This is despite a study published in "Science Advances," affiliated with the "Science" group, which began with the sentence: "The human brain is three times larger and differently organized than the brain of its closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. These are important characteristics for human cognitive power and social behavior. However, the evolutionary origins of these characteristics are unclear. Humans differ greatly from chimpanzees. How evolution could achieve this is unknown, and the common ancestor between them and the chimpanzees is unknown. The important thing is that it evolved and that's it."
The fossil "Ardi" from the "Ardipithecus" family or the fossil "Lucy" from the "Australopithecus" family, which were previously considered ancestors of humans and icons of their evolution, are now avoided from being directly linked to humans and claimed to be their ancestors. Instead, they claim that they and the ancestors of humans may have branched off from some common ancestor, as in "Science." All the numbers you see are evolutionary creatures assumed to have existed, so their trees have become groups of separate nests connected only by imaginary origins with no evidence. Therefore, they often avoid the term "ancestors of humans" and use "relatives" instead. There is some kinship, how? When? What is the evidence? We do not know, but there must be some kinship.
Now, after I have shown you, my brothers, that modern discoveries have scattered the alleged evolutionary plan, let us show you that the elements of these lines or these trees, meaning what they used to call icons of evolution, the fossils indicating conclusive evidence of evolution, have no relation to evolutionary transformation, transitional creatures, or human-like beings. Rather, we simply have fossils of monkeys and fossils of humans. The fossils of monkeys are of variously shaped monkeys, but they remain monkeys. The fossils of what they claimed to be human-like beings are fossils of humans with as much diversity as among current humans. We have parts of skulls and skeletal structures that cannot be definitively attributed to humans, monkeys, or others, upon which stories and drawings are built purely from imagination and delusion, such as the donkey's skull and the pig's tooth, which may belong to extinct creatures. By "apes" here, we mean "hominids," and there is a difference between them and "monkeys," both of which are translated into Arabic as "apes." The Darwinists claim that we share a common ancestor with "monkeys," then they differ regarding "hominids," whether they are ancestors of humans or share another common ancestor with them.
So let us take the story of the icons of evolution, and let us take this evolutionary line still present as of August 2020 on the British Encyclopedia website titled "The Evolutionary Line of Humans."
First: Australopithecus Afarensis, the southern ape, whose most famous fossil is called "Lucy." What many do not know is that "Lucy" is a collection of scattered bones on a hillside exposed to rainstorms, bones that were not connected to each other, collected over three weeks, a jawbone from here, a thigh bone from there, and after weeks, a vertebra from the spine from another location, and so on. The researchers concluded that these bones belong to the same creature, as in the book "Lucy: The Beginning of Humankind" by the bone discoverer Donald Johanson, and as on the University of Arizona website. These bones may belong to the same creature, or they may not. They assumed that they belong to the same creature and that it has transitional characteristics between humans and monkeys, so the imagination of the followers of superstition launched, based on these bones, a very large number of drawings and statues in museums, documentaries, school and university books, and created images that make you feel nostalgic for your supposed first mother, and they published documentaries and programs about how Lucy died to make her existence an undisputed fact, leaving only the details of her life in question. To the point that if you hear "Lucy," you imagine that this creature extracted from the fossil is mummified, full of fat and flesh.
What many do not know is that the media of superstition has overlooked much of the research that casts doubt on many of the early conclusions about "Lucy," and the research that completely denies that "Lucy" and her family from the southern apes are ancestors of humans. Even the French magazine "Science & Vie" made the main headline of its cover issue in the fifth month of 1999: "Goodbye Lucy," and mentioned in the article the evidence that all the Australopithecus family to which "Lucy" belongs must still be from the human family tree. In 2007, the well-known American magazine "P-NAS" published an article outlining the reasons for doubting that the southern ape from which "Lucy" comes is an ancestor of humans. Recently, a few months ago in April 2020, a magazine affiliated with the "Science" group published a study based on "Lucy's" skull and a group of southern ape skulls to imagine the shape of the brain, and the researchers concluded: "Unlike previous claims, the structure of the southern ape's brain is like that of monkeys, and there are no characteristics tending towards human traits," meaning no transition or anything. There are many other studies that deny that the southern apes, including "Lucy," are ancestors of humans, and scientific journals now depict them as having a common ancestor with humans, as we saw in "Nature" and "Science." Despite this, university and school books, scientific websites, and Arab intellectuals still use them as an icon of human evolution.
Next: Second, "Homo Habilis" or what they call the skilled man, claiming that he is a semi-human, one of the transitional stages between the southern apes and modern humans. Again, what they found is not this creature but bones, after which they unleashed their imaginations. In 1999, the magazine "Science" published a study showing that the characteristics of these fossils, previously classified as semi-human, are like those of southern apes, and therefore they should be removed from the "Homo" classification, meaning the supposed human-like beings. Then, in 2000, the journal "Molecular Biology and Evolution" published a study refuting the validity of "Homo Habilis" as an intermediate link between southern apes and humans, although this belief prevailed for thirty years, as the study says. Then, in 2011, "Science" published a study titled: "Who was Homo Habilis and was he really a human-like being?" The first sentence of the study says: "In the past ten years, the status of Homo Habilis as the first member of our kind has been shaken." Then the study talks about the similarity of Homo Habilis to southern apes. Decades of research refuting the idea of this semi-human, and his images are still circulating as an icon of human evolution.
Next: Thirdly, "Homo Erectus," also known as the upright man, which is considered semi-human. This hypothetical being is considered pivotal and significant in evolution. This is a study published in the German-English journal "Kuriositäten Institut Sachsenberg" in 1994 titled: "The Justifications for Submerging the Upright Man," meaning to eliminate his idea. The researchers, who are from America, Australia, China, and the Czech Republic, say: "There is no clear boundary between the upright man and the rational man, neither in time nor in place. There is no process of speciation in the descent of the rational man from the upright man. These reasons require considering them as one evolutionary type." This study, published in the journal "Nature," discusses the possibility of classifying "Homo Erectus" as a subspecies or race "Race" of our known human genus, meaning not a transitional stage nor a need.
Someone might say: But wait, have these studies settled the matter? Or are there other studies that have responded to them? Have the evolutionists agreed to remove "Homo Erectus," for example, from the path of human evolution? We say, brothers: these Darwinists hardly agree on anything. Rather, they make mistakes with each other and ridicule each other. They only agree on one thing: the denial of creation. In this article on the Darwinist "Live Science" website, it also talks about the Darwinists' disagreement on the upright man, saying: "The phylogeny and evolutionary history of the upright man and other hominids are not clear and have become more muddled by modern discoveries." Muddy, confusing, entangled in a thousand entanglements for our Egyptian brothers. Then the article uses phrases: "There is much disagreement, more confusion, scientists are not agreed." Yes, there is disagreement on everything. And the research we present to you, which strikes the icons of evolution, is from the highest-ranked journals such as "PNAS," "Science," and "Nature," while the talk of Arab promoters of the theory of evolution misleads that the scenario is perfect and the evidence is conclusive and the scientists are agreed.
Next: Fourthly, Neanderthal man. In the episode "The Pancake Theory," we reviewed with you this scientific paper that conducted a comprehensive review of 151 studies on Neanderthals and proved that they are not inferior to us in any way, and they are not the stupid, savage ancestors of humans as was claimed. This has become accepted among the general Darwinists, and many studies have been published on it, the latest of which is a genetic study published about two months ago showing that the genetic differences in the mitochondria between Neanderthals and modern humans are less than the differences between the polar bear and the brown bear, and that there was interbreeding between the known human and the Neanderthal.
In conclusion: Australopithecus afarensis is like the southern apes, with no transitional characteristics to humans. What was called Homo habilis is also not semi-human but from the southern apes as it appears. And all that was previously claimed to be semi-human are humans, the differences between them and the human structures they are compared to are like the differences between current human races or close to them. And you see why these stupid imaginary drawings have no value? Just deception, misguidance, and quackery with false science that university and school books and foreign and Arabic science simplification websites have been sleeping on for decades, just as they slept on the uselessness of the posterior bones in the whale as we explained in the episode "Sleeping Beauty," or Haeckel's drawings of embryos as we explained in the episode "Tarzan."
All the research we have cited, brothers, is by Darwinists, and none of its authors admit the fallacy of human evolution. Every time one of their icons falls, they will say: "It doesn't matter, there is much evidence for evolution," as we explained in the episode "Tarzan." The alternative, which is wise creation, is preemptively rejected and cannot be thought of. What we do is gather the complete picture that they do not admit, show their confusion, and that they do not think at all of getting out of the box of blind Darwinist faith. They have bound themselves to find an alternative story to creation, so they must rewrite the scenario of the story as they express it themselves, draw the useless and fruitless trees, give free rein to imaginations and myths, and do anything but admit the existence of a Creator.
Ernest Mayr from Harvard University, one of the leading Darwinists, says in his book "What Makes Biology Unique," published in 2004: "The oldest fossils of Homo, meaning the alleged humans and their likenesses, are fossils of Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, separated from the southern apes by a large gap devoid of fossils. How can we explain this? In the absence of fossils playing the role of transitional forms, we must resort to the conventional method in historical sciences, which is to construct a historical narrative." Constructing a historical narrative means inventing a story to fill the gap, then seeing if this story will bring evidence that exposes it or not. Therefore, much of what Darwinists present are historical narratives to fill gaps. No wonder Mayr himself says that evolutionary biology is, in many of its aspects, closer to the humanities than to true empirical experimental science.
They confined the definition of true science to empirical experimental science, and denied the unseen because it is not within the reach of this science. Then, when they failed to explain creation with it, they resorted to hypothetical unseen things for which there is no evidence from observation, experimentation, reason, or innate disposition. All of this while we do not want to repeat what we have explained about the extent of the foolishness of the idea of drawing a complete being and making films and documentaries about it based on parts of a skull or scattered bones, as we previously explained in the scandal of drawing a semi-human Ebraska based on a molar and publishing research about it in "Science," then the magazine returning to publish another research years later that this tooth is a pig's tooth, not a semi-human.
Here is a very, very important issue, which is that all of what has been mentioned is not the most important thing in the matter. That is, even if these people found fossils of creatures with shared characteristics, what scientifically proves that we evolved from them? This is a very important question, my brothers, because we often get lost in the details to the point that the follower thinks that if it is proven, for example, that "Lucy" had shared characteristics, this proves that we evolved from her, as if the debate on a particular fossil is a debate that, if resolved, will be resolved in favor of human evolution or against it. Never, and we should not get lost in the details from the overall picture.
The followers of the myth will say: There are more subtle things known to the experts, such as the gradual sequence in genetic material. We say: This is also not correct. This research in the journal "Molecular Biology and Evolution" shows that there are huge genetic differences between the human race and the southern apes that do not match a slow, gradual evolution, and that there is a combination of characteristics that appeared suddenly, which did not appear before. Okay, what is your explanation then? They said: A genetic revolution occurred. This is a scientific-sounding term for a comedic idea we have talked about, which means that many random changes occurred in a coordinated manner without disrupting the rest of the genetic material to give the creature advanced characteristics that turned it into the human race, and that all of this happened by chance.
Okay, why do you bother with the idea of a genetic revolution or what some call "rapid evolution"? By what right do you assume that humans evolved from lower creatures when the fossils do not support you, and when humans differ in their characteristics and genes greatly from other creatures? Why must humans have evolved from others? Why? So that the scientific explanation is complete: lower creatures evolved from others, and these in turn evolved from the primitive cell that arose by chance in some way. Ah, so then the evolution of humans from others is a preconceived assumption that you volunteer discoveries for and dress it in the garb of science, not a scientific result that led you to it.
Okay, what is the alternative to humans evolving from lower creatures? That Allah created him independently of science and will. This is not a scientific explanation. What is the meaning of a scientific explanation? It is what is subject to observation, experimentation, and reproduction. And is the evolution of humans from lower creatures something you have observed, experimented with, or reproduced? We have previously shown that the first appearance of creatures is a matter of the unseen that cannot be subject to sensation or experimentation. Therefore, it is not within the scope of empirical experimental science, "science" is not its jurisdiction. Therefore, the search for evidence from "science" to explain the first appearance of creatures is the use of the wrong tool for inference. And we explained in episodes 49, 51, and 52 of the Journey of Certainty why science is not limited to "science"? The unseen that comes with the correct news is science, a matter that does not fall under observation, experimentation, or reproduction. Therefore, the evidence must be scientific news that informs about what was in this hidden time.
You may say to me: We have not yet agreed with you on the correctness of the Quran and the Sunnah, and you have not proven that to me. Okay, but until we reach that station of the Journey of Certainty, do not tell me that human evolution is a science supported by scientific evidence, but rather a blind faith in imaginary interpretations that delve deep into history.
Another very, very important matter is that the transformation of one being into another must implicitly be based on the idea that there is someone who carries out this transformation with intention and will. Because random evolution without intention or purpose does not transform a being into another, even if the earth and the heavens were filled with random attempts, as we explained in detail in the episode "Speak to Them as Children" when we mentioned what is required for a simple change in the being itself, such as the elongation of the giraffe's neck, and we related it to the example of children who hit the keyboard randomly, and the required changes in the Word files in a coordinated manner without disrupting the original paragraphs. And as we explained in the episode "Who Stole the Million" that even if we go beyond that, the layers of the earth will be filled with fossils of the alleged transitional creatures, and with them the fossils of the failed creatures resulting from random changes. These are two very important episodes to show the foolishness of the idea of transformation from one being to another by chance through random changes and blind selection, and the foolishness of the enthusiasm for a fossil as evidence of evolution, and that expressions such as "transitional creature" and "intermediate link" are misleading because they are based on intention and will in transforming one being into another while they deny intention and will.
All of this, dear audience, and we have not yet discussed the comedy of dealing with these age estimations of creatures in millions of years as if they are sacred numbers with a high degree of precision. However, one example is sufficient. Around the year 1992, a fossil was found in Ethiopia. After seventeen years, the media exaggerated this discovery, making it the "Discovery of the Year" cover story for "Science" and popularizing it as "Ardi." "Science" published an article about it with the title "The Discovery of the Oldest Human Ancestor Skeleton," placing it in the alleged evolutionary timeline at 4.4 million years ago, or to be precise, 4.387 million years plus or minus 0.31 million years, as stated in "Nature" within the appropriate time range for human evolution. However, the following year, "Science" published an article questioning the evidence that "Ardi" is a human ancestor. "The Times" also published an interview with an expert who pointed out that the proponents used unscientific methods to promote their claims. "Nature" also published a study opposing the claim that "Ardi" is a human ancestor. Witness statement: "Ardi" "Nature" is one of the most contaminated samples, giving an early age of approximately 23.15 million years. One of the samples, although also contaminated, gave an age of 4.387 million years. "This age seems to be the best estimate for the samples and thus gives the upper limit for these remains. The other nine seeds from the same sample are contaminants aged 23.6 million years." Thus, in simplicity, we see that 4.4 million years is more appropriate, and we exclude the samples of 23.6 million years, even though both samples, by our admission, are contaminated. Therefore, the age of the "Ardi" fossil could be 4.4 million years, it could be 23.16 million years, meaning about five times as much, it could be less, or it could be more. We will provide you with links to articles in the comments that show the extent of the comedy of the idea that these estimations in millions and billions of years are precise numbers.
This is the reality of the scientific evidence for human evolution. You might say: No, no, not just the fossils, there is the genetic evidence. The human genetic material is 98.8 percent similar to that of chimpanzees. We have refuted these claims in detail in the episodes "The Deceiver" and "Zaid Eats Dog Meat." You might say: But there is evidence of similarity between the anatomy of humans and other creatures. We have shown that this does not indicate a common origin in detail in the episode "Your Tail That You Know Nothing About." You might say: But there is evidence of design flaws in some parts of the human body, such as the retina of the eye. We have refuted this in detail in the episode "You've Been Embarrassed."
We, dear audience, have shown through dozens of episodes the refutation of the theory of evolution from its roots in scientific detail, and we have shown the refutation of its principles and the methods they followed to promote it to people. Therefore, those who have not followed the previous episodes should know that what we present today is only a small part of a detailed and lengthy discussion.
This, then, is the reality of the scientific evidence for human evolution from lower creatures. Scenarios that modern discoveries have refuted until they became scattered, drowning, shaken from their roots by the statements of the evolutionists themselves. And the icons of these scenarios have been refuted one by one with the exception. Evidence that employs the imaginations of Photoshop and Hollywood movies based on scattered bones, arbitrarily assuming that humans evolved from others without scientific evidence, built on an attempt to deny the idea of creation at any cost, and on the demand for a tool of incorrect inference on a metaphysical issue, and ignoring the consequences of randomness and lack of purpose that cannot transform one creature into another, and ignoring the great lack of precision in the age of fossils. "Darkness upon darknesses; if he stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it. And he to whom Allah has not given light - he will have no light." [An-Nur: 40].
We consider that they did not intentionally oppose the truth in this matter, but they did not exert the necessary effort to reach the truth and thus erred. We have contacted them one by one, requesting a discussion out of respect for what we share in our belonging to Islam. Some of them responded with politeness and manners, apologizing for the discussion at the moment, and some chose not to respond at all but rather to resort to slander and defamation. May they all forgive me for being forced to come out with this material publicly, for the mistakes they have made in this matter publicly are very great and have a very negative effect. Nevertheless, I ask Allah to guide us and them to what He loves and is pleased with, and I ask my brothers to try to influence the mentioned personalities with advice and reminder, not with aggression or harm.
Dr. Nidal Qassoum in an episode of his program "Tafakkur Ma'ee" titled "The Theory of Evolution and Its Scientific Evidence" says: "Okay, so where is this missing link among them? Where are these species and structures that you say are between humans and the old ape? Show me a case to prove that humans were something before humans and that they actually descended from apes or the large apes sometimes called the Ibis. We have a large number of this type of fossils, believe it or not, we find that these skulls range in age from about a million years to the latest, perhaps a third of a million years, three hundred thousand. And indeed, when we come to each of these six and look at their size and age, we find that they actually sequence from the oldest to the newest and become closer to humans." No, Dr. Nidal, these claims by evolutionists are very old, from 1963 as we have explained, and I do not know where you get your information, especially since you do not provide references for each piece of information.
Okay, what do we do, Dr. Nidal, with the verses of Allah in the Quran that speak of the creation of Adam by the hand of Allah the Almighty? Dr. Nidal responds: "I judge any theory, whether evolution, Big Bang, Einstein's gravity, quantum mechanics, atomic, or nuclear, I judge it by its scientific evidence, I do not judge it by religious books, otherwise, the process becomes open to all possibilities. Bring me another book to judge me from a Hindu book, one writes to me from the Torah, one from the Talmud, one judges the theory by the Quran, one will not conclude it like this." It is not correct to put the Quran in the same basket as the false and corrupted books of religions, isn't it, Dr. Nidal?
And he says to you: "We have two solutions, he says no, no, your book is correct, but your book is wrong, or we say to him no, you are forced by the way chosen by humans, whether Muslims or even Christians or Jews, that we do not understand these verses in this way, re-interpret them." And are the Jews and Christians like the Muslims? And is the Quran like their books in containing fallacies and contradicting reason and science to ask us to do like them, Dr. Nidal?
"So these facts about evolution are fixed on earth, it has nothing to do with me whether you accept or not, you are free. Now, as I told you earlier, in religious books in the Quran and others, it talks about man and the origin of man and the creation of man, people naturally ask, okay, how do I understand these verses in light of what you say, you scientists? Is there a possibility to understand these verses in a way that is harmonious with what science says? I say yes, we interpret the verses, we interpret the parts that seem if understood literally, if understood literally, they contradict science." How do you interpret the Quran? Does Dr. Nidal consider the statement of the creation of man as clearly stated in the Quran and Sunnah and as understood by the Ummah over the centuries to be a superficial understanding? "When we look at the Quranic verses and if we look at them superficially and literally, it seems as if this man was created independently of the rest of creation."
And Dr. Nidal talks about a primitive man as in the evolutionary Hollywood films, saying: "This is the history of man, in the beginning, there was a primitive man who did not understand anything, did not understand that things would happen around him like this, everything was scary, and there were many gods, and the gods were fighting in the sky, these are the gods, and so on. After that, he evolves a bit with himself, he thinks, why is there a meaning to my existence, there is a meaning to my life here, these people have rules, what is this, and what does this say about me?"
These are the points of our disagreement with the proponents of the idea of human evolution from lower creatures: there is no methodology for distinguishing between real science and superstitions, no methodology in dealing with the Quran, but rather the audacity to delve into it without knowledge, and no methodology in reconciling revelation and natural sciences. The result for them is: human evolution is a fact, and the only way to preserve the Quran is to re-interpret it to align with the fact of evolution. One of the forms of re-interpretation is what one of the doctors in the field of biology mentioned, repeating in an eight-minute clip the phrase "evolution is a fact" eight times, then said: "So does the doctor believe that Adam is nothing but a metaphor for humanity in general and not a real, specific individual?" She was asked again and confirmed, saying: "Therefore, I say that he is a metaphor, that Adam is a metaphor for people. And when we say that we believe for them, we are talking about the great example, the great example, the great example, yes, so, it can be one of the people who followed the example, the example, and the example of their struggle." So
Dr. Ahmed Khairi Al-Amri also promotes the idea of understanding verses based on the theory of evolution. He published his book "Let My Mind Be at Ease," in which he repeated the same arguments from populist websites about the validity of evolution, not paying attention, of course, to our detailed scientific responses and those of many others to each of them. Then he followed these arguments by saying: "Perhaps it is superfluous to say that no scientific theory can be an alternative to the theory of evolution without first taking it seriously and conducting intensive scientific study, especially since the fossil record used by the theory of evolution includes millions of fossils, if not billions of them." A sentence phrased in a way that suggests there are millions or even billions of pieces of evidence for the myth from fossils. The fossil record used by the theory of evolution, far from the extreme exaggeration in numbers, is full of fossils with human and animal structures similar to the known creatures existing among us today. Even the leading foreign promoters of the myth do not claim that they are evidence of evolution. Rather, the discussion is about limited fossils, which we have shown you today and in previous episodes in scientific detail, and from their own papers, what refutes their indication of evolution.
On the other hand, Dr. Al-Amri, who published his series on immunization against atheism titled "Anti-Atheism," has a problem with defining faith itself. He says: "In fact, faith in anything requires this leap to believe in something without all the decisive, conclusive evidence." Such statements and others make faith in the existence of God and the unseen generally a matter of majority, not something certain and definitive. This is something we have completely refuted in the episode "Is God Unseen Does That Mean His Existence Is Uncertain?" and the episode "Can the Existence of God Be Proven Scientifically?" and other episodes in the journey of certainty. When the evolution of man is supported by strong scientific evidence, as Dr. Al-Amri says in the episode "Why Do Some Followers of Adnan Ibrahim Become Atheists?" and in today's episode, which refutes his claims about the evolution of man.
And I conclude by asking those who promote this myth among the Arabs: Do you read scientific papers? Do you go back to the original research and read it in its original language to verify the accuracy of the information and the validity of the conclusions? Or is your source of information the websites where followers of the myth laugh at people, and the drawings used by populist myth promoters, which you then quote as if they were trustworthy and reliable people? For the sake of these worn-out myths, do you want us to tamper with the interpretation of the Book of God Almighty, and ignore the authentic hadiths when you return to the Quran to twist its texts to suit the imagined science as if the Quran is malleable in meaning and can be shaped according to demand? Are you truly reconciling experimental science with the Quran, or are you diminishing the Quran's dignity in the hearts of Muslims by making it a subservient, gelatinous entity? This Quran is noble, {And indeed, it is a mighty Book. Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a Wise and Praiseworthy [Sender].} [Fussilat: 41-42]. It is not confused by falsehood, nor is it interpreted by falsehood, nor is it manipulated by falsehood. It is a dominant, governing book, not governed; a leader, not led. {Indeed, it is a decisive statement [and wisdom], and it is no amusement.} [At-Tariq: 13-14].
If you understand all of this, my brother and sister, then rid yourself of the falsehoods of pseudo-science, and listen with your ears and being to the words of your Lord, glorified and exalted be He, as He reminds you of your origin with clear, unambiguous speech, so that He may give your life meaning and build upon it a moral system when you know that you will return to Him. He says: {O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah, through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed, Allah is ever, over you, an Observer. And give the orphans their properties and do not exchange the bad [with the good]. And do not consume their properties into your own. Indeed, that is a great sin.} [An-Nisa: 1-2].
May Allah guide us all and those who oppose us to what He loves and is pleased with. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.