Supplement – Responding to Critics of the Evolution Episodes

Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy, dear brothers.

Introduction: The Impact of Journey of Certainty

Since the Journey of Certainty began, it has had a wide impact, and many have commented that, by Allah Almighty's grace, it was a reason for their return to Islam. Many episodes of the journey dealt with exposing the fallacies of pseudoscience using evolution as an example, while I repeatedly emphasized that the major problem lies in the claim that organisms appeared through random evolution, without the will of an agent acting freely who knows what He is doing.

I explained that this is intellectual suicide and extreme stupidity, and I explained in detail how this stupidity is promoted among the children of Muslims. What is striking is that these episodes provoked many people, so they began responding to them. From time to time, someone asks me to respond to those who criticize my discussion of the myth of random evolution: "Dr. Eyad, so-and-so is responding to you, so respond to him! So-and-so is responding to you, so respond to him!"

Responses to the Journey of Certainty and the Methodology for Dealing with Them

Let it be known, my brothers, that those who have issued series, groups of episodes, or articles responding to what we mentioned in the Journey of Certainty have so far come from seven sources, to my knowledge: atheists and people dazzled by so-called Western scientists. I looked at some of these responses, and most of what they contain is nothing but verbal evasions or repetition of doubts that, praise be to Allah, we have already answered in detail.

I am pleased by the large number of people responding to the series, because this indicates the extent of the shock the episodes caused them, praise be to Allah, especially when they see their credibility collapsing among their followers, who had long heard them glorifying the myth of evolution.

Now, dear viewers, my methodology is that I investigate, verify, and exert great effort in perfecting the episodes I produce, and I present sources and evidence during my discussion as documentation. Then, after that, do not expect me to respond to everyone who claims to be responding to the episodes. Otherwise, life would be wasted explaining what is already explained and repeating what has already been repeated, and we would not be able to move one step forward in the series.

Your brother has his commitments, teaching, research, and scholarly contributions, and he is not free to respond to everyone who suddenly decides to issue a video or article responding to the episodes.

Confronting Accusations of Lying and Deception

Among the latest things issued in this regard is a set of articles by one writer. I read the first of them, and I would like to show you some passages from his article. Then judge for yourselves whether there is any need for us to continue reading his other articles about the Journey of Certainty, the ones in which he talks about the Journey of Certainty, or whether there is no need.

The brother in question accuses this poor servant, Eyad, of misrepresenting his opponent’s position. Fine, then. Let us see the lie. I will bring you the texts from his words and from Darwin's words.

The writer says: "What about the conclusion Dr. Qunaibi presented within his explanation of the supposed pillars of Darwin's theory, that living organisms arose without intent or will from a willing, choosing agent who knows what He is doing? This conclusion does not belong to Darwin's theory or to Darwin's books in which he explained his theory."

That is, the writer says: "This conclusion, that the universe came, or creation came, without will or intent, does not belong to Darwin's theory or to Darwin's books in which he explained his theory; rather, it belongs to Dr. Qunaibi." Until the writer said: "Darwin did not speak about his observations in nature. Another person may insert his faith into his understanding of what Darwin said, negatively or positively, but it is not fair to mix our conclusions with the theory. It is not fair to mix our conclusions with the theory."

Fine. So Darwin did not say that living organisms arose without intent or will; rather, these are Eyad's conclusions, which he mixed with Darwin's words. Otherwise, Darwin did not say this in any of his books. Excellent, excellent! If the brother's words are correct, then I must apologize for lying about Darwin. But if the brother's words are wrong, then we may ask: is this ignorance or deliberate deception?

I honestly do not know whether the brother watched the episode he is criticizing from the beginning. If he watched it, did he see the phrases I displayed next to me from Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" starting at minute one and thirty-two seconds, meaning only a minute and a half after the start of the video?

At that point I said: "The most important thing in the matter is that Darwin assumed that living organisms resulted from these changes through accumulated chances, meaning without intent. In his words, there was no plan of creation in bringing about these many species, something he affirmed in many places in his writings."

Did Darwin Deny Intent and Will?

Here, my brothers, I displayed next to me five quotations from Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" indicating randomness and the denial of intent in creation while I was saying this sentence. Two of these quotations are from chapter fourteen, entitled "Conclusions." So Darwin is giving you his conclusions, his conclusions, not Eyad's conclusions.

All right, let us hear Darwin's conclusions: "Community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking and not some unknown plan of creation or the enunciation of general propositions." Meaning: "Unity of origin is the hidden bond that naturalists had been unconsciously seeking, and not some unknown plan of creation or the statement of general propositions."

I also displayed his other statement in the chapter of "Conclusions": "Nothing is more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class by the doctrine of final causes." Meaning: "There is nothing more hopeless than attempting to explain this similarity of pattern among members of the same class based on the doctrine of the existence of specific final purposes." Meaning it is a hopeless, desperate attempt to try to convince us that there is a purpose in this creation.

Darwin goes on to say: "For on the ordinary view of each organism having been independently created, we can say that the Creator must have willed that all animals and plants in each great class should be formed on a uniform plan, but this is not a scientific explanation." Meaning: "Based on the ordinary view that each organism was created independently, we can only say that the Creator must have willed to create all animals and plants in each class according to a uniform plan, but this is not a scientific explanation."

Of course, my brothers, our issue here is not whether it was independent creation or not. The relevant point is that he denies the existence of what he calls a "plan of creation." These are Darwin's own words in the conclusions chapter of his book "On the Origin of Species," in which he explained his theory. Despite this, the writer in question says: "This conclusion, that there is no intent in the creation of organisms and that these organisms arose by chance, does not belong to Darwin's theory or to Darwin's books in which he explained his theory; rather, it belongs to Dr. Qunaibi," and he accuses Qunaibi of misrepresenting his opponent’s position.

Natural Selection: Blind or Directed?

After the brother quoted my words about natural selection, in which I say that Darwin claimed this selection is blind and does not express the Creator's will, the brother said: "Unfortunately, this is not what natural selection means in the first place, at least in its original version. Darwin's theory does not treat natural selection as blind, or as knowing or not knowing. All of these are interpretations and projections according to our understanding of it and our prior position toward the theory."

So, "unfortunately, this is not what natural selection means." We say: rather, unfortunately, it seems that our friend does not know Darwin's theory and has not watched the episodes in which we quote Darwin himself about natural selection. Yet he comes to object and accuse others of lying.

In the episode "Why Do Some Followers of Adnan Ibrahim Become Atheists?", which is an extremely important episode, I explained in detail and with documented references how Darwin progressed gradually to convince people that organisms have no relation to the Creator, how he gradually stripped the Creator's will from natural selection, and how Darwin mentioned that many naturalists consider nature a manifestation of the Creator's plan, and he considered that this assumption adds nothing to our knowledge. I will not prolong the matter for you; return to the episode, which contains documentation and images from Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species."

We also mentioned in it how Darwin became angry when Alfred Wallace wrote that "it seems there is a power that directed evolution in specific directions for particular purposes," and Wallace used the phrase "an Overruling Intelligence guided evolution toward nobler ends." Darwin became angry and wrote beside Wallace's phrase "No" in large handwriting with exclamation marks, and he sent Wallace a letter saying: "I fear you are killing your child and mine completely." Meaning the theory of evolution.

He and Wallace were speaking at the same time about the features of what is called evolutionary theory. Wallace was saying: "There is something directing this evolution toward nobler ends; there is an Overruling Intelligence." Darwin objected completely and said: "By that, you are killing our shared child." It is as if he were saying: "What direction, Wallace? What ends? What intelligence? Understand, Wallace, this is exactly what I want to deny. The entire aim of my theory is originally to deny a Creator," as became clear from his obstinacy. It is as if he were saying to Wallace: "By referring to the Creator's intervention, you are demolishing the theory from its foundation and canceling out the very reason I made it."

And how desperately Darwin defended the idea that the eye arose by chance and that the precision of its structure does not indicate intent and will from a Creator. Yet despite all of this, the writer in question says: "Darwin did not speak about the Creator or about the origin of creation; rather, he spoke about his observations in nature."

Excuse me, honorable writer of the article in which you criticize Eyad and Eyad's series: have you read Darwin? Have you read anything by Darwin? Or have you looked at Eyad's episodes? Indeed, have you looked at the episode from which you took snippets and then came to attack it? Is it reasonable that you skipped the first minute and a half of it, in which I present abundant evidence that Darwin...

The Alleged Pillars of Darwin's Theory

"Spontaneous generation from inanimate matter, nature acquiring new traits, acquired traits being inherited, nature selecting and assembling complex systems." These are the pillars I mentioned for Darwin's theory. The writer says: "Darwin himself, Darwin himself summarizes his theory by saying." Then he brought the English words attributed to Darwin, translated them, and said: "Darwin himself summarizes or condenses his theory by saying: variation is a natural trait within species, and every species produces more offspring than the environment can sustain. As a result of the increase in offspring, individuals with the best inherited traits will produce individuals who are more successful at surviving in this environment. The later resulting generation will represent individuals with traits most suitable to the environment. The species as a whole will evolve." Then the writer says: "These are the pillars of Darwin's theory according to Darwin himself."

Aha. To begin with, where did Darwin call these things pillars? As a university professor, I know the foundations of scientific writing, and I have dozens of publications in peer-reviewed journals, by Allah's grace. I provide a source for every quotation in my episodes, just as I do in my research. You, honorable writer, where did you get this statement by Darwin in the first place? I searched extensively and did not find it in "On the Origin of Species" or in any of Darwin's books. Rather, I found this phrase on some websites after the words "Darwin was quoted as saying," meaning it was attributed to Darwin or said that Darwin said it. On some websites, there are even those who deny its attribution to Darwin altogether. So would the honorable writer kindly show us where Darwin said this phrase?

Anyone who reads Darwin knows that he digresses and wanders in a tiring way, and I have not come across any place where he says that these are the pillars of his theory. Fine, nevertheless, let us examine this statement attributed to Darwin, with which the writer opposes my episode.

First: variation. According to this phrase that the writer attributed to Darwin: "Variation is a natural trait within species." By Allah, our brothers, this is a fact known by children in the streets and elderly women in homes; it is not hidden from anyone. Darwin brought nothing new in it, if the attribution to him is authentic.

Fine. He tells you: "And every species produces more offspring than the environment can sustain." This too is something known and does not require much intelligence: the environment may sometimes become constrained and its conditions may become harsh.

Third: "As a result of the increase in offspring, individuals with the best inherited traits will produce individuals who are more successful at surviving in this environment." This too is something observed and known before Darwin and after Darwin; there is nothing new in it.

Then you call these “pillars”: an unattributed quotation whose authenticity as Darwin’s words is unknown and which contains nothing new, used by our friend to challenge our scientific presentation. Dear viewers, when we say “pillars”, we mean how Darwin explained the existence of these creatures in their diversity. Call them pillars, foundations, conceptions, pillars of the theory or of his explanation for the existence of creatures—whatever the name. If you allow yourself to infer such expressions, allow me to draw inferences and set out a framework, set out a framework.

In the end, when Darwin wanted to explain the existence of organisms, imagine yourself in a dialogue with Darwin, after he had denied the existence of intent and will, or what he called a "plan of the Creator." We may ask him: So, Darwin, how do you explain the existence of these organisms with such diversity, integration, and creativity? This is what we did in the episode the writer criticizes, "Darwin's Theory Fairly Presented". We chatted with Darwin and interrogated him so that we could understand his point of view, and we said: the first pillar according to you, Darwin, is: "A living organism somehow arose from inanimate matter."

The Emergence of Organisms from Inanimate Matter

Of course, here the writer in question says: "Darwin never mentioned anything about a living organism arising from inanimate matter in any of his books; rather, he mentioned something similar but not identical at all in a personal letter to a friend of his, which Dr. Qunaibi referred to."

Fine. Dear ones, what does Darwin say in this letter, when we are supposedly saying about Darwin what he did not say, namely that you, Darwin, say and believe in the emergence of living organisms from inanimate matter? Darwin says, literally—in translation, of course: "If we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, and electricity, that a protein compound was formed and could undergo still more complex changes." Of course, he said all of this in the context that it might be an explanation for the origin of the first organism.

Now the question, dear viewers: ammonia, phosphorus, and so on, are these inanimate things or not inanimate things? Meaning, after all this evasion, in the end Darwin is pointing to the possibility of the first organism forming from inanimate matter. This is the outcome of his words. This is the outcome of his words.

Acquiring Traits and Inheriting Them

When I spoke about "nature acquiring new traits," the writer in question said: "This theory preceded Darwin; it is part of Lamarck's theory of heredity." For Allah's sake, I mean, forgive me, but are you coming to teach me something I may have learned in the sixth or fifth grade? We know that this is Lamarck's view, and that Darwin agreed with Lamarck in this particular part.

Darwin said in chapter five of his book, in my translation for brevity, meaning there is no need for me to read everything in English and translate it; you can return to the episode to see the English texts and their agreement with the Arabic translation. Fine, what did Darwin say? He said: "I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens certain parts, and disuse diminishes them, and that such modifications are inherited." "And that such modifications are inherited."

Of course, it later became clear that what Darwin had no doubt was true turned out to be completely wrong. Therefore, part of the explanatory model Darwin drew for the emergence of organisms was belief in the... which later collapsed, later collapsed.

My brothers, I do not want to prolong the discussion more than this. I want to catch the Dhuhr prayer in congregation, Allah willing. Otherwise, if I were to stop at every single word of the brother's article, what it contains of ignorance or wilful disregard would become clear. I hope it is ignorance more than wilful disregard, lying, and deception, because ignorance can be treated, especially if the ignorant person admits his ignorance. I ask this brother of mine to admit his ignorance; otherwise, we will have little choice but to suspect bad faith. So whether the brother is speaking about what he does not know or is deliberately lying and deceiving, he will not deserve that I waste any more of my time with him. Do not expect me to waste my life establishing what is already established, clarifying what is already clear, and repeating what is already repeated.

Why Should the Discussion Not Be Private?

Of course, here comes the usual complaint. Someone will say: "Brother, why do you not talk among yourselves and advise one another privately as Islamic preachers, public figures, or well-known people, and so on? Brother, do not confuse the public with these disagreements. Go discuss among yourselves and then come back to us with the result."

By Allah, my brothers, this question should not be directed to me, because as for myself, I have already done that. I reached out to this brother years ago. The writer in question, for example, the one we are talking about, had started publishing a series on the basis that it was anti-atheism, and the major flaws in it appeared from the beginning. I contacted my brother Dr. Abd al-Rahman Dhakir al-Hashimi and said to him: "Do you see, Abdul Rahman, what so-and-so is doing?" He said: "Yes." I said to him: "I want to advise him, and I know that you two know each other and are in contact. Could you, my brother Abdul Rahman, give me so-and-so's phone number?" The doctor gave me the phone number of the person in question. So I sent him a very kind message: "My brother Dr. So-and-so, peace be upon you and Allah's mercy. I followed the published episodes from your series such-and-such. May Allah reward you and bless you. I have some observations. Would you allow me to contact you for a discussion that I think will benefit you?" The brother did not respond. I sent him another message, and he did not respond. I informed Dr. Abdul Rahman of what happened, and he said the same thing had happened with him. Dr. Abdul Rahman is available to confirm this, and I asked his permission to mention these details.

Fine. I wanted to respond to the major problems in this writer's presentation. So I published an episode of the Journey of Certainty entitled: "Allah Is Unseen: Does That Mean His Existence Is Not Certain?" In this episode, I responded to the writer's statements, such as that faith means believing in something without having all decisive evidence for it, and that faith requires a courageous leap into the void, and other such dangerous statements that reveal the writer's ignorance of the very meaning of faith.

Then I was surprised that my brother Ahmad Da'doush had published an episode with the same content, to the point that I thought he had seen my episode. It turned out he had not seen my episode; he had published an episode warning about this dangerous statement. In my episode, I did not mention the intended person, because the goal was to correct concepts, and I do not like entering into discussion about individuals unless there is no alternative.

After that, when my daughter passed away, may Allah have mercy on her, this brother, the same writer in question, sent me condolences. I appreciated that from him and responded to him with thanks, accepting his condolences, and may Allah bless you and reward you on our behalf. After a while, I offered to discuss matters with him, but he did not respond. Then recently he began publishing his articles responding to the Journey of Certainty.

So do not ask me, dear viewers, why I defend the Journey of Certainty. Rather, ask the one who evades discussion and then pours his effort into trying to bring down this journey through which Allah, by His grace, favor, and generosity, has guided many people. He tries to bring it down in any way possible, even through ignorance, deception, and lying. Ask him, and do not say to me: why do you defend your series?

And to whoever also says: "Doctor, there are those who make insinuations about your ideas and accuse you of such-and-such," I say to him: I do not waste my time responding to insinuations when it is not known who is intended by them and who is meant by them. By Allah, my brothers, I do not have time to read them, let alone respond to them. I explained my methodology and political positions in the talk "Revealing the Facts". Write on YouTube "Qunaibi Revealing the Facts" and reflect. Then, after that, whoever has enough courage to criticize my thought or methodology should confront me by name with words I said verbatim and bring the evidence. At that point, you have my promise that I will respond in a way that puts your hearts at ease, Allah Almighty willing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I ask Allah, the Magnificent, Lord of the Magnificent Throne, to guide us all to what He loves and is pleased with. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.