Episode 45 – Why Does Evolution Conflict with Islam?

Introduction: Why Does the Theory of Evolution Conflict with Islam?

Peace be upon you. The question that was asked with every episode was: Why do you assume that the theory of evolution conflicts with Islam? Now, after we have discussed the subject in scientific detail, we will summarize the answer for you. And as we promised you that these episodes would be methodical and would establish principles for thinking, our answer in this episode and the ones that follow will include many of these principles, by Allah’s permission.

Some of what we say today is brief, more like headings, and we will explain it in detail and mention the evidence for it in the following episodes.

Defining the Theory of Evolution

It is very important at the beginning to know: What exactly are we talking about? Because when “the theory of evolution” is mentioned, I may be talking about one thing while you have something else in mind.

The theory of evolution does not simply mean that organisms descended from a common ancestor; rather, it means their descent from this common ancestor through a succession of coincidences, with no intent from anyone, and with no need for an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator. This is the common denominator between the theory in its initial form produced by Darwin and all the modifications made to it after that up to our present day, as we explained in detail in the episode: (Microbe Worshippers).

The most widespread form of this theory is the one that says this descent from a common ancestor occurred through random changes and blind selection. For brevity: if we say “the theory of evolution” in this episode, what is meant is this most widespread form.

There are some followers of the theory who deny the randomness of the changes or the blindness of selection, yet still insist that there is “no Creator and no intent.” In all of this, they want to remain consistent with their materialist foundations in explaining the universe and life. In the episode “The Kidnapped Child,” we saw how they were unable to remain consistent; rather, they were forced to affirm foolish unseen notions instead of the true unseen reality: the fact that there must be a Creator.

Evolution as a Myth Without a Creator

This is the technical meaning of the theory of evolution: organisms without a Creator. This is what we have repeatedly said is a myth, the silliest and stupidest idea in history. And this is what we have shown over the past 24 episodes: the extent of the logical fallacies and deception practiced to dress it in the garb of science.

So our problem with “the theory of evolution” is not that it denies the independent creation of organisms, as some people think; rather, our problem with it is that, by this definition, it destroys reason, entrenches crooked forms of inference, and falsifies science.

Our Position on the Theory of Evolution

“You reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons?” We answer: “Correct. We reject your myth for religious reasons, because our true religion addresses sound reason: if reason is lost, religion is lost with it. Preserving reason is a fundamental requirement of our religion, since reason is the basis of moral accountability. Your myth can gain acceptance only by destroying reason. Our religion therefore requires us to guard reason against your myth.”

Yes, we deny your myth for religious reasons, because natural science in our religion points to Allah and calls to awe of Him, and it stands only upon the sources of knowledge that emerge from the system of belief in a Creator, as we explained in the episode “The Kidnapped Child.” If one of them is lost, the other is lost. Meanwhile, your myth can gain acceptance only through falsifying science. So when we show the falsehood of your myth, we preserve reason, science, and religion together.

Reconciling the Myth with Belief in the Creator

Alright, what if we try to reconcile the myth, with its chance and lack of intent, with belief in the Creator? By assuming that the Creator has some role in the origin of the universe and the origin and diversity of life, while still retaining randomness and blindness as pillars of the theory?

The answer is that this is an attempt to reconcile the silliest idea in history with the greatest truth in existence. An attempt to reconcile materialism, which specifically wants to exclude the Creator, with the methodology that is based on acknowledging that there must be a Creator.

We will show that any attempt to graft the tree of Darwin onto the tree of belief in the Creator will produce extremely deformed fruits, including deviation concerning Allah’s names and attributes, meaning distorting them from their original meaning, which leads to doubt about the Quran and ultimately to disbelief. We will also show that those who make this mixture between randomness and chance on the one hand, and some role for the Creator on the other, are recycling Darwin’s steps, through which he was able to destroy reason and pass off his myth gradually.

Islam’s Position on the Theory of Evolution: By Innate Disposition, Reason, Science, and Religion

This is the position on “the theory of evolution”: false by innate disposition, reason, science, and religion. We remind you that we use the word “science” in the sense of empirical science to emphasize that knowledge is not limited to empirical science based on observation and experimentation; rather, what reason indicates is knowledge, and truthful report is knowledge, as we explained in the episode “The Kidnapped Child.”

After this explanation, it is as if I can see some people saying: So this is your main problem with “the theory of evolution”? Randomness, chance, and that there is no Creator? Fine, we agree with you. So you have no problem with “guided evolution”?

The Concept of “Guided Evolution”

What do you mean by “guided evolution”? That Allah developed organisms from a common origin intentionally and by will, without randomness or chance?

This, my brothers, is no longer evolution and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, whose proponents agreed to deny the act of the Creator within it and to say that neither the existence of organisms in this diversity is intended, nor their integration intended, nor their organs intended; rather, it is chance upon chance. It is based on the randomness of changes, the blindness of selection, and claims errors in design as a result of the absence of intent.

When you say “the theory of evolution,” it does not mean only “common origin”; rather, it includes all these absurdities. So when you say “guided evolution” by a Creator, this means: “no intent” under the guidance of the Creator. It is a self-contradictory phrase. It is never correct to normalize the term “the theory of evolution” in this way, especially since the war of terminology is highly influential, and the followers of the myth of evolution rely heavily on manipulating terms.

This is the position on guided evolution: it is a self-contradictory term, and what is contradictory is false.

How Did the Creator Create? The Unseen and the Observable World

Alright... forget guided evolution. What about the creation of organisms from a common origin? Let us first agree that we are done with the topic of evolution, meaning that we have agreed on the answer to the question: Must there be a Creator? We answered: yes, the answer indicated by innate disposition, reason, and science, and we have moved on to the question: How did the Creator create? In other words, we have buried the word “evolution,” and our entire discussion now has nothing to do with it.

We are now discussing the manner of “creation,” the concept that is the opposite of “evolution.” Our question is: How did this “creation” take place? Rationally, everything possible is within the Creator’s power: to bring organisms out from a common origin, or to create each of them independently, or to keep some of them as they are and diversify others.

The Limits of Empirical Science in Knowing the Manner of Creation

Alright, from the perspective of empirical science? Empirical science answers you: We apologize, this is outside our specialization. Why? Because empirical science’s field of work is observing sensory things and their effects in the observable world in which we live. As for the manner of the first formation of organisms, it is an unseen matter that does not fall under sense perception, observation, or experimentation.

The existence of a distinction between the two worlds, the world of the unseen and the observable world, is a reality indicated by the sources of knowledge, including empirical science. It indicates that there must be something prior to matter, energy, and the laws that empirical science studies: a first cause that dominates everything and is dominated by nothing. Matter, energy, and laws are abstractions and inanimate things: they do not create, perfect, or originate.

Likewise, the manner of the first bringing into existence of living organisms is a matter outside the customary patterns of life, prior to them. It is prior to the reproduction of animals from male and female, since the chain of pairs must necessarily stop at a beginning. This is something judged by reason. And the manner of bringing this beginning into existence is a matter from the world of the unseen.

But can we not infer, by contemplating fossils and their distribution across strata, similarities between organisms and their geographic distribution, and genetic material, its differences and similarities; can we not infer from all of this how the first creation was, whether independent creation or from one common origin or multiple common origins?

The answer, my brothers, is that a single result in all of this may be reached by more than one method. If two organisms are similar, it is rationally possible that they were created independently while similar, or that one was brought out from the other. There is no way to confine the two possibilities to one of them through empirical science.

Among the basics of experimental science is that if I enter a laboratory and follow specific steps and produce a chemical compound, the most I can say is that these steps lead to this compound. If I know that there is more than one way to produce this chemical compound, then I see the same compound in someone else’s hand, I cannot judge that he produced it by the same steps as mine; rather, he may have produced it through other reactions.

This is an accepted scientific principle, applied and agreed upon. If any researcher built the discussion of his scientific results, for any experiment, on a basis other than this, his research and conclusions would be rejected. This is the case with compounds whose methods of preparation can be known, so how about the unseen first creation of diverse organisms, which is not like human acts and is not limited by their options?

You may say: Fine, why did you allow yourself to deny “the theory of evolution” by empirical science, but now you do not want to deny or affirm the manners of creation by empirical science as well?

We return and say, my brothers: these are two questions: Must there be a Creator? And how did the Creator create? “The theory of evolution” says: No, there is no need for a Creator. It thereby closed the door of the unseen and began demanding explanations for life from the observable world. We have shown throughout the episodes of the series, from its beginning until now, the falsehood of these explanations by innate disposition, reason, and empirical science. The theory committed itself to the observable world as the only explanation, so we held it to that, and refuted it through its own evidence and tools. We showed that the empirical science it claimed is innocent of it; indeed, it demolishes it from its foundations. Then we demonstrated that instead of opening the door to the true unseen, the theory was forced to assume unseen notions whose foolishness we showed.

As for our statement that empirical science is not specialized in explaining the manner of first creation, we have answered, by innate disposition, reason, and empirical science, the first question: yes, there must be a Creator. All these sources of knowledge, including empirical science, have indicated to us that He is a Creator of absolute power and absolute will, and that His actions are not subject to material laws. Rather, laws are nothing but descriptions of some of His actions that we see in the observable world. As for what occurs in the unseen, that is not the domain of empirical science; rather, its domain is the observable world and the cosmic patterns upon which the Creator organized the universe and life.

Sources of Knowledge in Islam: Revelation

Alright, how do we know then? How do we know whether the Creator brought organisms out from a common origin or created them independently? How do we know the answer to this unseen question? Here my address and answer are directed to Muslims who believe in the truth of the Quran, because at this station of Journey of Certainty we have not yet discussed the evidence that the Quran is from the Creator of the universe.

The answer, my brothers, is that matters whose reality neither reason nor empirical science can determine have no answer except through truthful report. We as Muslims have been guided by evidence, which we will discuss later, that the Quran is from Allah. He alone, glory be to Him, can inform us of the manner of creation if He wills.

Have the verses detailed the manner of creation of organisms in general? The answer: no. Rather, it is as if they point to Allah’s exclusive possession of this knowledge: “I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves.” [Al-Kahf 18:51]. Nevertheless, revelation has informed us of some of this unseen, such as the original material from which Adam was created. Part of Allah’s perfect wisdom is that He reassured people of the truth of these unseen reports about the creation of the first human by mentioning signs from the observable world that can be observed through empirical science, such as the stages of the embryo’s formation.

Interpreting Quranic Verses

You may say: But what about the statement of Allah Most High: “Say, ‘Travel through the land and observe how He began creation.’” [Al-‘Ankabut 29:20] Do you not see that this verse emboldens us to cross the threshold of the unseen and speak about what occurred before the observable world, and to arrive at the manners of first creation through observation and empirical science?

The answer, my brothers, is that Allah does not burden anyone with the impossible, and the verse has many beautiful indications that we will address in an upcoming episode, by Allah’s permission. There is no need to abandon all these indications and interpret the verse in a way that contradicts a firm principle indicated by the Quran: that the human being stops at the threshold of the unseen.

We return and say: We as Muslims have our sources of knowledge set in order, and each of them has its limits. We do not impose empirical science upon the unseen. For example, if we found traces of Adam, peace be upon him, himself, would we be able to find a material explanation for the emergence of life in him? A mass of clay shaped, then by the blowing of a soul it became teeming with life: a unique manner prior to the pattern of reproduction from eggs and sperm.

Jesus, peace be upon him, would create from clay something like the form of a bird, then breathe into it and it would become a bird by Allah’s permission. If we found traces of these birds, would it be within the field of empirical science to know the material secret of their formation? Or would this be futile confusion?

When the followers of “the myth of evolution” denied this distinction between the world of the unseen and the observable world and imposed empirical science upon both, they turned it into pseudoscience and brought laughable statements to explain the origin of life, as we saw.

Looking at Fossils and Their Indications

Alright, does looking at fossils, for example, provide no benefit? Rather, it benefits you by allowing you to contemplate the power of Allah, who brought organisms into existence in many and complex forms from ancient times. It benefits you when you see that neither above the earth nor beneath it, neither in the present nor in the past, is there any trace of randomness, blindness, floundering, or failed attempts to produce organisms. Whoever searches for a trace of that will have his sight return to him humbled and weary. It benefits you to look with the gaze of one who seeks benefit and reflection, not the gaze of one who guesses at the unseen without evidence.

Summary of the Position on the Manner of Creation

This, then, is the summary of the position on the manner of creation:

• Rationally: the Creator has power over all things.
• Empirical science: outside its scope.
• Religiously: we adhere to the extent mentioned in revelation from the Quran and the authentic Sunnah.

Is it our purpose in Journey of Certainty to exhaustively investigate the verses and hadiths related to the beginning of creation to see whether they indicate a specific manner? No, that is not our purpose, since it is not among the foundations of building certainty. Rather, in an upcoming episode we will point out the danger of bending the verses to fit the myths of pseudoscience, because this is conduct that contradicts certainty and harms it.

The Danger of Bending Verses to Fit the Myths of Pseudoscience

If these principles become settled for us, my brothers, we will realize the problem found among many of those who speak about empirical science and revelation regarding the first appearance of organisms, and even regarding other topics, as we will see examples of them in the coming episodes, Allah willing.

Some of them try to undermine the credibility of unseen reports in revelation through empirical science or through myths attributed to empirical science. Others try to seek credibility for unseen reports from empirical science or from myths attributed to empirical science. This trend, even if it appears to affirm revelation and the Quran, is also false.

Some of them say: Save revelation through interpretation before empirical science brings it down. They want us to deal with the verses of revelation as if their indications were fluid, capable of being reshaped according to whatever myths appear anew, Allah’s speech is far above that. Thus they made empirical science the judge and revelation the judged in unseen matters, which cannot be known except through revelation.

All of these people, despite the diversity of their directions, are united by three problems: they did not distinguish between empirical science and the myths attributed to it; then they did not merely intrude empirical science into the world of the unseen, but also intruded these myths into the world of the unseen; and they did not give Allah’s speech its due estimation. “And indeed, it is a mighty Book. Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; it is a revelation from a Lord who is Wise and Praiseworthy.” [Fussilat 41:41–42]. Falsehood does not overthrow it, nor does falsehood testify to its truth, nor is it interpreted by falsehood. It is a mighty Book, dominant and judging, not judged; leading, not led. “Indeed, it is a decisive statement, and it is not amusement.” [At-Tariq 86:13–14]. Not as those who treat its interpretation frivolously and bend it to fit myths want it to be, for they lifted myths from their swamp and sought to bring revelation down from its loftiness in order to bridge the gap between them.

The Question: “What If the Theory of Evolution Is Proven in the Future?”

If what preceded becomes settled for you, you will also know that the question, “What if it is proven in the future that the theory of evolution is correct?” is a question that contradicts the simplest self-evident principles of the philosophy of science. Empirical science will not bring you, in the present or in the future, evidence for something outside the scope of its research, let alone bring evidence for a myth that contradicts all the generators of knowledge upon which empirical science stands.

This is our answer to the question of “first creation.” Peace be upon you.