← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah,
I have been asked repeatedly by some brothers: Why do you insist on rejecting the theory of evolution? Isn't our problem with it the randomness and chance that contradict reason and religion? Fine, we can simply not acknowledge randomness and chance, and accept from the theory what does not oppose our religion, instead of clashing with it and its supporters?
What if it is proven in the future that organisms originated from a common ancestor? Why do we gamble and put religion in conflict with something that might be proven later, causing people to lose faith in religion, even though there might not be a fundamental contradiction?
Today's episode is a summary, so there is no room for detail. Therefore, I will provide you with references to episodes where we have elaborated on the points I mention. We say, with the help of Allah.
First, the scientific stance requires that we refer to credible scientific sources to answer any question. Therefore, our first problem with the theory of evolution is that it brings science out of its domain, meaning it uses the wrong tool to answer the question: How was creation brought about? It is, therefore, an epistemological problem before anything else, meaning a problem of violating the rules of the theory of knowledge.
Science, by its very definition, is observational and experimental. To say that organisms originated in a certain way is not something that can be known through observation or experimentation, but rather it is outside the scope of science, which is exclusively concerned with observation and experimentation.
Second, the question: "What if it is proven in the future that organisms originated from a common ancestor?" is a flawed question; because what happened in the first creation has more than one possible way of occurring. The single outcome, which is the emergence of organisms, has more than one possible way, and therefore we cannot, through science, be certain of what happened in reality, nor can science travel through time to prove that organisms originated specifically from a common ancestor.
Let us give an example for illustration: If we assume that there is a chemical compound that can be produced in several ways, and you produced this compound in a certain way from the interaction of two materials, then found the same compound in my hand, you would not be able to assert that I carried out the same interaction as you, since it can be produced in another way.
Therefore, even if there are gradational organisms not only in the fossil record but even among us on the surface of the earth, even if we could experimentally convert one organism into another, we can never say that this is what happened in the first creation that we did not witness; because the possibility of its occurrence in some way does not mean that this is what actually happened.
What about the fact that we cannot perform this conversion experimentally, and the gradation between organisms does not exist among us, nor does it exist in the fossil record, meaning there are no transitional organisms or intermediate links without limit, and again without limit as Darwin stated that this is what his theory requires to overcome our disagreement with them about the limited fossils they use.
Therefore, the origin of organisms from a common ancestor cannot be proven at any time, neither now nor in the future, and the existing evidence is against it. All of this is in abstract terms before discussing the need for a Creator and the issue of chance or not.
Third, here comes the question: "Do we understand from you that you say the theory of evolution is neither refutable nor provable?" What I mentioned that science cannot refute or prove is that organisms originated from a common ancestor. However, the theory of evolution is not limited to advocating a common ancestor, but it states that this common ancestor gave rise to living organisms through random changes and blind selection without intention or will.
And the theory of evolution, with this definition, is fallacious in reason before it is refuted by all scientific observations as we have shown in many episodes of the Journey of Certainty, some of which we present here. The fate of the theory of evolution is sealed, and I deliberately say "theory of evolution" and put it in quotation marks; because it is not a scientific theory at all, but a myth and the most absurd and stupid idea in history as we have shown repeatedly. And we have shown that the need for a Creator is an intellectual and scientific necessity, not a position based on submission or blind imitation.
Fourth, the theory of evolution is now about a century and a half old. During this period, all observations have come to refute Darwin's assumptions and predictions. In two episodes of the Journey of Certainty titled "All Roads Lead to the Myth" and "Worshipers of Microbes," I have shown in important and convincing detail that the followers of this theory have disagreed on everything in it, everything literally, and they are still disagreeing. And although they have disagreed, they have agreed on one thing: that there is no creation with intention and will.
Yes, some of them do not deny the existence of God, but He is a God who has been deprived of the attributes of creation, lordship, and sovereignty, so some believe in His existence while at the same time saying that organisms originated without intention or will, but by chance, random changes, and blind selection. And I have shown how whenever phenomena appear that refute their latest versions of the theory, they add a description to the word Evolution to pretend that they have understood this phenomenon, while the truth is that they have given their alleged god a new name like the first polytheists: parallel evolution, convergent, divergent, gradual, saltational, extended, quantitative, discontinuous, rapid, simultaneous, and other names.
And they attributed choice, knowledge, creation, will, and intelligence to microbes, and did everything and committed every folly and stupidity without acknowledging a Creator who created organisms with wisdom and will. Therefore, evolution is not a scientific theory but a blind ideology, a blind ideology. And I have shown that the theory of evolution is presented as the material explanation for the origin of organisms from a common ancestor without the need for belief in the supernatural, while in reality, it has ended up assuming what we call stupid supernatural to explain the origin of organisms without the need for a Creator.
Therefore, the theory of evolution has crystallized over the years to mean precisely: no creation, no intention, and no will in the appearance of organisms. This is the common denominator that they agree upon, even if they disagree on everything else. And one of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is the way the followers of the evolution myth deal with the scientists of Intelligent Design (Intelligent Design), who are a group of Western scientists. The followers of the evolution myth deal with the Intelligent Design approach with contempt, calling their attempt "pseudo-science," a false science, and they exclude and pursue them to be expelled from academic institutions as I have shown.
Even general magazines do not accept the publication of any research containing a reference to design, intention, and will. The common denominator that brings together all followers of the theory of evolution in the Western scientific community is the denial of the Creator, and the crucial issue and the basis of the conflict between us and them is the denial of the Creator and what that requires of confronting reason, science, and religion together. Therefore, when you say: "Why do we not remove from the theory of evolution what contradicts our religion and accept what remains?" It is as if you are saying: "Why do we not remove from the theory of evolution the denial of the Creator?" What will remain after that? Nothing that its followers agree upon. The common ancestor we saw is not science and cannot be proven and has no scientific value.
Fifthly, does this mean the impossibility of the emergence of creatures from a common origin from an intellectual perspective? The answer is no, this does not go beyond the capability of Allah the Almighty. Okay, what does this require in terms of biochemistry? One can envision a scenario where a significant set of deliberate, simultaneous changes were made to the genetic material of the germ cells of a male and female creature, such that the fertilization of the egg results in a viable creature of a different kind in the female's womb. In this way, for example, dinosaurs could have given birth to birds.
We say "deliberate, simultaneous significant changes" because this is what is required to produce a new creature that is genetically, structurally, and physiologically different. Otherwise, if the changes were random, they would only result in a monstrous, non-viable being.
Here are two observations:
The first is that this assumption seems contrived. Yes, it is contrived and strange, but we are not concerned with denying it or proving it. We do not treat it as contradictory to reason, science, and religion, as we do with the myth of evolution, as long as we have surpassed randomness, blind chance, and lack of purpose, which are all contradictory to this.
The second observation is surprising: the assumption of many directed changes at once was proposed in Darwin's time and was called "Saltation," which Darwin rejected. He rejected it in his book "The Origin of Species," saying, "There are no leaps in nature, there are no leaps in nature." He rejected it by saying that sudden changes do not differ from the old belief in the creation of species from the clay of the earth, and insisted on the assumption that what happened was slight, gradual, unintended changes without a plan of creation, despite the availability of evidence refuting his assumption at the time, such as the Cambrian explosion phenomenon and the absence of any signs of countless intermediate fossils. Instead, excavations provided creatures that appeared suddenly in the layers of the earth without gradation and with the same structures as they are among us now.
Nevertheless, Darwin insisted that his evidence exists in the creatures that were found in ancient times. This is not called the theory of evolution; this is something completely different. Evolution means no intention and no will. Therefore, you will find among contemporary evolutionists those who, under the pressure of the fossil record that disappointed Darwin's expectations a century and a half after him, were forced to return to the idea of many changes at once, but again without intention or will, and they named their theory "Punctuated Equilibrium": random, simultaneous, coordinated changes without intention or will that produce a creature from a creature. We have previously discussed the absurdity of this idea.
Therefore, dear audience, concluding from the above, we say that our problem or problems with the theory of evolution is that it fundamentally contradicts knowledge and uses the wrong tool to answer the question of the origin of creatures, and that it is intellectually flawed by denying intention and will. Its followers have taken a clear biased stance, trying hard to preserve it despite the accumulation of evidence of its invalidity. It has become clear that it is intended to be an alternative to the need for a Creator, and it has no benefit of any kind whatsoever other than what is promoted. Instead, it has corrupted reason, science, faith, and wasted a lot of public money, researchers' lives, and efforts.
And if it is said to us, "But we specifically mean the common origin without denying creation," this is not the theory of evolution, besides the fact that there is no way to deny the common origin, nor to prove it scientifically, nor any benefit in discussing it.
These are our problems with the myth of evolution. Note that in this entire discussion, we have not addressed the opposition of the myth of evolution to the texts of the Quran and Sunnah regarding creation with intention, will, and perfection, and regarding the creation of man as an independent creation, although we also reject the myth for its contradiction with the texts of revelation. The rational and scientific evidence agrees with the legal position, and even if we had only rejected it for its contradiction with revelation, our stance would have been scientific as well; because our belief in revelation is based on evidence of its certain truth, so we believe in what it mentions about the first creation with a belief that is not touched by any doubt or contrived interpretation. Revelation is one of the foundations of certain knowledge and is one of the sources of science, as we have explained. From here, our divergence from the Western system begins.
After all this, the attempt to Islamize the myth becomes an attempt to save it from its predicaments. I repeat: a myth that is flawed in perception, science, and reason, an attempt to reconcile it with the texts of the Quran and Sunnah is an attempt to save it from its predicaments, as if we are extending a lifeline to it. Darwin's myth is akin to delirium, so it is not befitting at all for revelation to reconcile it with delirium, saying, "If we amend this part and remove this part from the delirium, it will be in accordance with the Quran." What about when Arab promoters of the myth demand that we reinterpret the Quran and, more accurately, distort its meanings to conform to this delirium of God's religion. Indeed, it is a decisive statement and not a joke.
May Allah the Almighty be exalted and most knowledgeable, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.