Appendix 2

Appendix 2

These are responses to some published opinions given to me by one of the believers, may God protect him. He requested that I respond to them, so I made the responses and clarification of the truth into an appendix, because it was in the original plan of the book. My comment starts with the word, “response” and it ends with the word “end”.

Hadi Al-Madrasi:

The excerpts responded to are from from the book, The Collapse of the Darwinian Theory and the Fall of the Theories That Follow by Hadi al-Madrasi.

Dr. Emile Quinoa admits it and says, “Although mutation is the only explanation that can be mentioned concerning the appearance of species, we have still not observed a single instance where mutation brings a new organ to the organism or changes its essence.”

He adds that mutations occur through a series of coincidental processes.

We don’t know how a new organ can coincidentally appear in the organism, whereas we know that what a new organ in the organism needs is tens of types of change.

If we were to assume that “some eye” suddenly and coincidentally appeared in the organism, would the organism suddenly be able to see with it?

Of course not, because vision is not a simple process of the eye. So if we were to assume that the eye itself, meaning its exterior structure, suddenly appeared, what would provide it with the nine-layered retina proper, of which the last layer consists of thirty million rods and three million cones?

What would provide it with millions of nerves that correct the visual image?

What would connect it to the remaining organs to coordinate its work, so that you could see more than 500 trillion light waves per second?

Let’s assume that birds were not flying organisms, but suddenly acquired wings. Is the wing sufficient for flying?

Flying is a process that requires many factors, such as relative balance between the body and the wing, and harmony between the wing and the organs, and dozens of other factors. So how can this occur coincidentally? (Al-Madrisi 2011, 43-4)

Response: This is incorrect. The theory of evolution doesn’t at all state that compound organs appear in a single burst due to a single mutation. So neither the eye nor the wing appeared in a single burst due to a single mutation, but due to mutations so small that they are barely sensed but are influential to such an extent that the organism carrying it has an advantage over others, making it more capable of surviving among its peers and therefore, more advantaged in the transfer of its genes to the next generation. With the accumulation of these improvement mutations over millions of years, complex and compound organs are formed. So there is no chance, and no argument of probabilities.

In fact, this argument presented by the author of this book shows that he doesn’t know the fundamentals about the theory of evolution to which he responded.-End

Mutations are very rarely passed down if the mating is between two organisms, both having a mutation in the same organ.

For example, if the tail of a mouse falls off due to mutation, its babies can only have no tail if it mates with a female mouse carrying the same mutation and under special conditions that are rarely available, such as the presence of a single thermal atmosphere, and the change of the environment, etc.

As for the ratio of mutations being passed down in any other case, it is 1 in 10,000. So if the mouse whose tail falls off due to mutation mates with a female mouse that has a tail, he needs to produce ten thousand generations for one generation to inherit the absence of a tail.

So in this case, the age of the earth is in no way enough for the appearance of the many species that exist on earth.

The reasonable average age of the earth is 2,000 million years. So how is it that in this short period of time, tens of millions of species, insects, and plants developed?

How did this tremendous amount spread on earth everywhere? How is it that through these animal species came the higher being that we call the human? We don’t know how it is possible to believe in this, but we do know very well that the Darwinian theory is based on the absolute assumption of purely coincidental changes. As for these changes, the mathematician BATO calculated them. He concluded that for a new change to be completed in some genus, it might take a million generations. Let’s think about the dog who Darwinism claims is an ancestor of the higher horse. How long, according to the mathematician Bato, would it take to become a horse? (Al-Madrisi 2011, 43-4)

Response: The above words have nothing to do with science. Mutations are changes in the genetic map that build the body of the organism. Certainly, they affect the building of the next generation’s bodies, and they are hereditary, just like other genes. Both parents don’t have to carry the mutated gene in order for it to be passed to the next generation-it is sufficient that one of them carries it. As for the time provided by the earth according to geological history, not only is it enough for evolution, it is more than enough, as evolutionary biologists have many theories explaining why evolution is slow, or why it stops at certain times. As for the argument of probabilities, I have clarified that it cannot be used to refute the theory of evolution, because evolution is cumulative. The argument of probabilities can only be used to refute the theories or hypotheses of abiogenesis, or the beginning of life on the earth.-End

4. Exterior Resemblance

Due to the resemblance between humans and apes, the Darwinian theory states that humans directly evolved from apes, and that both the ape and human conditions competed for a long time within the human because the ape condition wanted to preserve itself. However, the environment wanted to create the human. Since human were of a higher rank, they defeated the ape and evolved from it. The changes that happened the human were a result of the environment they lived in. For example, the human face became round because he often used to live in trees, and stare at the ground so the pressure fell on his face and made it round.

As for the human’s tail, it was gone because he dragged himself on the ground, causing friction between the tail and his back side. So later on, his tail was removed. (Al-Madrisi 2011, 66)

Response: This is also unscientific. The biological body of the human is classified as one of the species of the great apes, and losing the tail was not caused by friction of the back side in this manner. He is portraying it as a cutting of the tail due to friction, whereas any change in evolution, no matter how simple, is due to a genetic mutation suitable for the organism and its environment, so it provides an advantage to the organism over others in terms of bringing it closer to survival and reproduction. Consequently, the organism transfers this mutation to the next generation. The loss, or let’s say the atrophy of the organ, does not occur with one mutation, but rather with many mutations. ‒ End

The stumbling of Darwinism in the case of plants. If Darwinism would ask the following question: Why do plants

evolve? It would immediately say there is a need for it. For example, plants lived in the sea millions of years ago in the form of a simple plant with a soft body which would immediately dry out when exposed to the sun. So it needed wood to carry and keep its moisture to resist heat. At that time, wood for plants appeared, so they were capable of going out to the land.

However, if this is the case like Darwinism says, why does kelp, which Darwinism itself considers the material of plants and trees throughout the world, still exists in oceans in its original state?

Why don’t we today find a group of them climbing seashores and escaping to land?

Why does it still have a soft body which immediately dries out once it is exposed to the sun?

How did a group of them evolve and migrate to villages and cities, whereas the majority of them still suffer from weakness and frailty?

In addition, if Darwinism believes that evolution is continuous like it states, why did evolution end its play with flowering plants?

Modern science has discovered many species of plants and trees, so why haven’t we found a new species of trees coming into existence for tens of thousands of years, since there is a great need for that/?

In addition, let’s assume that plants evolved based on their need. How did hymenoptera insects such as bees that pollinate the flowers appear? (Al-Madrisi 2011, 88)

Response: Here we find the repetition of a series of frail arguments presented in the nineteenth century and answered by evolutionary biologists. So the examples of the continuity of evolution exist, and they are numerous. Due to our short life span, we can only see the evolution of organisms that are quickly reproduce and whose life spans are very short, such as butterflies and insects, because no matter how simple evolution is, it requires many generations. The change in color of the industrial revolution moths is one example that was seen by millions of people and today, there are instances of new insects appearing that did not exist before.

As for why all origins don’t evolve in one direction, this is truly a very simple argument that has already been answered. The evolution in a certain direction of some members of a particular species in a particular environment due to the availability of a particular mutation, does not obligate the evolution in the same direction of some members of the same species who live in a different environment, even if the same mutation were available to them, and even if it were not.-End

Admission: Darwinism admits that in lower animals, it doesn’t find an in-

complete hand gradually move toward perfection until it becomes a human hand, and it also admits that it does not find a hand with three fingers that evolves into a hand with four, then five, and so on.

It states that the present-day hand of all animals that live on land contains five fingers, or they used to contain that number in the past, such as the case with horse’s hoof, or the ox’s hoof, or the bird’s wing, or the dolphin’s fin.

Why should we ever believe that creation was done at once when it comes to the fingers but not when it comes to the human and other organisms? (Al-Madrisi 2011, 102)

Response: The one refuting evolution is supposed to know the fundamentals of evolution very well. This entire group goes back to a common ancestor from whom the five fingers evolved.

Note: I repeat for whoever has not understood, that evolution occurs gradually and not in a single burst. The fingers did not suddenly appear. They evolved through consecutive mutations in the generations of a common ancestor of all these biological bodies that have five fingers.-End

As for the transfer of the breast from the lower half of a woman’s abdomen to the front of her chest, Darwinism states that the woman started carrying her child on her chest and walking only on her legs and when she would sit, she would also depend on her back side. Thus, during breastfeeding, the baby would need to find the breast on the chest, and not on the lower stomach.

We should also whisper in the ears of the Darwinist sirs that until now, not a single reliable piece of evidence for what they say has been discovered. For example, in the fossils, there is not a single woman whose breasts are lower than where they currently are, not even by one centimeter. (Al-Madrisi 2011, 132)

Response: These words are also scientifically erroneous. The transfer of the breasts to a higher point on the body of some mammals who represent the ancestors of the human occurred millions of years before the appearance of the human. In addition, this transfer did not happen suddenly. I repeat what I said: it was reached with many mutations within ancestors. When the mutation represents a favored trait for the animal, the species keeps the mutation and it transfers to the next generation, and so on, and this happened until the breasts settled at the top of the chest in mammalian ancestors that preceded the human.-End

What will the next human be like? Darwinism sees that in the future, the human will be in the fol-

lowing shape: 4. Human lineages will transform into species and the European

human will be a particular species, and the African human will be a particular species, and so on. What distinguishes the species is that it cannot be fertilized by another species.

Based on this shocking fact, we recommend that the ones wishing to marry European girls do so quickly, before they are transformed into a different species, making it impossible to mate with them. (Al-

Madrisi 2011, 154)

Response: Regardless of whether or not it is a possibility to reach the point of species separation in the human, let’s assume that there are people who say that it’s possible. I believe it’s inappropriate for such a comment to be made.-End

According to the opinion of Islam, the concept is that God is the Creator of the universe which is confirmed by scientific and logical evidence alike. Therefore, there is no difference between God creating the species independently or Him creating one substance suitable for speciation and evolution using His own laws which He made it obey. So God is the creator of man, elephant, and bird, and there is no difference between the ancestor of man being a human, or an African ape. There is also no difference between the ancestor of the elephant being an elephant or a reptile. there is also no difference between the first bird being a bird or an insect.

The continuous creation or creation through evolution, both provide conclusive evidence of the Creator’s ability, because the one who makes one simple thing, then transforms it into countless types is no less capable than the one who makes these types at once.

Therefore, attributing evolution to blind nature is what Islam rejects. As for evolution itself, it cannot be an issue that goes against Islam and divine beliefs in any way whatsoever. (Al-Madrisi 2011, 154)

Response: If this is the case, it would have been better to be deliberate than to respond to the theory of evolution with arguments which to say the least, are unscientific.-End

Yassir Habib (Alqatrah.net,. 2016)

What is your response to Darwin’s theory of evolution? Question: In the name of God, the Abundantly Merciful, the In-

tensely Merciful, May the prayers of God be upon Muhammad and the progeny of

Muhammad the most pure, and may the everlasting and intense curse be upon their enemies and oppressors.

I am an academic young man studying life sciences and the human body. My university has a foreign curriculum, and it follows all that is scientifically recent in the world. The issue of how God created the earth and living beings is clear in the Holy Quran, although there are some complications. The problem is, my professor who supervises the important material I am taught is a secular Christian, who is very intelligent and highly educated. However, we always face a problem. He believes in Darwin’s theory, and that the human used to be an animal. What made him more confident today is a published paper stating that the genetic map of the chimpanzee is 96 percent suitable for the human being. Honestly, my friends and I can’t find religious evidence suitable for convincing him otherwise. Of course, we are accountable for his ideas when taking the exam. How would you comment, and how can you help me achieve the education required to confront him? And what books can help me?

Answer: In the name of God, whose names are sacred. May the peace, mercy and blessings of God be upon you.

Regardless of the religious evidence, the intellectual and scientific evidence also refutes Darwin’s theory of evolution. Had your professor been more educated, he would have abandoned this belief of his. Day after day, with the appearance of new facts, the faith that natural scientists have in this theory is falling apart. It is enough for you to know that this is called a “theory” in their dictionary, which means it is scientifically questionable and has yet to be proven. If it were proven, they would have called it a scientific fact. (Alqatrah.net,. 2016) Response: He is presenting us with brand new information which is that in academic sciences, the term theory by itself means it is unproven. This means that the pythagorean theorem is unproven, the special relativity theory is unproven, as well as the remaining theories of mathematics, physics, engineering and other sciences-they are all unproven because they are called theories!

In addition, the Arabic word for theory is derived from the Arabic word for look, meaning to research, think, examine, calculate, and extract a result from its preliminaries. It opposes axioms that don’t require acts of looking to be recognized. A person who doesn’t have the slightest familiarity cannot say that for a certain proposition to be described as a theory makes it unproven. The major scientific results reached by scientists are called theories.

As for the issue of the absolute truth, organized academic science does not adopt the concept of absolute truth. That is why no matter how much sciences are proven, even if by accurate mathematical calculations and unquestionable observations, they are called theories, because in academic science that are never spared from revision and research. So even if the origin is spared from revision, because it is decidedly true, its details can still be revised and corrected.

Describing scientific material as a theory and then adopting it by prestigious scientific communities and universities around the world, and teaching it as a correct scientific theory means it is not just an idea that one person or establishment believes in; rather, it is scientific material proven with scientific evidence, and it is subject to a strict scientific method. It also underwent and survived and was scrutinized through complex and strict tests, as modern science is based on the method of organized scrutiny.

Furthermore, its predictions must match reality. A theory is evaluated based on whether or not its predictions match reality. Everything the theory of evolution predicted has been validated, especially after the appearance of genetics and precise comparative anatomy. Not one example has been proven of the mismatch between what the theory of evolution predicted and the reality that is discovered day after day, with the progress of science and the ability to test and experiment.

So trying to belittle a particular academic science just because it is called a theory is a miserable attempt, and whoever makes it is pitiful, because the whole of modern science does not adopt the concept of absolute truth. So whoever rejects a scientific theory and does not accept it for this reason has rejected the origins of the modern sciences, because they are built on the same method of research and scrutiny.- End

What Darwin presented is nothing more than an assumption. Afterwards, there were people who were desperate to prove that assumption, so they carried out expeditions around the world to acquire fossils that proved evolution, and the development of a genus from one species to another. When they found some fossils of apes that they considered similar to humans, they cheerfully cried, “This is the evidence! The human evolves from the ape!”

They philosophized their claim by saying that around 8 million years ago, apes genetically evolved themselves to adapt with changing nature, so they started walking on two feet instead of four about 4 million years ago, separating themselves from apes and forming a new genus with time. This genus became the human.

When they are asked for their scientific evidence for what they claim, they say that it is the genetic similarity between the family of humans and the family of apes and the fossils that prove this evolution due to the existence of a family that appears to be overlapping that is between humans and apes.

Their evidence is only the “similarity.” Truly, it is ridiculously funny evidence. Does the resemblance between this family and that one at a certain percentage mean that this family was derived from that one? Does the resemblance we find between a tiger and a cat mean that tigers evolved from cats, for example? (Alqatrah.net,. 2016)

Response: His saying that their evidence is only the similarity is incorrect. It is obvious that he said this due to his ignorance of the evidence provided by evolutionary biology which we have clarified, and we have clarified how they prove evolution.

As for tigers, it seems he doesn’t know that in biology, tigers and domestic cats are individuals of one family which is the Felidae family. They all evolved from one origin only a few million years ago. So there is no need for him to laugh about the issue. Instead, he should be ashamed of his ignorance and his audacity to speak about things he doesn’t know a single thing about.-End

Let the resemblance between humans and chimpanzees be 99% and not just 96%. Actually, let it be more than that. We still cannot assert that they originally belonged to one family as long as there is a difference between them, even if very small. So as long as there is a difference, there is no scientific evidence that they have one origin. The claim of those people remains only a guess due to resemblance.

(Alqatrah.net,. 2016)

Response: His words mean that the existence of a difference in the DNA of

two individuals prevents the assertion that the two individuals come from one origin. This is incorrect. For example, the DNA of each one of the children is a special mix of the DNA of the parents, each of whom both provide a mix of the genes of their parents in every sexual self. This means that each one of the children has a genetic map different from his siblings except for identical twins. Despite this difference in the genes of siblings, through DNA testing, it can be asserted that they are siblings. So the presence of the existence of a difference in the DNA does not itself prevent the assertion that the two individuals have a common origin.

In addition, when using DNA as evidence to discover the common ancestor between two families, it is generally not concerned with the resemblance of DNA. Instead, it is concerned with special evidence in the DNA such as retroviruses and the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans, which is still separate in the rest of the great apes.-End

We are witnessing that in reality a person is born in Russia, for example, and another in Mexico with completely different parents, and the two people are not related and do not at all share a lineage. Each one has a different ethnicity. However, due to the resemblance of genetic traits, it is agreed upon that they are so similar, they are almost identical. If they are seen, they are said to be twins, though they are not twins at all.

First, this resemblance itself is not sufficient scientific evidence for what the proponents of the Darwinian theory of evolution claim.

Second, when it comes to refutations of this theory, they are numerous and varied, but we will only mention the following:

If the origin of man is from apes, due to evolution, where did the ape itself come from? The proponents of Darwin’s theory say that the ape evolved from another genus as well. If this is the case, why have no fossils been discovered that prove, for example, the evolution of apes from foxes, wolves, or even alligators? Why did excavators and explorers not find fossils for the evolution of reptiles from fish for example, or birds from insects? The theory states that everything evolves from something else by the act of nature and adaptation to it. However, nothing has been found to prove that except the claim that humans evolved from apes. As we have said, this claim of theirs is only built on the genetic resemblance they observed, and it is only the way of God and His creation. (Alqatrah.net,. 2016)

Response: The resemblance between two people who are not closely related is because they are distantly related. The example he mentioned which with he wishes to refute the theory of evolution proves it, and not the other way around. As for the great apes, they evolved from apes that preceded them, which evolved from animals similar to lemuridae, and the latter evolved from other mammals, and the fossils exist. As for the evolution of reptiles from fish, there are also fossils to prove that in addition to the genetic evidence that accumulates day after day.

As for birds, they did not evolve from insects in order for someone to request the existence of transitional fossils between them and insects. Birds evolved from reptiles, and according to biological categorization, they are what remains from the dinosaurs.-End

Notice for example, that fossils of dinosaurs are millions of years older than fossils of apes. Since evolution exists, why weren’t fossils of a dinosaur discovered that, for example, started evolving into an elephant or a giraffe? The fact that they found fossils of apes that are similar in structure to humans does not mean that evolution is steady. Otherwise, it would have been necessary to find fossils of dinosaurs evolving to elephants, or other organisms evolving from one genus to another, and they do not exist at all. (Alqatrah.net,. 2016)

Response: Elephants and giraffes are mammals that evolved from mammals that preceded them, and they did not evolve from dinosaurs. Transitional fossils in between species in evolution are not missing today. In fact, many transitional fossils have been discovered. Indeed, some of them are missing which is natural, as no one expects to find all of the fossils, or expects to be so fortunate that nature preserves all the extinct transitional species, and that he would find all their locations.-End

Assuming the theory of evolution is proven, why don’t we observe it today, and not even from before the premises?

Response: In all prestigious universities around the world, evolution is scientifically categorized as a theory that is accepted by all universities, institutes, and prestigious scientific communities around the world. Everything predicted by the theory of evolution has been found to concur with reality. Scientific theories are evaluated on this basis, meaning how much their predictions concur with reality.

Evolution and its premises exist everywhere on the earth, like the evolution of viruses and pathogenic bacteria that are resistant to treatment, and like the moths of the industrial revolution and the eyes of eskimos. It is possible to reproduce evolution in the laboratory by changing the genetic composition of some organisms and producing new ones.-End

Darwin and his people say that a group of apes started evolving by adapting to the changing environment. They practiced walking on two feet instead of four, and with that, they straightened the curvature in their bones which affected their offspring that also started walking on two feet through heredity. The question is, why don’t we witness something like that today? There are many trained apes that can walk more than two steps on two feet at a higher speed than other apes that cannot. Why do we find that when they reproduce, these apes do not affect how their offspring walk, despite succession and mixing? The offspring still walk on four, and they need new training to walk on two?!

Response: The walking of these trained apes is just a habit, and habits do not transfer. Anything that happens due to an external effect does not transfer. The trait that transfers through heredity is the genetic trait, and not the acquired characteristic, such as the ape walking on two feet as a result of training, or the circumcision of the male human. In fact, by what is mentioned above, these arguments demonstrate how shallow the one making them is, and how ignorant he is about the most simple scientific issues related to evolution. Despite his submersion in ignorance, you find that he dares, and with all insolence, to argue against a scientific issue like evolution, whereas he hardly understands a thing about it.-End

If a person who trained himself to eat grit without having it affect his stomach, why don’t we find that his children, grandchildren or greatgrandchildren carry the same trait through heredity?

If a person is born with a genetic change of six fingers in one hand, why is it that when he gets married and has children, we find that his son has five fingers and he does not inherit his father’s trait, and evolve by his father’s evolution? That is because external effects on genes do not produce any type of evolution.

Response: The genetic trait is not necessarily hereditary. A genetic mutation can occur in the human being, but the mutated gene is not passed down to the children. It can be passed down to some of them, and not others. To prove evolution, it is enough that genetic traits can be passed down through heredity.-End

Concerning the origin of the universe, proponents of Darwin’s theory say that it was coincidental, and that evolution is what formed these organisms with all their species and genuses. If they are asked about the first natural substance that caused the abiogenesis and evolution, they would say it is a pulse of energy. Where did this pulse come from? They admit that they don’t know the answer. Based on that, these materialists acknowledge that there is a cause in abiogenesis, and it is the pulse of energy, whereas we creationists say that this cause is God Almighty. So which saying is closer to reason? Is it for a deaf, mute pulse with no reason, knowledge or feeling to create this entire, precise, grand universe, or for an aware, knowledgeable entity to do so?

The first saying is like saying that an explosion happened at a printing press, and coincidentally, letters fell on papers and it was agreed upon that they were seen later in the form of an eloquent, deep sonnet or poem. Is this reasonable?

They say it is not reasonable due to the speed of change. It cannot happen so fast. But with millions of years, it becomes possible. Our response is that the more time progresses, the more probable an error becomes. So a certain letter should come after a certain letter in the suitable place to form a correct word, then a correct phrase, then a correct sonnet. The chance of error increases as long as possibility is lessened with time. So if forming the poem isn’t possible at the beginning of the explosion, it is undoubtedly impossible afterwards, as the chances of forming the poem correctly decreases.

Response: It is incorrect to derive the example of coincidence and compare it with what the theory of evolution presents, because evolution is cumulative and doesn’t happen all at once, like he is imagining. That is why the argument of coincidence is invalid. As for the remainder of what he said above, it is nonsense, but I will show how the replication error, or the random genetic mutation leads to evolution. It appears from what he said that he does not understand anything presented by the theory. The theory of evolution states, and this is proven by experiments, that the error in genetic replication can be harmful or in can provide a beneficial trait. If it were harmful, it would not remain to be passed down to a later generation due to natural selection, because it will represent a disability for whoever is carrying it, and it will prevent him or hinder from competing with his peers; that is why it will not accumulate. As for the beneficial mutation, it will accumulate because it gives the organism an advantage trait over his peers. So natural selection will reinforce these traits, and they will accumulate, and evolution occurs smoothly.-End

Despite all of the scientific developments humans have reached, such that they conquered and invaded the moon and the planets using sophisticated devices and tools, they are still incapable of creating one living cell from chemical material, like Darwin’s theory presents and what the theory considers simple. Scientists acknowledged that it is impossible to form one living cell because the cell’s composition is complex to a miraculous extent for humans. This invalidates Darwin’s theory that the origin of the living cell is primary chemical natural material. What they have assumed is that nature formed the living cell, although nature is unaware. So how can it be accepted that the aware human being who is the son of nature as they say, is incapable of forming the cell although he has the intellectual guidance that inanimate nature does not have?

Response: The life of the living cell is the chromosomes. Chromosomes have been created from chemical material in the laboratory, and are capable of self-replication in massive numbers. Some ignorant people argued that what was created was only the chromosomes, and not the cell’s cytoplasm. Truly for the one who understands, this argument is like saying to a person who made a jet, “I dare you to make the paint you will color this jet with.”

All right, if they make you the cytoplasm, will you be atheists along with them?

The argument should be complete or at least scientifically valuable, and not on this shallow and foolish level, that clearly indicate the ignorance ones who own it. - End

These are only quick responses to the silly, invalid theory. We will leave the details for a different place. Anyway, we are not losing anything, after going to the grave if we don’t believe in Darwin’s theory, and it turns out to be true, assuming the impossible were to happen. As for them, they lose so much when they move to the grave, and it turns out that what we are saying about the existence of a creating Almighty God is true. So which option should a reasonable person choose?

Response: Above, the value of his responses to the theory of evolution is shown. We will leave the verdict to the reader.-End

As for our advice to you, to acquire the necessary education, refer to the narrations and statements of our purified Imams, peace be upon them, concerning monotheism. You find a lot of them, in Bihar Al-Anwar for example, in the chapter of monotheism. Also refer to the classes we have given in Al-Hawza concerning knowledge of speech, especially the research on proving the Creator. Perhaps they will benefit you, God willing. It is also fine if you read the book of the Australian biologist Michael Denton, called “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in which he refutes Darwin’s theory using evidence and proofs.

May Allah support you in all that is good in this world and the hereafter, and peace.

2006

Kamal Al-Haydari

The statements of Kamal al-Haydari concerning the theory of evolution:

Adam was created with ‘Be so it becomes’, meaning he did not go through any phases… so is it clarified why God created Adam in the image of Adam? It is to tell us that Adam, the father of mankind, is distinguished from his children. Was this distinction given to any creation among humans other than Adam, the father of mankind? No, it was only given to him pbuh…

I imagine the questioner in this instance was saying that Darwin’s theory states that Adam went through phases until he came into existence. In response to that is that from the perspective of the Quran, this theory is invalid, to say the least. Indeed, scientifically, it has different place, but I am not discussing the scientific research here. But with respect to the Quran, at the level of Quranic research, God created him from dust and then said to him ‘Be’, so he became. So he did not evolve from another species.

In addition, we have the authentic narrations that we read in Bukhari, Muslim, Musnad Ahmed, and the narrations in our books, that God created Adam on His image. (AlHaydari.com,. 2016)

Response: It is obvious that Kamal al-Haydari considers that Adam’s material body was directly created from mud, meaning he thinks that God created a statue of mud, then breathed the spirit into it, so Adam’s material body that lived on this earth was formed. We have read his saying, “Adam was created with ‘Be, so it becomes’, so he did not go through any phases.” “God created him from dust and then said to him ‘Be’, so he became.”

He rejects the theory of evolution, as he stated, and he considers it invalid: …”from the perspective of the Quran, this theory is invalid, to say the least.”

These words reveal ignorance about what the theory of evolution presents from solid irrefutable evidence. The only people who reject the theory of evolution today after the precise genetic evidence are the ones who don’t understand the theory and irrefutable scientific evidence. I have clarified the evidence in detail, and I have also shown the absurdity of the responses and arguments against it. They are all responses and arguments that reveal the ignorance regarding the theory of the ones who wrote them.

Consequently, I have shown in detail the foolishness and absurdity of their scientific research as Haydari likes to call it. Truly, they are not from the people of these sciences and they don’t have the ability to discuss them. It has been clarified from the above that Kamal al-Haydari and his likes are incapable of understanding them, let alone discussing them and scientifically refuting them. It has been clarified from the above that all of their responses are foolish responses with no scientific value, but they sell them locally, only to the poor people they deceive, just as Kamal al-Haydari and his likes deceive them with the lie that it is obligatory to imitate the cleric or the fallible one. His evidence for that lie, like he and others claim, is that the nonspecialist should refer to the specialist. This claim, at best, makes it permissible, not obligatory, like Kamal al-Haydari and his likes obligate with their deception, that they innovated without proof. Unfortunately, they still use it to deceive the followers of Ahlul Bayt whom those people oppressed, kidnapped, and kept in ignorance.

The result is that the theory of evolution is a solid, scientific theory, accepted by all prestigious universities and centers around the world. It is considered the only scientifically valid theory to explain life on Earth. In addition, its predictions match reality, and this is something that has been undoubtedly established, and reinforced, since the advancement in genetics. Scientific theories are evaluated on this basis, meaning how much their predictions match the reality we obtained from observations and experiments. So his saying that it is invalid only exposes his ignorance.

His statement that the theory of evolution is false from a Quranic perspective because it conflicts with the Quranic text is also incorrect, since there is not a single, literal Quranic text that absolutely conflicts with the theory of evolution. The only conflict that exists is the conflict between their incorrect understanding of the Quranic text and the theory of evolution-and there is a huge difference. The least that can be said is that this Quranic text can have more than one interpretation and meaning, so no one can say that it absolutely conflicts with the theory of evolution based on a potential interpretation and meaning of the text.

I have also presented Quranic texts which prove evolution. Finally, my advice to whoever rejects the theory of evolution and says that it conflicts with the religious text is to examine the theory of evolution and try to understand it, and to change their incorrect opinion, because by God, He exposes their ignorance and puts them in extremely weak and unenviable positions is they do comprehend.

Dr. Dawkins said:

I quite like the idea that people are being taught in their churches that evolution is incompatible with God, because we absolutely can demonstrate that evolution is a fact. (Dawkins, 2016)

This means that Dr. Dawkins is saying to the likes of Kamal al-Haydari, who say that that the theory of evolution conflicts with the Quran or religion, that they are giving atheism the greatest free gift for invalidating the Quran and religion. Because simply, evolutionary biologists can prove that the theory of evolution is true and correct with clear evidence.

The end.