Q. Can you kindly explain in detail what our view is as Muslims, concerning the theory of Evolution please. We are interested in showing our non-Muslims accomplices evidences from the Quran and from science itself that refutes evolution.
A. The following is a beautiful article on this topic which has been written by a great scholar Shaikh Abdul Hamid. In it he has discussed the topic at length in a beautiful manner, which will be very easy for readers to understand. We hope that it will be helpful, Insha Allah.
FALLACY OF EVOLUTION
The theory of Evolution, or more precisely, Organic Evolution, is taught in our schools and colleges as an established fact and saturates our science; psychology, philosophy, history and, to some extent, even religion today. The sum and substance of the theory is that:
(i) The animate species of nature are the result of a millennial evolutionary transformation from inanimate phenomenon of nature, which means that Man was not created by Almighty God but life on earth originated from lifeless matter in some mysterious way without any divine assistance and by means of ascending series of vegetable and animal organism – during incalculably long periods it prog-ressed and developed from one-celled organism to its highest state, the human being;
(ii) Man is descended from brutes and to all intents and purposes he is a brute. Form ation of the human body and brain is the same as that of an animal. All human energy comes from animal instincts inhe rited by man from his animal ancestors;
iii) There is no guiding light, no conscience, no moral principles, no sense of truth, justice, beauty, virtue and God-conscious-ness inborn and implanted in man. Human will-power is also not inborn but is derived from baser animal instincts. There is no God, no Soul, no after-life no revelation. Every prophet was only a social reformer. Nothing was revealed to him and conseq-uently every religion is a fake thing. In the words of Sir Julian Huxley, a prom-inent evolutionist “Evolution has no room for the Supernatural. The earth and its inhabitants were not created, they evolved.” (The New York Times, November 26, 1959)
(iv) Man being a product of this long-process ed evolution, having no pre-destination and no life after death, is free to act on his own will; no social restrictions, no moral code, no religious guidance whatso ever is there to check this licencious freedom.
This theory which strikes at the very root of religion and, tries to demolish the ideological basis of our faith permeates our educational institu tions, and our raw youth are made to go on repating that evolution, and not creation, is the true fact of our existence. The continuous indoctrination of this Godless mechanistic theory in the minds of our young scholar never acquainted with the opposite arguments, has led them away from Islam and has made them sceptics, delinquents, irreligious, immoral, sex-saturated and violent. Of course, there are honorable exceptions but they are due to healthy religious home influences.
The alarming situation demands that this theory which does admit organisation, design, arrangement, plan and beauty in the universe, but unrea-sonably denies the existence of All-powerful Designer Planner, Beautifier God, Which agrees that man is made in the most wonderful fashion with a digestive system that converts masticated food into body nutrition, with a blood stream to distribute it, with a heart to pump the blood and lungs to purify it, with a nervous system to carry messages to and from the brain, with a brain to direct bodily functions and receive information from five senses, with eyes that see, ears that hear; but which illogic-ally refuses to admit that this body with absolute technologcal perfection was made by Supreme Almighty Maker; this theory which says that the unintelligent cells operating on blind-chance are automatically arranged into organs with definite shapes and patterns and that in the 266 days from conception to birth, the single fertillized egg-cell becomes a staggeringly complex organisation of some 200 million cells having increased the original weight a billion-fold with the purposive guidance of any Intelligent Power, the theory which, in short, tries to deprive existence of all purpose must be scrutin-ised in detail, cross-questioned and crossexamined.
To begin with, it seems to be worthwhile to excavate the origins of this theory. The origin of cosmos had been an intellectual riddle to the thinkers and phillosophers for times immemorial, but the first landing on theoretical grounds could not be achieved until the eighteenth century. The first comprehensive idea of cosmological evolution was put forth by a philosopher, Immanuel Kant, in 1755, in his book Attempt to Conceive and to Explain the Origin of the Universe Mechanically, according to the Newtonian Laws.
Kant was a thinker, whose inquisitive nature dissatisfied with Christian mythical orthodoxy, rebelled against the biblical exposition of origin of universe, which had quite illogically determined the time of all creation sometime in October 4004 B. C. On the one hand it was beyond his reason to accept this too short a span of time for this immense increase in human population and advancement of civilization, and on the other, the Church dogma that Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) was from everlasting to everlasting had become for him too hard a nut to crack by his intellect. He, therefore, expounded that man (as also Jesus Christ) was the consequence of evolution from lifeless chemical elements comprising the strata of the earth He asserted that there was a time when there was no life, hence, no question of eternity of Jesus. He maintained that when a plant or an animal acquired a new characteristic from its environment, it could pass this on to its off-spring, resulting in changes that accounted for evolution. But this theory proved to be a cry in the wilderness and soon flowed away in the stream of time just like ashes thrown into a river.
Forty years later the thread was picked up by Pierre Laplace. He revived Kant’s philosophic theory and tried to give it a scientific colour. His Exposition du Systems du Monde (1796) attempted to explain it in scientific terms and bitterly opposed the story of creation and refused any room for Godhead. He was so much allergic to the idea of Godhead that in the course of a discussion with Nepolean he went to the length of saying : “Sire, I have no need for that confounded hypothesis (the presence of God)”.
Later on, a French Scientist Jean de Lamark, published his treatise Philosophic Zoologique in which he held that:
‘The primitive forms were developed out of lifeless matter by spontaneous generation. The resemblances of related groups of species are explained by inheritance from common stern-forms: their dissimil-arities are due to adaptation to different environments, and to variety in the action of modifiable organs. The human race has arisen in the same way, by transform-ation of a series of mammal ancestors, the nearest of which are apelike primates.”(Last words on Evolution Haeckle).
He held that as an infant looks upon his elders and steadily learns how to walk or work, a similar desire was found in the baser forms of life at the early early stages of evolution, which consequently gave an impetus to them to develop further. He said that primitive giraffes did not have longer necks and soon, when ran short of vegetation on the surface of soil, the only foder available was the leaves of tree quite beyond their approach. Quite on the analogy of the infants, the desire to pluck leaves from higher trees resulted in the elongation of their necks, and their offsprings acquired the characteristic of longer necks. This he called the theory of “acquired characteristics.” Then came Charles Darwin, the atheist evolutionist. He propounded his own theory which was based partly on the findings of Lamarck and partly on those of his own He also played with the example of giraffes, but reached a different conclusion. According to him, the members of different species, when ran out of vegetation, comp eted with one another for life as a result of which only the fittest could survive. The survivors would pass on those advantageous variations which were instrumental in getting them upper hand over their rivals, to their offspring, which process eventually led to evolution of new forms of life. This process was given the name of natural selection. He was the first scientist to assert the descent of man from the ape. This theory caused no less havoc in the scientific as well as religious circle,s and arrested the attention of high and low alike.
In order to ascertain the validity or otherwise of the Lamarckian theory of acquired characteristics, a German scientist August Wemsmann carried out an experiment to produce a breed of tailless mice by simply cutting off their tails before allowing them to mate. “He repeated this procedure for 20 successive generations The last generation proved to have tails as long as those of their ancestors. This was the first experimental proof that acquired charact-eristics, such as artificial taillessness, are not inherited.” (Review Text in Biology—Mark A Hall and Milton S. Lesser 1966 (p 304)
This experiment rung the knell of Lamarckan theory. So far as the Darwinian theory of evolution is concerned, it also could not stand the test of advanced scientific experimentation. The theory of Natural selection was put to test by a Dutch Botanist, W. Johannsen. He carried out his experiment on the Princess garden-bean Phaseolus Vulgaris. After establishing 19 pure lines and propagating each of them in each generation by selecting the lightest and the heaviest seeds, he recovered seeds with about the same average weight from the two types of lines. He continued his experiment through several generations, but every time the same average weight was obtained. He thus reached the conclusion that be could not alter the average seed weight by selection and so he claimed in 1903 that Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection was utterly false. This declaration shook the foundations of Darwanian evolution. The Biology for Today records that scientists have raised a number of objections against complete acceptance of Darwin’s theory on the grounds that :-
(a) The theory does not account for all the known facts of heredity. For example, the theory does not clearly explain why some variations are inherited and others not. Many variations are so trivial that they could not possibly aid an organism in its struggle for existence: and
b) The theory does not explain how the gradual accumulation of trivial variations could result in the appearance of some of the more complex structures found in higher organisms (Biology for Today – Sayles B. Clark and 1. Albert Mould, 1964. P. 31)
As Darwin’s theory also proved defective, efforts were made by some scientists to improve upon it. A Dutch botanist Dc Vries started his experimentation on the plants of primroses, He asserted that occasionally some plants appeared with some unusual structure which are inherited by their off-springs. This process he named as ‘mutation” But none of these principal theories could command acceptance and proved to be faulty. The Review Text in Biology (1966) has summarised these the ories in the following words:-
“Since Lamarck’s theory (acquired characteristics) has proved false, it is only of historical interest Darwin’s theory (natural selection) does not satisfactorily explain the origin and
inheritance of variations. Dc Vries theory (large mutations) has been shown to be weak because no single mutation or Set of mutations has ever been so large and numerous that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of off-springs.(Review Text in Biology, p. 363.)
The modern evolutionists combined some traits of Darwin’s theory with the findings of De Vries and hammered out a new theory which is called Neo-Darwinism. Natural selection coupled with large mutations were the main cause for evolu tion. But this Neo-Darwinism has not been able to quench the thirst of modern scientific mind and the controversy is still going on. The Neo-Darwinism can be illustrated in such way. In primitive times the ancestors of modern giraffes were short-necked. As they increased in number, they ran short of vegetation. The lush-green leaves of high trees were then the only substitute for the vegetational fodder. Occasionally, for unknown reasons, a sort of mutation occurred in the neck of a certain giraffe who had a comparatively longer neck, which enabled him to pluck higher leaves. This mutant giraffe passed on the slightly longer neck to its off-spring; the number of short-necked giraffes thinned out giving place to mutants. This process continued until the giraff’s neck reached its present length. If-rationally discussed, it transpires that in the same area where we find giraffes, we also come across flocks of pigmy sheep. How is it that sheep could survive without longer necks and could feed on the vegetation on the surface of the soil, while on the same soil short-necked giraffes could not survive and starved out. In an article “Should We Burn Darwin” published in Science Digest of January, 1961, the writer observes:
“Perhaps the most significant single fact in last year’s development of French scientific thought is that the above orthodox explanation of evolution has been badly shaken. Often criticised in the past, it has now come under such heavy fire that the way seems to be open, in France at least, to a new theory of the origin of species……
“These are a few of the embarrassing questions asked by the French rebels : If the giraffe with its eight-foot neck is the product of natural selection and an example of the fittest, what about the sheep with its neck no longer than a few inches? Aren’t giraffes and sheep very close cousins almost brethren in the animal kingdom. But then can there live side by side two cousins, each of them fitter than the other, one because its neck is longer, the other because its neck is shorter.’
Another prominent evolutionist, Jean Rostand, challenged the verocity of Neo-Darwinism in the following words “The mutations which we know and which are considered responsible for the creation of the living world are, in general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of preexisting organs. In any case, they never produe anything really new or original in the organic scheme, nothing which one might consider the basis for new organ or the priming for a new function……I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips” of heredity have been able, even with the co-operation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which the evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations’ I cannot persuade myself to think that the eye, the ear, the human brain have been formed in this way;…..
I discern nothing that gives me the right to conceive the profound structural alterations, the fantastic metamorphoses that we have to imagine in evolutionary history when we think of the transition from invertebraters to verte brates, from fish to batrachians, from batrac hians to reptiles, from reptiles to mammals”
Examination of the Principal Theories:
Lamarck’s theory: As already stated, Lamarck held that evolution was the result of some in-born desire, or instincts, to get more perfect which actually resulted in the baser species’ evolution to higher and more perfect ones He says that when an infant looks at his parents walk and work, he also desires to do the same or get the same quality, by and by he acquires it. It means that such an evolution is subject to an example or a living pattern. Lamarck admits that man did not exist from the very beginning, then how the first plant life evolved into animate species when there was no example before them, because a desire occurs only when we have certain example before us. We can think of becoming a Governor because we have before us several precedents, and in case there had been no governorship before us, how can we aspire to. Secondly, our desires can be materialized only if we have the necessary means. An infant has a certain example of his parents who work or walk before his eyes. He also acquires those qualities because he has the example as well as means. He has hands to work with and legs to walk on. Why doesn’t a hen acquire the qualities of a man when it looks upon the man? The answer is that although she has an example before her, she lacks the means to do the same; mere desire cannot help her to acquire the necessary limbs by way of evolution. Thirdly, the example and mere means are not enough to enable a species to acquire the characteristic of another species An ape, although it looks upon man speaking and has also got a tongue, cannot speak like man. Some racial relation is also necessary. Fourthly, if we admit that evolution does not need any precedent, and it goes on automatically, it means that no creature, what soever, is perfect at any time including the homo sapiens. If so, why the evolution has suddenly stopped since times immemorial. The archaeological excavations and prehistoric arts show that man in the ancient times was the same as at present. The anthroplogists, are unanimous that there has been no change in human shape for 1,50,000 years. Why not a perfecter form of this so-called imperfect homo sapien creature.
As mentioned above, Darwin had modified the theory of Lamarck and had emphasised on the survival of the fittest, by way of natural selection. According to Darwin members of different species compete with one another for life, and in such struggle for existence any advantageous variation enables its possessor to gain the upper hand; the fittest survive and the others perish. The survivors pass on the beneficial variation to their off-spring which process eventually accounts for evolution of life. He calls this process. ‘Natural Selection.’ Ideologically spea-king, Darwin’s theory, was an off-shoot of a philoso-phical bickering rather than that of a scientific research. It had a cultural and philosophical back-ground. In the eighteenth century, Europe had full political sway over all the then known world. All the smaller nations of the world paid poll- tax to Europe because Europe was then in a profitably fitter position to dominate the other weaker nations, might is right being its only motto. This ideological background moulded the thought of her thinkers-and scientists alike at that time. Charles Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest was fully in keeping with this imperialistic trend of the West, and this is the only reason why this theory got an unswerving acceptance in the intellectual quarters of Europe and its echo is still reverberating in her colleges, and universities.
Apart from this, if we analyze this theory scientifically, it equally proves to be faulty. The theory has not been able to answer the following questions –
(i) Of course, there are variations among members of the same species with regard to colour, size etc. If they are inherited then all of them must be inherited; why are some inherited and others not? How and why do they originate?
(ii) How do the gradual accumulation of trivial variations result in the appearance of complex structures?
(iii) Any variation has to be of immediate value to its possessor if it is to give him a better chance of survival than his fellows. What is the survival value of the beginning of an eye, an ear, etc.
(iv) If the giraffe with its eight-foot neck is the product of natural selection and an example of the survival of the fittest, what about the sheep with its neck not longer than a few inches? How has it survived without a long neck?
(v) If sheep evolved horns because they aided survival, how can one account for the survival of varieties of sheep which sur vive just as well without them? Why were not the hornless ones eliminated by the process of natural selection?
(vi) Of the 1,20,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs survived because they were the fittest?
(vii) Inanimate matter devoid of motion, energy and life stays, according to the principle of intertia, forever unless acted upon by a superior outside force that could give it direction and organisation. How did the first living cell evolve out of inanimate group of chemical substance without the direction of an Intelligent Mind?
(viii) How was the gigantic gap between the inanimate elements of earth and a living cell filled-up?
(ix) Can the most advanced laboraties of our time create a living cell which, according to scientists, is as complicated as New York city, out of some inanimate matter?
(x) Is it not a fact that nearly all biologists are in virtually unanimous agreement that all life derives from preceding life? If so, how to solve the riddle of first life aided except through faith in the existence of the Creator?
(xi) Why has evolution not continued to improve it? Was it just an accident that this infinitely complex mechanism was perfect to begin with? If it evolved upward, then how is that some of them evolved upward while others did not?
(xii) How can a single celled organism such as amoeba initiate a new organ such as an eye? How could it know that eye would be an improvement if it had never seen before? How could it know that sight was even possible? Did all the complicated parts of an eye such as the cornea, pupil, iris, retina, optic nerves, muscles, veins etc., evolved simultaneously? If the answer be in the affirmative, then it would be admittedly an act of creation rather than evolution and if the answer be in the negative then a partial eye would be a serious disadvantage to the organism and would be eliminated in due course of time. Moreover, why do we not come across a single creature in the world with eyes in a transitional stage of development particularly when we find several types of apes which according to the evolutionists are in their transit to manhood ? Wherever there is an eye, it is a complete eye; why is it so? Where are the transitional stages? Has evolu-tion stopped to work?
(xiii) One-celled orgnisms such as the amoeba reproduce asexually by dividing them selves into two. This system of repro duction is satisfactory because such organisms are still with us multiplying in the same way. What was the need of converting this asexual system into sexual one ? How could male and female sex organs that perfectly com plement each other evolve gradually by chane, by the method of trial and error, perallelling each other, yet useless and decidedly disadvantageous until comple ted ? It may be noted that half-completed useless organs cannot survive even accor ding to Darwin;
(xiv) If the mammary glands in females came about by slow evolution, how did these females feed their young in the meantime? If they already had another satisfactory way to feed their young, then why deve lop breasts? If breasts developed because they were a superior way of feeding, then why do we still have animals that feed otherwise in a satisfactory way and survive just as well?
(xv) Spiders have special organs for spinning web without which they could catch no food. How did they survive the millions of years when these organs were evolving? If they gained food in other ways, what was the need of spinning organs?
(xvi) All the cosmologists agree that all the planets were once a compact whole and that they suddenly split up with a big explosion into several galaxies. Only recently, man has landed on the moon, the satellite and at one time a part of the earth. The American astronauts brought back large quantities of moon-rock, as also the Russian Luna-16. The researches carried out so far have not been able to prove that there is life on the moon, although they have discovered that a very slight quantity of water (water that originates all living cells) exists in the moon crust. Why is there no life on the moon; if the scientists of tomorrow are able to discover bacteria in the moon soil, why did then bacteria not evolve into more perfect forms?; why did they not evolve into homosapiens or any other perfect form on the surface of the moon?
If the lifeless elements of the earth could originate living cells and produce homosapiens, why could the moon-soil not decorate itself with living phenomena?
Act of a Creator:
By examining all the questions posed above, we come to the conclusion that all living phenomena of the world are the result of spontaneous creation and in no way can it be attributed to organic evolu tion. E. C. Kornfeld, a research chemist of repute, has very ably demonstrated that—
“So highly intricate are the organic bio-chemi cal processes functioning in the animal organism, that it is not surprising that malfunc tion and disease occasionally intervene. One is rather amazed that a mechanism of such intricacy could ever function properly at all. All this demands a planner and sustainer of infinite intelligence. The simplest man-made mechanism requires a planner and a maker. How a mechanism ten thousand times more involved and intricate can be conceived of as self-constructed and self-developed is comp letely beyond me. ( E C Kornfeld (The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe).
Even in this computer age, the most skilled computerists are inclined to assert that this orderly functioning of the universe and the living phenomena in it cannot go on automatically, the precise exactitude in its working points to its designer and planner which they have termed as super-master computer, who can be none else than the Creator and Controller of the universe, the Almighty God.
A famous mathematician and chemist, John Cleveland Cothran, has very finely put forth his views in these words:
“Chemistry discloses that matter is ceasing to exist, some varieties exceedingly slowly, others exceedingly swiftly. Therefore the existence of matter is not eternal. Consequently, matter must have had a beginning. Evidence from chemistry and other sciences indicates that this beginning was not slow and gradual; on the contrary, it was sudden, and the evidence even indicates the approximate time when it occurred. Thus, at some rather definite time the material realm was created and ever since has been obeying LAW, not the dictates of chance. “Now, the material realm not being able to create itself and its governing laws, the act of creation must have been performed by some non-material agent. The stupendous marvels accomplished in that act show that this agent must possess superlative intelligence, an attribute of mind. But to bring mind into action in the material realm, as, for example, in the practice of medicine and in the field of parapsychology, the exercise of WILL is required, and this can be exerted only by a PERSON. Hence our logical and inescapable conclusion is not only that crea tion occurred, but that it was brought about according to the plan and will of a Person possessing supreme intelligence and know ledge (omniscience), and the power to bring it about and keep it running according to plan (omnipotence) always and everywhere throughout the universe (omnipresence). That is to say, we accept unheistatingly the fact of the existence of “the supreme spiritual Being, God, the Creator and Director of the universe.
Sir Isaac Newton once got a Skillful mechanic make him a miniature replica of our solar system with balls representing the planets geared together by cogs and belts so as to move in harmony when cranked. Later, Newton was visited by one of his atheist friend scientist who did not believe in God. The following was the conversation which took place between them:
“The scientist slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet, he exclaimed, ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it? Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, ‘Nobody “Quickly turning to Newton, the atheist said, ‘Evidently you did not understand my ques tion. I asked who made this? Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that no body made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonish ed atheist replied with some heat, ‘You must think I am a fool! Of course, somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is,’
“Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend’s shoulder. ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and 1 am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original form which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker? Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?
Thus, Newton convinced his atheist friend that whatever is made does not evolve of itself without any maker and designer.
Can any evolutionist ever say that a space satellite in orbit around the earth got there when a chance co-ordination of metal molecules formed a capsule on earth, which just happened to be connected to an evolved rocket and fuel tank and that all of this just chanced to go into perfect orbit with out any directing intelligence ? If not, then by what logic and by what reasoning can he claim that the most complex things of all living phenomena on our planet did not require the agency of a maker?
Says Boyce Humann, famous biologist:-
‘Lifting our eyes to the heavens, we surely must exclaim with wonder at the orderly sweep of the stars. Night after night, season after season, year after year, century after century, the worlds of the outer space have followed their courses through the sky. They return so regularly in their orbits that eclipses may be predicted centuries in advance. Is anyone still asking whether they might be just accidental condensations of galactic materials, haphazardly wandering about?’
The missing links and the fossil records:
The evolutionists claim that all living things gradually evolved from one-celled organisms into higher forms of life. This evolutionary process means that there is a chain-link between all the species. When the evolutionists say that man has descended from apes; then there must be several species interlinking both the apes and the homo sapiens. This interlinking species has been named as primates, which were a developed form of apes, but had not yet become man. In spite of their dogged search in the nooks and corners of the earth, the evolutionists have not been able to bring forth any such species which can be termed as ‘a creature below man but above apes. Helplessly, the poor supporters of evolution point out to the fos sillic finds. While on the one hand, it is interesting to observe that when the so-called fore-fathers (apes) and descendants (man) of this primate crea ture which was swallowed by the whale of time, are still alive the inter-linking creature withered away and became fossillised in the crusts of the earth; on the other it is still more interesting that these fossils provide no clue whatsoever to this missing link, and the fossils so far excavated have not proved to be of the so-called primates. This has baffled the evolutionists all along. Even Darwin had to humbly apologise in this matter. He said, “To the question, why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
A modern evolutionist, writing in the ‘New- York Times’ of October 25, 1964, admitted that:
“The chief puzzle of the record of life’s history on earth, is the sudden appearance some 600 million years ago, of most basic divisions of the plant and animal kingdoms. There is virtually no record of how these divisions came about.”
In the face of all this, the devout evolutionists have tried to deceive the world by playing and improving upon the scanty fossil record. In 1891 a Dutch surgeon, Professor Dubois, found some fossils in Java and declared it to be remains of the so called horno-erectus primate. Later research on the fossils proved it to be a vile effort on the part of the said Professor to deceive the world. Encyclo-paedia Britannica remarks:
“The five fossil fragments found were: a skull cap which outwardly had the form which might be expected in a giant form of gibbon, a left, thigh bone and three teeth. The most distant parts of the fragments were 20 paces apart. Later he added a sixth fragment – part of a lower jaw found in another part of the island but in a stratum of same geological age.”
Thus this enthusiastic evolutionist, in order to support the theory bade farewell to the scientific method and deceived the world by placing together the scanty scraps of fossil bones excavated at diffe rent places (in the case of the sixth fragment, even miles away from the other finds) Similarly, in 1922 a fossil tooth was found in Nebraska and the evolu tionists hailed it to be belonging to an anthropoid ape, but the later research proved it to be that of a fossil peccary (a piglike animal). The Science News Letter of February 25, 1961, has exposed another fake
“One of the most famous fakes exposed by scientific proof was Piltdown man found in Sussex, England—and thought by some to be 500,000 years old. After much ‘controversy, it turned out to be not a primitive man at all, but a composite of a skill of modern man and the jaw-bone of an ape. The jaw-bone had been ‘doctored with bichromate of potash and iron to make it look mineralized.”
The present fossil record is, thus, nothing but a hoax, faked by the atheist evolutionists; the future also does not hold good promise. The true and best way for the evolutionists should have been to rely on scientific method of finding truth by supporting their conclusions with facts, otherwise reject the same. On the contrary, the evolutionists draw conclusions from the facts which do not exist from the fossil record which is missing. Is this science and logic? The above extracts prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the 3/4 fossil record of the earth is missing, and the remaining 1/4, in itself a hoax engineered by evolutionists, supports a sudden creation and in no case a slow evolution.
It shows well-defined species and no transitio nal forms representing intermediate evolutionary form. Charles Drawin himself admits it in quite a humble apologetic tone:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not see everywhere innumerable transitional forms. Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being as we see them well defined? “But as by this (evolution) theory innumera ble transitional forms must have existed, why we do not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth. Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required”. To these he finds no answer, and in order to stave off humiliation, says “I believe the answer lies in the record being in comparably less perfect than is generally sup posed”. Then why to build a theory on a record that does not exist or is incomparably imperfect? It is admitted on all hands that the record of fossils in the rocks shows no slow evolving from family to family. Families remain constant. New families appear suddenly and there is no proof of their having undergone through long periods gradual deve lopment. No fossil has been found that clearly shows even one of the millions of transitional forms. Why so many fossils of existing families but no series of fossils showing evolution of new organs? Why does the fossil record suffer from extreme imperfection only at those critical points where families are being bridged, eyes, ears and other organs being gradually evolved and why it is so perfect within each family? It was perhaps this reason that compelled Dr. Clark, a Smithsomian Institute biologist to say in the ‘Quar terly Review of Biology’ that instead of evolution by process of gradual development, it has come about by a series of jumps from one major form of life to another?’ As for the group animals,” he says, “the creationsists seem to have the better of the arguments. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.
Professor D’ Arey Thompson says in his book “On Growth and Forms’. ‘Eighty years study of Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadruped, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. A principle of discon tinuity then is inherent in all our classification. To seek for stepping stones between the gaps is to seek in vain forever”
In spite of their best efforts, even the devout evolutionists have not so far been able to give any satisfactory answer to the following questions, nor there is any likelihood that the future will enable them to;
(a) Where are all the’ in-between’ stages or links of the evolutionary chain in either the fossil record or in the record of living things today?
(b) Why is it always the same story that the intermediate transitional links between major groups of plants animals are missing? Why do the major groups of complex organism always appear suddenly, separa-ted by structural gaps from members of other groups?
(c) Why are such things as arms, legs, eyes and wings always found to be completely developed? Where are the various stages of development in different limb and organs?
Is Man descended from Animals:
The evolutionists are still harping on the same string and claim that man is descended from animals, that he is essentially an animal and there is no basic difference between man and brute. But the following basic and fundamental differences do exist. How do the evolutionists account for them?
1) They say that all animals form the lowest worm to the highest form are the slaves of their innate instincts. These instincts compel them to perform certain specific actions in certain specific actions in certain specific situations: a hungry wolf will but pounce upon a weak lamb to satify his appetite. But what about man? A saint of Madina, Hazrat Ali, in spite of having remained without food for three days cheerfully afforded to give his loaf of bread to a needy person and himself remained con tent with only a cup of water for breaking fast. How can one account for this strange behaviour where the instinct of food-see king and self-preservation are ignored in favour of charity and self control?
(2) The object and aim of all the activities of an animal life is self-preservation and race-preservation. By his very nature an animal can not do any thing which is likely to harm his being. If a man is nothing but an animal, then how can one explain cases of suicide and self-immola tion?
(3) Man has got self-consciousness and free will which are absent in the whole terres tial creation. How do the evolutionists explain this phenomenon?
(4) Animals respond instinctively in one way only. The beehive built by been ten thousand years ago, is exactly of the same pattern as today but man has steadily improved upon his knowledge and simple houses have progressed into sky- scrapers. Whence this basic difference? Is there a single instance of an animal building on accumulated knowledge? How do the evolutionists bridge the mental gulf that separates man from all animals. Why have all efforts to educate appreciably the chimpanzee or any other animal failed and why have all primitive people been able to receive the highest education?
(5) Every person has got an inborn God-con sciousness and moral sense. Sense of justice and truth are found innate in every man without any exception. They are not the result of persuation of education. Animals have none of these noble attri butes, why this difference?
(6) Animals have sensations, notions, impu lses etc. but thought in its true sense belongs to man and man alone. Human thought ranges from the lowest grades to the very highest. Could anyone explain this difference?
(7) The innermost recesses of the human unconscious mind (Ba’tin) reveal future events in dreams and visions, Can this phenomenon be explained in any way except in the context of religion and spiri tualism?
(8) Man is endowed with conscience, perfect intelligence and reason, but these things are absent in animal world: Why?
The above points prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that there is an unbridgeable gap between man and beast. The rational western mind, fed up with and frustrated by the Christian mythologies, enigmatic exposition of God and incarnation of Jesus Christ instead of rejecting christian dogma in par ticular, chose to defy the very basis of religion in general, and sailed in difficult muddy waters which obviously anchored them on atheistic shores. The philosophers like Kant and Hume first took the initiative and the thread was later on picked up by indignant scientists, who had been hitherto the oppressed victims of the Church. The wise path would have been for the scientists at least to adopt a scientific method and be rational in their approach to the problem, but, unfortunately prejudiced western scientists jumped at a conclusion, an imaginary and biased conclusion, before resorting to any scienti fic process and finding sufficient material to prove it. They asserted that man has descended from beasts, but have not so far been able to substantiate it with any solid proof. Thus, unproved and unprovable, evolution is a faith in fossils that do not exist, and faith in links that are still missing.
It is a blind faith induced by a fear, fear of what a smart world saturated with evolution might think. It is a pity that some of our so-called modern minded Muslims are making an unholy alliance between the Holy Qur’an and this Darwinian Mechanistic Evolution and claim that this theory is in perfect consonance with the Quranic conception of creation. Evolution is negation of God; on the contrary the Quran puts emphasis on the unity and existence of God, the Almighty, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Director and Controller of the unive rse. There can be no convergence and confluence of these two different streams:
The Quranic Version of Man’s Creation:
The Holy Qur’an, the Mother of All-Knowledge, has very clearly explained the process of man’s creation and has left no uncertainty what-soever in this regard.
Before Adam, the first man, was created, God disclosed to the angels that He was going to create His Viceroy on the earth (11: 30). ‘And remember when thy Lord said unto angels: Lo I am creating a mortal out of potter’s clay of black altered. So when I have made him and have breathed into him of My spirit, do ye fall down prostrating your selves unto him’ (VI: 28-29). Then came the stage when man’s creation was actually taken up “And He began the Creation of man from clay.” (XXXEI) Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit and appointed for him hearing and sight and heart’ (XXXII-9) All this took place in the heaven and not on earth, as will be evident from the following verses:-
“And We said: 0 Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Heaven and eat ye freely thereof where ye will, but come not nigh that tree, lest ye become wrong doers. But Satan caused them to deflect their cause and expelled them from the state in which they were and We said: Fall down one of you a foe unto other; THERE SHALL BE FOR YOU ON EARTH A HABITATION AND PROVISION FOR A TIME (II: 35-36).”. Thus Adam and his wife, Eve, were sent down on the earth complete in all respects, lacking no limb or sinew which would have been added later on through the process of evolution. Apart from the Holy Quran, the Tradi-tions of the Holy Prophet are so abundantly clear about the shape of Adam, that they have defined each and every limb of the first Man, Adam, to be in complete resemblance with those of the Last Prophet (Peace be upon him).
It was only consequent upon the deviation of Adam from God’s command (not to touch the forbidden tree) that he was expelled from Heaven and descended on earth. It is wrong at this stage to think that on his expulsion from the Eden, the com-plete body of Adam might have been put into the embryo of some already existing creature (say, anthropoid apes, as held by some Muslims modernists) in order to carry it through the process of evolution. But on a careful study of the verses of the Holy Quran relating to the creation of Adam and Eve, this nation also shatters into pieces. If for a moment for the sake of argument, it is admitted that this is a true notion, then we are bound to admit that ‘THAT LUCKY CREATURE’ would have been parent of Adam. This is the law of anthropology and cannot bear any deviation or exception. But the holy Quran has emphatically rejected this idea. While referring to the case of Jesus Christ, the Holy Quran says that the FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST HOLD HIM EQUAL TO GOD for the simple reason that he was created without the agency of a father. Jesus case was quite identical to that of Adam. Let it not be forgotten that Adam was created without father and mother. Adam’s miraculous birth was more marvelous than that of Jesus Christ; if Adam cannot be God, how can Jesus be? Contextually, though this verse is not so relevant to the creation of man as to the non- Godhead of Jesus, yet this verse elucidates the fact that Adam had no parents.
It is crystal clear from the above verses of the Holy Quran that man was created, complete in all respects, in the Heaven, was bestowed with the gift of speaking (Surah LV-4) and on account of his deviation was descended on the earth to live there for a period. In order to enable Adam to further reproduce his off-spring, God then equipped him with the necessary means. “Then he made his seed from an extract of despised fluid (XXXII : 8)” O mankind Be careful of your duty to your Lord who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women (4: 1) On the earth the process of reproduction, through sexual mating, went on and until the present moment no evolutionary development occurred in his form or manner. He has been complete in all respects ever since the day he was created “Surely we have created man in the best make (XCV : 4).
Apart from the creation of Adam, the Holy Quran has also thrown a flood of light on the origin of fauna on the earth. “And Allah has created every animal from water: among them are some that go upon their bellies and among them are some that go upon two feet and among them are some that go upon four feet. Allah creates what He pleases. It means that every living phenomena of the universe was created by God in a separate and complete form, and there is no point in assuming that the fungi-like phenomena grew into reptiles, reptiles involved into mammals or quadruples.
The whole universe was created with a set purpose and was not a result of purposeless evolution as erroneously held by the evolutionists, or their unfortunate followers. Says the Holy Quran “We created not the heaven and earth and all that is bet-ween the two in play: if We had ‘wished a pastime, we would have surely found it in what is with Us, if at all We were to do such a thing (XXI : 16)’. And a purposeful creation is not in need of any crutch of, evolution. The above scientific discussion coupled with theological exposition will be more than an eye opener for the misguided people whose eyes have been dazzled with the momentary light of baseless claims of evolutionists, and would be able to glance at the rightful, permanent Guidance of God, contained in the Holy Quran.’
“And our last call shall be; “Praise be to the Lord of all the worlds.”
“And may Allah’s choicest blessings and peace be upon the most virtuous of all Rasuls upon his family, his Companions and his followers till the day of Qiyaamah. We beg this O Allah, through Your Mercy; O You Merciful One.”
And Allah knows best.