Chapters

Chapter One: Turtles All The Way Down

The Atheism Delusion · Ahmed al-Hasan

Chapter One

Turtles All The Way Down

The messengers of heaven have always been opposed by the “men of religion” who profit from religion in their time. When will people notice this so they don’t fall into the same trap again?!*

Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was an Italian philosopher. He believed that the earth spins around the sun, and he promulgated the Copernican model of the earth’s spin. Bruno was imprisoned by the men of religion of the Christian Church. They then cut his tongue, tortured, and killed him for saying that the earth spins around the sun, whereas the men of the Church believed that the sun and planets spin around the earth.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was a professor of mathematics at the University of Pisa. At the start of the seventeenth century, he observed the sky with a telescope he made himself, and he discovered that the earth really does spin around the sun, but the Catholic Church saw this as just a theory incompatible with the Bible. So they prosecuted Galileo for heresy, the charge invariably brought against anyone who opposes the Church. He was imprisoned at first, and later placed under house arrest and forbidden from teaching or giving lectures. His books were banned and he died in his house, persecuted by the men of religion, the geniuses who knew everything, who knew very well that the earth does not spin, ever! Would any Christian of that time have believed that Galileo, a heretic according to the Church, knowledgeable than the Christian scholars of religion who own the magical theological equation that no one can understand, which says: God is three distinct persons, each one an absolute deity, one dispatching the others, yet they are one?! They have convinced more than a billion Christians of it, even though the falsehood of this nonsensical magical theological equation is as unmistakable as 1 + 1 = 2! So why wouldn’t they be able to convince the Christians for hundreds of years that the claim of a very insignificant heretic like Galileo-who says that the earth spins-is false as well?!

*. It is said that the astronomer Bertrand Russell was giving a lecture about how the earth spins around the sun. An old lady stood, walked up to him and said, “What you are saying is nonsense. The earth is actually supported on the back of a turtle.” He asked, “And what is the turtle standing on?” Mocking his way of thinking, she said, “You’re a clever young man, but it’s turtles all the way down!”

This old lady and others like her do not come up with “turtles” on their own-they get them from the men of religion of their time. The turtles of these men are actually quite numerous. They are all the way down every path, turtles set up for whoever doesn’t want to correctly employ their mind to know the truth, the truth as it is, rather than as it was inherited from their forefathers, or conveyed to them by the men of religion throughout time. In the first chapter, we will examine some of the turtles that these men of religion have sold us and continue to sell in a different way, or in a new disguise.

In the end, the Church officially apologized to Galileo, but this was hundreds of years after his death, and only after the earth’s spin became a fact known to everyone. So before its followers deserted it, the Church finally became convinced, albeit unwillingly, that the earth spins.

In the twentieth century, the Catholic Church apologized to Galileo, and acquitted him of his great crime, the crime of saying: “Indeed, the earth spins.”

Nearly four centuries later, after all is said and done, Galileo is a criminal acquitted of his crime: saying that the earth spins around the sun! Today he is no longer a heretic, and according to the Church, his statements are no longer heretical! So Giordano Bruno was killed for speaking the truth, therefore, the Church is a murderer that sheds innocent blood! The inevitable conclusion is that the statements of the Church that contradicted Galileo’s are the real heresy. So in reality, it is actually the Church that has been the heretic for nearly four centuries.

The question to the Christians of the world today is this, is it possible that your Church is also being heretical as far as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, and the notion that they are three persons, especially given that there were Christians who objected to it? And is it possible that one day you will discover that Saint Arius, deemed a heretic by the Church for denying the absolute divinity of Jesus Christ, wasn’t really a heretic? Will it become unmistakable to you that it is the Church that fought against Arius that is actually the heretic, just as it was with Bruno and Galileo?!

I fear that day might arrive far too late to fix this, or to even have a chance to fix it. Shouldn’t each Christian search for the truth while he still lives? Search for yourself instead of following the opinion of the Church, proven by its own admission to have been the heretic in the case of Galileo for almost four centuries.

And like a shepherd who takes his sheep out to graze at sunset when the other shepherds have already returned, in the prominent Wahhabi scholars of the second half of the twentieth century we find an extraordinary story that recalls the lesson of Galileo. I doubt they knew anything about him, for if they had, they would have accused him of being the greatest idol worshipper for saying that the earth spins, thus contradicting them. Their story is told through a brief summary of religious rulings that reflect complete ignorance: despite man going up to the moon in the twentieth century, and astronauts returning with images of a spinning earth, to the Wahhabi scholars it was clear, the earth doesn’t spin, ever!

Their religious rulings are as follows:

A question for Muhammad Ibn Uthaymeen:* May God bless you. This is a question from listener Ibtissam Mu-

hammad Ahmed who is from Al-Anbar, Iraq. She asks, “What is the meaning of God’s words: ﴾And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of God, who perfected all things.﴿ [Quran Chapter “The Ant” 27:88]. Is this verse evidence of earth’s spin?”

Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen’s response: … we say that the theory of night and day alternating due to the earth spinning on the sun is invalid because it contradicts the literal meaning of the Quran… Moreover, it is proven that the Prophet [Muhammad] pbuh said to Abu Thar (may God be pleased with him) at sunset: “Do you know where the sun goes?” Abu Thar said, “God and His Messenger know best.” He said, “It goes and prostrates beneath the Throne.” This narration gives the proof that it is the one that moves around the earth, because of the words: “Do you know where the sun goes?”

In addition to that, he said in the mentioned account: “That is, if it is given permission. If it is not, then it will be told, ‘Return to wherever you want,’ so it will rise from its setting place.” This is evidence that the sun is the one spinning (turning) around the earth. And this is what every believer must believe according to the literal meaning of the words of their All-Knowing Lord, without considering these rotten theories that time will turn on and bury, just as it buried other worn-out theories. This is what we believe regarding this matter … What is important regarding this matter is that we must believe that the sun spins on the earth, and that the alternation of night and day is not caused by the earth’s spin, but rather it is brought about by the sun spinning around the earth instead (Binothaimeen.net 2004. Arabic source, translated).

Look at Ibn Uthaymeen in the twentieth century saying that the earth spinning, or turning, around the sun is just a rotten theory that time will turn on and bury, but in the end, time turned on Ibn Uthaymeen, rotted and buried him. Today, everyone except the unfortunate ones exploited by Ibn Uthaymeen and the likes of him knows that the earth spins around the sun. Sadly though, some of them have studied physics, and they still believe that the earth does not spin!

Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz said the same thing that Ibn Uthaymeen said:*

I also confirmed the article with some quotes from the scholar Ibn Al-Qayyim (may Allah [God] be Merciful to him) that give evidence to prove that the earth is round. As for the spinning of the earth, I have denied this and explained the evidence that confirm its falsehood, but I did not declare those who believe that it does to be Kafirs [disbelievers], but I do so for those who say that the sun is static and does not move. This is because saying so contradicts the explicit texts in the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah, which confirm that the sun and the moon run on their courses (Binbaz.org.sa 1977).

It is clear that by saying the sun spins, Ibn Baz is trying to say that it spins around the earth like the moon does, as he believes the earth is fixed and doesn’t spin. Thus, there is no way for night and day to occur unless the sun were to spin around the earth.

Whoever follows these people and shares their beliefs should reconsider. They said the theory that the earth spins around the sun is rotten, but it has now been made clear for you that it is their statements and beliefs that are rotten. So won’t you reconsider before it’s too late? Perhaps their statement about the vicegerency of God on His earth after Muhammad (the Messenger of God pbuhap) being false, is just like their statement that the earth doesn’t spin around the sun. The earth that Ibn Uthaymeen, Ibn Baz, and all the Wahhabi scholars have said doesn’t turn, turns. Beware, for on the Day of Resurrection, regret no longer benefits, and you might discover that the vicegerency of God on His earth after the Messenger Muhammad pbuhap is true, and that what Ibn Uthaymeen and Ibn Baz said about it is false, just like how they got it backwards when they said the sun turns around the earth:

What is important regarding this matter is that we must believe that the sun spins on the earth, and that the alternation of night and day is not caused by the earth’s spin, but rather it is brought about by the sun spinning around the earth instead.

As for those of you who follow people like them, may God reform your condition. Beware, perhaps they have presented religion backwards for you as well, just as they did with the earth and the sun.

Here, I will conclude the discussion of Galileo, the earth’s spin, and the Christian and Wahhabi men of religion. I simply ask the reader to keep this lesson in mind when we discuss their opinion of evolution.

The Opinions of the Men of Religion Regarding the Theory of Evolution

Unfortunately, most of the clerics of the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have taken the same stance towards Darwin’s theory as they took toward his predecessor Galileo. Just as time passed by Galileo’s theory of the earth’s spin, culminating with a heartbreaking tragedy because of the clerics who fought it and who shed the blood of the scientists, and then evidence of the earth’s spin accumulated until the point of having images of the earth spinning in space; likewise, now time has passed by evolution, and scientific evidence (such as genetics) has accumulated to the point that denial of evolution is now foolish and contemptible stubbornness. However, many clerics continue to rely on the ignorance of the people who listen to and follow them. Unfortunately, even today they reject evolution, the evidence from genetics and comparative anatomy, and the study of unearthed animals, and on top of all that, they even reject the evidence of a succession of fossils tracing back to beings that walked upright on two feet millions of years ago.

For biologists, all of this evidence is more than enough to prove evolution, and today it is a scientific fact taught in schools and universities. Biologists no longer search for evidence to prove evolution, but instead investigate its mechanisms and its history. In spite of this, many clerics continue to reject it without scientific proof or evidence to the contrary. As if they were not just satisfied with rejecting it, some of them have also declared that whoever believes in evolution is a disbeliever who should be put to death!

We will briefly consider the question of evolution and the evidence supporting it, but if those who call themselves scholars of religion, when rejecting the theory of evolution, would just propose an alternate theory that is consistent with the established scientific facts of genetics, comparative anatomy and fossils. And if they would just look at the lungfish and the amphibious fish and tell us: did this fish evolve from the aquatic fish or not? And what is the evidence for their point of view? They should also determine the timespan of human life from the creation of Adam pbuh until today. This is important because the proposed timespan should be consistent with their statements that deny evolution, and also with the scientific facts regarding the history of the genus Homo on the earth. It is now an unquestionable scientific fact that modern man is Homo sapiens. The origin of Homo sapiens as well as their history and route of migration out of Africa is well known, so those who deny evolution should at least give an approximate date of when Adam was created, and the location where he first lived. Even an approximate location would be acceptable. Of course, the dates they provide must be based on the religious scriptures that they claim disprove evolution. Then they will find themselves unraveling the yarn that they have spun, and they will find they have no argument or proof, other than provoking the pride and arrogance of man with statements like, “Evolution claims that man descended from apes.”

The Religion of Church Christianity and Evolution!

Although it may not have issued an official statement on the matter, or even expressed an opinion on what the theory of evolution presents, the Catholic Church has rejected the theory for decades. This is despite the fact that the theory deals directly with the topic of creation, the most essential issue of religion. In fact, the theory of evolution completely contradicts the Biblical story of Genesis.

An almost identical stance has been taken by other church denominations, as they reject the theory of evolution even though some of them do not openly say so. The reason for this might be obvious: times had changed. The Inquisition had ended, so the chance to cut Darwin’s tongue like Bruno’s, or to imprison and oppress him like Galileo, ended as well. So they resorted to silence. Eventually, when they realized that the evidence in favor of evolution was significantly accumulating, especially after advancements in the field of genetics, the Catholic Church was compelled to admit to the theory. Then the Catholic clergy began to say that they had never opposed Darwin, or the theory of evolution. Actually, the truth is that they did not cut Darwin’s tongue or burn him at the time, because their authority in Europe had come to an end. Today, they are compelled to accept the theory of evolution, even though it could mean the death of the religion of Church Christianity, because the evidence is only debated by an ignorant few who don’t understand what evolution is or how it works, and who don’t understand that the theory has changed from the way Darwin originally presented it. Actually, the only thing that remains from what he presented is perhaps the general concept, since the details, methods of theorizing, proofs, and evidence of evolution have all recently emerged due to the advancements in science and research. So for those who believe in this theory, it now represents a perfected scientific treatise that explains the story of creation, without the need for any supernatural power intervening in its completion, or even in its initiation. Therefore, the theory of evolution is presented today as a theory that refutes religion and the existence of a god. No one can claim to accept both evolution and religion without resolving the conflict that prevents them from accepting both. The way the theory of evolution is presented, understood and looked at today by evolutionary biologists says that evolution is not purposeful in the long-term, so it cannot be reconciled with religion.

In other words, no one can say that they completely accept the theory of evolution, along with the implications resulting from it such as it not being purposeful in the long-term, and continue to maintain that they accept religion at the same time. This claim is a blatant contradiction at a basic level, and it wouldn’t be made by a rational and knowledgeable person without first resolving this contradiction so that their claim is correct, acceptable and logical. That is why I said that the acceptance of the theory of evolution by the Church, something it was compelled to do, could mean the death of the religion of Church Christianity unless the Church resolves this contradiction by proving that evolution is purposeful in the long-term.

Of course, they do not understand this, because unfortunately, many of them do not understand what evolution really is, or how the theory of evolution is presented today.

Here is a segment from a debate between Dr. Richard Dawkins and George Pell, an Australian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and the Archbishop of Sydney, Australia:*

CARDINAL PELL: …You have to reason about the facts of science, ask whether you believe that the suggestion that, you know, random selection is sufficient and also most evolutionary biologists today don’t believe that. RICHARD DAWKINS: Don’t believe what? CARDINAL PELL: They don’t believe in random so this crude fundamentalist version of random selection that you propose. RICHARD DAWKINS: I do not propose it and I strongly deny that evolution is random selection. Evolution is non-random selection. Non-random. CARDINAL PELL: So there is a purpose to it is there? RICHARD DAWKINS: No. CARDINAL PELL: Could you explain what non-random means? RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes, of course I could. It’s my life’s work … There is random genetic variation and non-random survival and non-random reproduction which is why, as the generations go by, animals get better at doing what they do. That is quintessentially non-random. It does not mean there is a purpose in the sense of a human purpose in the sense of a guiding principle which is thought up in advance. With hindsight you can say something like a bird’s wing looks as though it has a purpose, a human eye looks as though it has a purpose but it has come about through the process of non-random natural selection. There is no purpose in the human sense. There is a kind of pseudo-purpose but it’s not a purpose in the human sense of conscious guiding. But above all I must stress that Darwinian evolution is a non-random process. One of the biggest misunderstandings, which I’m sorry to say the Cardinal has just perpetrated, is that evolution is a random process. It is the opposite of a random process It is the opposite of a random process (Religion And Atheism Q & A: Adventures In Democracy 2012).

*. Dr. Richard Dawkins, born in 1941, is a distinguished British biologist and an Oxford University professor who specializes in evolutionary biology and animal behavior. He has penned many publications including: The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion. In his book The Selfish Gene, he scientifically established the important role of genes and the competitive battle for survival of the best gene. He also introduced and developed the meme theory. Richard Dawkins is famous for his atheist views, and the radical use of the theory of evolution to promote atheism. In 2006, Dawkins established, “The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science”. This foundation aims to promote acceptance of atheism and to defend scientific responses to questions pertaining to existence.

It is clear that the Cardinal entered the debate with Dr. Dawkins without understanding evolution, or what evolutionary biologists like Dawkins say about it: evolution is non-random because it is governed by the system of natural selection, yet it isn’t purposeful in the longterm.

The Wahhabi Salafi Religion and Evolution

The response of Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz:

Question: I always hear and read that man was a monkey in the beginning, then he passed through stages and changed into the modern man that we know today. Is this logical or not? And are the origins (of man) a monkey-meaning the origins of the formation of its (the monkey’s) body are the same origins of the formations of man’s? Benefit us, (we ask that) Allah [God] reward you with good.

Answer (by Sheikh Ibn Baz): (With the Name of Allah (God, the Creator), the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy) Peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah [God], his family, his Companions, and whoever follows his guidance. As for what follows: This statement that the questioner mentioned is rejected and false. It opposes the Book of Allah [God]-Exalted and Lofty is He- and the Sunnah of the Messenger-(we ask that) Allah [God] exalt him and raise his rank-and it opposes the consensus of the Salaf of the ummah [lit. predecessors of the nation, referring to the earliest generations of Muslims after the Prophet Muhammad]. And this statement has become known from the one called Darwin-and he is a liar in what he says. Rather, the origin of man-his origin is known. His origin is not a monkey, nor other than a monkey. Rather, he is man-upright, intelligent-Allah (God, The Creator) created him from [wet] clay (water and soil), from [dust] earth. That is our father-Adam-peace be upon him-Allah [God] created him from [dust] earth (soil).

As Allah [God]-Exalted and Lofty is He-said (translated): “And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of [wet] clay (water and earth).” Quran Chapter “The Believers” 23:12.

He is created from this [dust] soil. Allah [God] created him with his image-his height was sixty cubits (90 feet)-60 cubits tall. Then the creation began to decrease (in height) until now … So his (Adam’s) children are like him-created in the form of their father (Adam). They have hearing, they have sight, they have intellects, and they have the stature that you see today-they walk on their legs. They speak, hear, see, and eat with their hands …

They aren’t in the shape of monkeys, nor the form of monkeys. They (people) have a specific form which befits them. And likewise is every species (community):

The monkeys are a separate species The pigs are a separate species Likewise are the dogs, donkeys, cats, and the species other than them There is not a moving (living) creature on earth, nor a bird that flies with its two wings, but are communities like you. We have neglected nothing in the Book, then unto their Lord they (all) shall be gathered. Quran “The Cattle” 6:38. These species (communities)-all of them will be gathered before Allah [God] and collected together on the Day of Resurrection- some of them will give detailed accounts about others Then it will be said to them (the animals): Be dirt! So they will become dirt (soil)-except for the Jinn and Mankind-theirs is a different situation. They will be called to account and recompensed for their actions. So whoever obeyed his Lord (worshiping only Him as a Muslim) then he (or she) will go to Paradise. And whoever disbelieved in his Lord (by worshiping others with Him or disbelieving in His existence, for example) then he (or she) will go to the fire. As for these animals, then they are separate species. The monkeys are a separate species which has its own essential nature, its own origin, its own characteristics. And likewise are the pigs, dogs, donkeys, camels, cows, and sheep. And likewise the species (each) have their (different) forms and distinct characteristics which Allah [God] has created for it-He is Free from all deficiencies and defects-and He is the Most Wise, the All-Knowing. And He sees best the details …

The details of their structures (make-ups)-He has more insight into this and knows it better (than everyone)-He is the Most High and Free from all deficiencies and defects. But it is obligatory that the servant (the human being) believes that the creation of Adam was not like the creation of monkeys. And that the origin of Adam is the same origin which he is upon today -his origin was not a monkey, nor other than that. Rather, he is man, upright in his form …

He possesses intellect, he possesses hearing, he possesses sight, he possesses the known senses like smelling, touch, taste, and other than that from what Allah [God] created him with. So the statement that his origin is a monkey is a rejected statement, a false statement. And if it were said that the one who said this was a kaafir [disbeliever], it would be a well-founded statement. For what is most apparent-and Allah [God] knows best-is that the one who says this while knowing what the legislation (Quran and Sunnah) has brought, then he is a disbeliever because he has belied Allah [God] and His Messenger and he has belied the Book of Allah [God]-He is the Most High and Free from all deficiencies and defects (Ibn Baz 1977).

Unfortunately, Ibn Baz and many Wahhabi sheikhs remain lagging behind in terms of their capacity to comprehend. He is trying to respond to a scientific issue proven with scientific evidence by using ambiguous religious scripture that could be understood to be in agreement with science. And this is just a repetition of the drawn out statements Ibn Baz made about the earth’s spin. What should we call this?!

Although Ibn Baz rejected the theory of evolution, he unwittingly admitted to it when he said the following concerning the human being:

He is created from this soil. Allah [God] created him with his image-his height was sixty cubits (90 feet)-60 cubits tall. Then the creation began to decrease (in height) until now…

Aside from the fact that this is filled with ignorance and is false, what is of interest to me here is that Ibn Baz says that the height of man has definitely changed from sixty cubits to the current height. By saying this, he admitted to the theory of evolution, especially since this change in body size is a direct result of the laws of evolution. I repeat:

The claim that the height of man was sixty cubits is not valid and it is false, and his statement that the body of Adam was created in the image of God is an anthropomorphization that is untrue, and the faith of whoever believes in this anthropomorphization is deviated.

I don’t think I need to convey the rest of the statements of the Wahhabis like Ibn Uthaymeen because they insist that the theory of evolution is false, and they declare that whoever believes in it is a disbeliever, even though they do not offer any scientific evidence to disprove the theory. This is not unusual coming from them, as it is the savage and barbaric way of the Wahhabi sheikhs to proclaim others to be disbelievers and to give their followers, the murderers and killers, permission to slay them. This method of theirs is the greatest evidence of their ideological, intellectual and scientific defeat. They lack the ability to understand what the rest of humanity has presented, let alone the ability to respond in a scientific manner.

Certain Sunni Scholars and the Theory of Evolution

Al-Azhar University, which represents the Ashari and Maturidi Sunni ideologies, is well known for rejecting the theory of evolution. These are some of the statements from an Al-Azhar graduate claiming to refute evolution.

Dr. Umar Sulaiman Ashqar, in his book, Al-Aqeeda fi Allah [Belief in God], begins by explaining his understanding of Darwin’s theory- the theory of evolution:*

Darwin’s explanation of the process of evolution: Natural Selection: Elimination factors cause the weak and frail beings to perish and the strong ones to survive. They call this law “Survival of the Fittest”, so the strong and healthy creature survives and passes its strong traits to its offspring. With time, the strong traits gather to make a new trait in the organism. This is “abiogenesis” that makes the being with these primary traits evolve into a higher organism. In this manner, evolution continues to occur, and that is progression (Ashqar 1999, 85).

Response: Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the origin of the first replicators and how they emerged on the earth. It has nothing to do with the traits of organisms or the law of natural selection. It deals with how the first protein, or the first self-replicator, representing the simplest origin of life, came into existence. With regard to the evolution of organisms and bearing new traits during the process of development, this is not termed abiogenesis, but is actually the process of evolution and development. And the appearance of a new organism that expresses enough traits to separate from its relatives during the process of evolution is called speciation and diversification.

Wonders never cease with people like Ashqar who delve into a science they know nothing about. He is not even capable of distinguishing abiogenesis from evolution, or development from speciation, yet he says that the theory of evolution is false, and he sets out to refute it!

Ashqar later says:

Professor Nabeel George, one of the reliable scientists in this field, says: “For that reason, natural selection does not explain the theory of abiogenesis or evolution. It only explains that the least fit will die, and that some characteristics will spread among the species. Those who speak of evolutionary leaps mean that an animal which did not have an eye suddenly had an eye, because of the action of some rays.

Some specialists have proved that x-rays can cause changes in the number of genes, but this change occurs in something that is already present-it does not create something that does not exist. The number of a monkey's genes differs from the number of a human's genes. X-Rays only affect the genes that are already present; how could these rays, which do not possess any form of intelligence, create the intelligence in man which distinguishes him from monkeys and other animals?

These rays can affect the genes, but it is more akin to distortion than reforming, as happens in the case of atomic rays (radiation). This is in addition to the fact that science of genetics disproves Darwin’s theory, as experience shows. The Jews, and the Muslims after them, have been circumcising their sons for centuries, but this has not led to any of their children being born circumcised. The more science advances, the more Darwin’s theory is proven wrong” (Ashqar 2003, 139).

Response: Here again, he shows his misunderstanding of the theory of evolution when he quotes the following:

Those who speak of evolutionary leaps mean that an animal which did not have an eye suddenly had an eye, because of the action of some rays.

This is incorrect. According to the theory of evolution, the eye did not come into existence suddenly. Initially there were cells that sensed the environment of the organism. These cells then specialized in sensing light, multiplied, arched, and shrank to form the light orifice, and afterwards the lens was formed. The modern eye evolved through minute cumulative steps that occurred over millions of years and across many generations.

Ashqar’s reference to circumcision shows that he understands nothing about the theory of evolution. What does circumcision or tradition have to do with the theory of evolution? Evolution occurs due to the presence of a favored genetic trait acquired by the organism. Circumcision is not a genetic trait, but rather a surgical procedure that groups of people habitually perform. Customs and surgical procedures cannot be inherited. Rather, it is genetic traits that are inherited and therefore have an effect on evolution.

By God! I wonder about a person who understands nothing about the theory of evolution, then writes a book to refute it, and he considers it a scientific response. There is no power except in God.

Ashqar says:

This theory is not supported by reality a) If this theory were true, we would see many animals and people coming into existence through evolution, not only through reproduction. Even if evolution needs a long time, this does not mean that we would not see monkeys changing into men, one group after another. b) Even if we accept that natural circumstances and natural selection turned a monkey into a man for example, we cannot accept that these circumstances would also dictate that there would be a woman to accompany this man, so that they could reproduce and there would be a balance between men and women. c) The ability to adapt which we see in creatures such as the chameleon, which changes colour according to where it is, is an ability which is inherent in the formation of that creature. It is born with that ability which exists in some and is barely present in others. All creatures have limits beyond which they cannot pass. The ability to adapt is the matter of inborn potential, not a developed characteristic that has been formed by the environment as the proponents of this theory say.

Otherwise, the environment would have forced rocks, soil, and other inanimate objects to adapt. d) Frogs are distinguished from man in their ability to live on the land and in water. Birds are distinguished from man by their ability to fly and move rapidly without the aid of a machine. A dog’s nose is far more sensitive than that of a human - so is a dog’s nose more advanced than a human’s nose? Are frogs and birds more advanced than humans in some ways? Camels’, horses’ and donkeys’ eyes see equally well by day and night, whereas human eyes are unable to see in the dark. An eagle’s vision is far more acute than that of a human. So are eagles and donkeys more advanced than man? If we take selfsufficiency as the basis of superiority, then plants are superior to man and all animals, because they manufacture their own food and food for others, with no need for nourishment from elsewhere.

If we take size as the basis of superiority, then camels, elephants and prehistoric animals (dinosaurs for example) would be superior to man (Ashqar 2003, 139-41).

Response: Ashqar believes that the modern human, Homo sapiens, has evolved from the modern ape. This is not the case. Actually, humans and modern great apes share a common ancestor. Due to his ignorance or misunderstanding of evolution, he demands that modern apes evolve into humans because he imagines that this is what happened in the past, but humans and modern apes diverged millions of years ago. This means that modern great apes and humans share a common ancestor, but they split into two different lineages. For this reason, it is scientifically impossible to expect that a modern ape would evolve into a human, because millions of years ago apes took a different evolutionary path than humans. It is nearly impossible to imagine apes going backwards on the evolutionary path to the original point of divergence from humans, and then embarking upon the same evolutionary path as humans.

Regarding the lineage from which chimpanzees separated, and humans evolved, the only remaining member of this lineage is the modern human-Homo sapiens, so no one can ask why all members of the human lineage didn’t evolve into humans. The reality is that they evolved into distinct species, including the modern human. As for the question of whether evolution continues today or not, the answer is yes, it still continues in nature, even though the evolution of most organisms is not visible to us due to the brevity of our lives, and the long life cycle of these organisms. However, it is possible for us to observe evolution in some insects due to their short life cycle. Through observations of some insect species in their natural habitat, we can see clear indications of evolution and a dramatic change in their traits. These are established facts that anyone can verify.

Regarding his demand that a female evolves, it is truly the most extreme form of ignorance, because evolution occurs within an entire species. One of the pillars of evolution is reproduction, the transfer of genes to the following generation. For example, when a mutation that alters the straightness of legs occurs in a female, she passes it on to her offspring, whether they are male or female. Likewise, if a mutation occurs in a male, he also passes it to his offspring, whether they are male or female. These mutations are small and do not take an individual out of its species. Therefore, a mate bearing the same mutation is not required in order to be able to breed. The individual is still able to breed with others of the same species who do not have that mutation. In cases where the mutation is a favored trait, natural selection will firmly establish it. Eventually, those individuals possessing this trait will entirely dominate the species.

Furthermore, without reproduction there is no evolution. So how could anyone imagine that males would evolve without females to the point where males and females become two different species, in order for Ashqar to demand the evolution of a female after a male had evolved? By God, it is tragic that these people respond to the theory of evolution with such worthless ignorance!

Ashqar’s third point clearly reveals his extreme ignorance of evolution. The man barely understands a thing about the theory that he set out to refute.

As far as his comparison of the senses, I don’t know why he finds it so strange that certain animal sensory mechanisms are more advanced than their human equivalent. This is beyond dispute and everyone agrees on it. For example, humans lack the sonar of bats, as well as the sight possessed by hawks. Does he disagree with these scientific, empirical, and anatomical facts?!

Thus the colonialist education system, after destroying the people’s religion, imposed the study of this theory in the curriculum, introducing it in scientific garb so that students would believe it to be true, thus instilling in students’ minds the difference between this falsified science and religion, so that people would reject religion. It is sufficient for the reader to know that because of this theory, many Muslims deviated from their religion. For this reason the colonialists were keen to teach this theory to Muslim children in their schools at the time when American law forbade teaching this theory in schools from 1935 CE.

But in Europe, after they had dealt the final blow to their deviated religion, they announced that Darwin’s theory, which they had used in the battle to support science against religion, was not a scientific fact; it was no more than a theory, and the more science advanced, the more the falsehood of this theory became apparent (Ashqar 2003, 143).

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It is currently the only one recognized by all well-established universities and research centers around the world to explain life on the earth. European and American universities are still teaching the theory of evolution, and neither they nor any other academically respected university has ever stopped teaching evolution. So I don’t know where Ashqar got this fabrication: “… the more science advanced, the more the falsehood of this theory became apparent.”

As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. In reality, advancements in genetics have proven the theory of evolution with irrefutable scientific evidence that cannot even be the subject of a substantial opposing argument. Two examples of this genetic evidence include the retroviruses and the fusion of Chromosome 2 in humans.

Some Shia Scholars and the Theory of Evolution

Not all Shia clerics have rejected the theory of evolution. Actually it can be understood from their statements that some of them accept it. But I have yet to find any clear or apparent statement of acceptance from them that explains how it is consistent with religion in general, or with the religious scriptures, and more specifically the Quran.

At this point I will discuss the opinions of some of the opponents of evolution, and we will weigh the content of their statements on the scale of science and see what it is worth.

Sheikh Jafar Sobhani

In his book Al-Manahij al-Tafsiriyya [Interpretive Methods], Sheikh Jafar Sobhani says:*

Charles Darwin published his book The Transformation of Species in 1908. Based on his investigations, he proved that the human being is the last in the evolutionary chain of species and that this chain traces back to an animal resembling an ape. So he referenced his fathers and forefathers in a special tree, reciting a poem that says:

Those are my fathers, so show me their likes …

When this theory was published, it was poorly received within religious circles among the Christians, Muslims and Jews. They had agreed that the human is a unique creature and that his chain traces back to Adam, the father of humankind, who was created in this form without any link to other animals.

Furthermore, some naive people use that same hypothesis as an argument for the contradiction between science and religion, and to separate them from one another. They claim that the path of religion is different than that of science, sometimes intersecting with it, and other times diverging from it.

There were those who did not believe in separating science from religion, so they tried to subject the Holy Quran to that hypothesis. And in doing this, they interpreted various Quranic verses that refer to the creation of the human being in a way that fits that hypothesis.

The debate was intense between those in favor of taking the religious scripture literally and those in favor of interpretation. With time, the abovementioned hypothesis-and that concerning the creation of the human being that followed it-were proven to be false” (Sobhani 2005, 46. Arabic source, translated).

It seems that Sheikh Jafar, may God guide him to the truth, loves to jest. He wrote, “Those are my fathers, so show me their likes,” without noticing that those “fathers”, as Sheikh Jafar called them, are physical ancestors that he undoubtedly shares with the biologist Charles Darwin. Therefore, if they are proven to be Darwin’s ancestors, then they are Jafar Sobhani’s ancestors, as well as the ancestors of every other human being on the earth. On the other hand, if they are not proven to be Sheikh Jafar Sobhani’s ancestors, or “fathers”, then they are definitely not Darwin’s either. Proving or disproving this is a matter of science that I doubt Sheikh Jafar and his fellow shia authorities (marja) have the ability to delve into and discuss scientifically. This is especially true in view of the statement that Sheikh Jafar wrote about Darwin’s theory that is full of errors. He said that Charles Darwin published his book The Transformation of Species in 1908, but Darwin actually died in 1882, and he didn’t write a book titled The Transformation of Species. He did, however, write a book titled The Origin of Species, published in 1859, which did not deal with the origin of man. He addressed the origin of man and his relationship to the great apes in another book titled The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.

I truly do not know what to say. It is better for me to leave the reader to comment.

Sayyid Ali Sistani

On the “About” page of the Center of Belief Researches website that belongs to Sistani, and which represents the doctrinal front of the Supreme Shia Authority sponsored by him, it says:*

We find the Supreme Shia Authority of His Eminence, Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husseini Sistani-may his life be prolonged-with its programs and projects, to be the most ideal model in this field to defend the Shia doctrine and to spread the knowledge of Ahl al-Bayt pbut across the world.

The Center of Belief Researches is one of these blessed projects, as it was founded under the supervision and with the support of the Hujjat al-Islam [The Proof of Islam and Muslims] Jawad Shahristani. The official opening coincided with the anniversary of the birth of Imam al-Ridha pbuh on the 11th of Dhu al-Qidah [The 11th month of the Islamic Calendar], 1419 A.H. It was founded to defend the doctrine, to develop the correct concepts and to support the creed of Ahl al-Bayt pbut through all of its various activities…

Our Center has decided to take on the task to stand against the secular doctrine and to rebut its claims. This is in response to the instruction issued by the supreme religious cleric, His Eminence, the Grand Ayatollah, Sayyid Ali Husseini Sistani-may his life be prolonged -regarding the necessity of this endeavor (Sistani 2011. Arabic source, translated).

The following was also mentioned on the website:

The opinions mentioned on the website of the Center of Belief Researches do not necessarily represent the opinion of His Eminence Sayyid Sistani (Sistani 2011, translated).

This means that they may represent his opinion, or they may not. The following is what I have found on Sistani’s Ideological website concerning this important issue. If this is not his opinion then he can deny it and state his opinion, otherwise the opinions are his and he is bound by this response.

From Sistani’s Center of Belief Researches website:

A question regarding the falsehood of the theory of evolution: May the peace, mercy and blessings of God be upon you. I would like to ask you about Darwin’s scientific theory of evo-

lution and development, which states that living organisms have evolved from simpler ones. For example, animals have undergone mutations throughout time and have transformed into more complex beings. What do you think of this theory? Does it go against Islam? Does it apply to humans?

Thank you, and we ask God to protect you and to always help us learn what is beneficial from you. Mustafa, America.

Answer: Respectable brother Mustafa, May the peace, mercy and blessings of God be upon you. It has been scientifically proven that this theory is false. Perhaps

the simplest thing refuting this theory is that, based on the calculation of probabilities, it would take millions of years for a simple cell to transform into a more complex one. This is the case for a single cell, so what would it be for one animal transforming into another?!! It would take billions of years, and this has been proven to be false. This is one way to refute this theory. There are other ways as well, and all of them make the theory of evolution unable to withstand scientific criticism.

Furthermore, in our Islamic doctrine, we have a clear opinion about how the creation of man began. The Holy Quran states it here as the Almighty says: ﴾[He] Who who perfected everything He created, and began the creation of man from wet clay.﴿ Chapter “The Prostration” 32:7. Thus, the creation of man began from wet clay, and not from another animal as evolutionists say. The Almighty says: ﴾He created man from dry clay that is like pottery.﴿ Chapter ”The Abundantly Merciful” 55:14. He also says: ﴾And We created you, then We formed you, then We said to the angels, “Prostrate to Adam.” So they prostrated, except for Iblis. He was not of the prostrating ones.﴿ Chapter “The Heights” 7:11. And the Almighty says: ﴾Indeed, We created them from sticky clay.﴿ Chapter “Those Who Set the Ranks” 37:11.The Almighty also says: ﴾And When your Lord said to the angels, “Indeed, I will create a human being from the dry clay of formed mud. • So, when I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My Spirit, then fall down to him, prostrating.”﴿ Chapter “The Rocky Tract” 15:[28-]29. In addition, there are narrations from the prophets and successors pbut that explain how Adam, the father of humankind, was created.

Therefore, the theory of evolution is incompatible with the above. May you remain under the protection of God.

Abu Hussain commented on the above answer and said: “We hope that you elaborate and we are very grateful. May God help you to do good deeds.”

[The Center of Belief Researches then responded as follows:]

Answer: Honorable brother Abu Hussein, May the peace, mercy and blessings of God be upon you. Quoting from Thimar Al-Afkar [The Fruits of Thoughts] by

Sheikh Ali Al-Korani Al-Amili, 354-357: The theory of evolution contradicts many modern scienc-

es … placing it in an unenviable position. One of these contradictions concerns physical facts … Here is this contradiction: The sun and other stars burn and emit tremendous amounts of thermal, radiative and light energy into the depths of the universe. But this massive amount of energy cannot be expected to spontaneously return to the sun and other stars. If you leave anything for a certain period of time, it will quickly decay… If you leave a piece of meat out, or a piece of fruit or food, you can see that it spoils after a certain period of time and you have to take certain precautions to protect it from spoiling, like refrigerating it. However, this precautionary measure only helps for a certain period of time. If you abandon a house or a palace, it will deteriorate after some years … and so on … Thus, everything is moving in one direction toward deterioration, decomposition and putrefaction. Entropy: in order for scientists to explain the concept of order and disorder in the universe or in any system, they use the term “entropy”. Entropy refers to the amount of disorder, which means the amount of energy that is of no benefit. The second law of thermodynamics is known as the law of increasing entropy. Professor F. Bush says, ‘All spontaneous changes occur such that chaos in the universe increases. This is simply the format of the second law applied to the universe as a whole.’ The American scientist Isaac Asimov says, ‘According to our information, all changes and transformations are toward increasing entropy, and toward increasing disorder and increasing chaos, and toward destruction.’ In the same article, he goes into more detail about this topic saying, ‘Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the effect of the second law all about us. We have to work hard to organize a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself-and that is what the second law is all about.’

We can sum up the first and second law as follows. Evolution scientist Jeremy Rifkin says about the second law: ‘Albert Einstein says, ‘[This law] is the fundamental law for all science,’ and Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as ‘the metaphysical law for the entire universe’.’ Therefore, this comprehensive law confirms that all transformations and changes that occur in the universe move toward entropy, which means toward increasing disorder, decomposition, and disintegration …

In other words, the universe is moving toward death, and physicists say: ‘The universe is moving toward heat death.’ That is because the transfer of heat from hot bodies (the stars) to cold bodies (planets and cosmic dust for instance) will stop one day, when the temperature of all bodies in the universe equalizes…

In this case, the transfer of heat between bodies stops, which means that all activity stops.

This means the death of the universe. We can put both the hypotheses of evolution and physics together on a single graph. From this, we will see that there is a complete contradiction between the two. The hypothesis of evolution says that changes and transformations occurring in our world and in the universe lead to increasing complexity and order, which means that evolution is continuing at an ever increasing rate.

As for physics, it says that all current changes and transformations in the universe (and in our world) lead to increasing entropy, which means increasing disorder, decomposition and disintegration.

This means that the universe is not moving toward something better but is instead moving toward something worse, that is, toward death. It also means that there is no spontaneous process that leads to increasing order, complexity and composition.

This shows that time is a factor of annihilation, not construction. Despite this, all evolutionists resort to the issue of time to explain all the objections and difficulties facing the hypothesis of evolution. Therefore, when you rule out blind coincidence producing all of this order, complexity and beauty that fills the universe, they say: ‘But this did not happen in a million years, it happened in hundreds or thousands of millions of years!’ It is as if when they mention a long time period they think they are solving all difficulties and providing a solution for all the miracles that fill the universe!

This is ignorance. Rather, it is compound ignorance. We encourage those people to read physics books so they will know time-that they think is a factor of construction and development-is actually nothing but a factor of destruction, decomposition and disintegration! So, with which view should we side?! Should we stand by a hypothesis (or theory, at best) that has not yet been proven to be true and is opposed by many scientists?! Or do we side with a scientific law that has been proven by thousands of laboratory experiments (each device used testifies to the validity of this law) and is accepted by all scientists without any exception?

Therefore, the hypothesis of evolution opposes science to its core. Evolution toward something better cannot occur in a world that moves toward disintegration and destruction in all its activities, movements, and changes, so evolution is scientifically impossible: ﴾Nay, but We hurl the true against the false, and it destroys it and it vanishes. And woe to you from what you describe.﴿ [Quran Chapter] “The Prophets” 21:18.

May you remain under the protection of God (Sistani 2011, translated).

Response: the above represents Sistani’s opinion and response regarding the theory of evolution, or at the very least a response that Sistani is satisfied with. So there is no problem with making its value and quality clear.

1. He said:

It has been scientifically proven that this theory is false. Perhaps the simplest thing refuting this theory is that, based on the calculation of probabilities, it would take millions of years for a simple cell to transform into a more complex one. This is the case for a single cell, so what would it be for one animal transforming into another?!! It would take billions of years, and this has been proven to be false.

He states here that the theory of evolution has been proven to be scientifically false. I truly don’t know where that has ever happened!! Perhaps only in their delusions. In fact, this theory has been proven to be scientifically correct, especially due to the advancements achieved in genetic research. The theory of evolution is currently being taught in the schools of developed countries and in all well-established universities worldwide. In addition to that, many vaccines and medical treatments are being produced and developed based on the theory of evolution.

He then presented his scientific evidence that is essentially just superficial words that reveal the author’s ignorance of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not state that a mutation will transform one species into another or one animal into another, nor does it state that there is a sudden emergence of complex organs, like an animal without eyes suddenly having eyes, such that a problem of mathematical probabilities could exist from this and stand in the way of the theory of evolution.

Actually, evolution occurs through a tremendous number of very slow steps, and since they are cumulative, there is no mathematical problem with the probability of each of the evolutionary steps occurring individually. Moreover, the probability of each one following the previous one is very high due to variation, reproduction and natural selection being present along the course of this path. And if all three of these are present, evolution is definitely present as well. This is a scientific fact denied only by people who do not understand variation, reproduction and selection, and what these three terms mean. I advise Sayyid Sistani and the Center of Belief Researches to read what evolutionary scientists have written so that they might understand the theory of evolution before issuing such statements that only demonstrate their ignorance of the theory and its mechanisms.

2. Their quoting of ambiguous Quranic verses in order to refute a proven scientific theory has no scientific value for biologists, and it doesn’t have any religious value either. None of these verses conclusively oppose the theory of evolution so that someone could say, for example, that religion and evolution cannot both be simultaneously true. Their statement that the creation of man began with wet clay, and their use of Quranic verses regarding this, can be refuted simply by saying that these verses pertain to the creation of the soul. The wet clay creation occurred in heaven as stated by the same Quranic verses that mention the story of creation, and this was mentioned in religious accounts as well. Heaven is a world of souls, not a physical, material world like this one, as we shall explain later, God willing. Another response is that the creation of man began when God created the first genetic plans, or the first replicable protein, because this protein was created from the chemical substances available on this earth, in its dust, or from dry clay particles. Thus, it is true that God has created man from wet clay, dust, dry clay, and earth, because the human being is the purpose of creation that is intended to be reached. Therefore, the verses about the creation of Adam from wet clay and dust can be understood to be in complete agreement with evolution. We also find other verses that clearly support the theory of evolution. The Almighty said:

﴾While He has created you in stages • Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens in layers • And made the moon a light therein and made the sun a burning lamp? And God has caused you to grow from the earth as a plant.﴿ Quran Chapter “Noah” 71:14-17

The verses are clear: “He has created you in stages … And God has caused you to grow from the earth as a plant.” A detailed explanation of these verses will come later.

3. The summation of what they quote from Korani’s book is that entropy requires complex systems to move toward collapse, and that the universe as a whole is moving in this direction, so then the earth and all that it encompasses is moving in this direction as well. According to them, there is relapse and regression, rather than evolution. They conclude:

Therefore, the hypothesis of evolution opposes science to its core. Evolution toward something better cannot occur in a world that

moves toward disintegration and destruction in all its activities, movements, and changes, so evolution is scientifically impossible: ﴾Nay, but We hurl the true against the false, and it destroys it and it vanishes. And woe to you from what you describe.﴿ 21:18.

In fact, this argument was first raised by Dr. Henry Morris, who said that the second law of thermodynamics states that everything tends toward disorder, making the process of evolution impossible (Morris 1974).*

The fundamentalist Christians in the United States and Europe exploited this argument in order to respond to the theory of evolution. Some Arabs also rehashed this argument after it was translated and an associate of Korani’s had relayed it. If only he had left it as it was, but instead he added words to it that reveal complete ignorance. In the end, Korani snatched it and put it in his book. The Belief website belonging to Sistani then took it from Korani and adopted it as fact and evidence that refutes the theory of evolution.

Generally speaking, the argument above is oversimplified, and it is scientifically incomplete and incorrect. It will be shown later that observational findings that are now widely accepted by science have demonstrated that the universe is flat, open, and expanding at an accelerating rate. Nevertheless, let us drop to their level and assume that the physical universe is a closed system to which the second law of thermodynamics applies-since entropy does not decrease within a closed system-and let us assume that entropy is increasing in the universe. This does not mean that every part of the universe is moving in a direction of increased entropy. It is possible for parts of the universe (that we have assumed to be a closed system), such as the earth, to head toward a more orderly state, at times, as long as it is balanced by other parts heading toward increased entropy. What is key is that the system as a whole does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. This reveals that their argument is built on a weak foundation and a superficial understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.

Also, the earth itself is not a closed system. There is actually more than one energy exchange system existing within it, as well systems exchanging with it, as the sun gives heat and light to the earth. Parts of the earth experience night and day successively, dividing it into several systems that make it go through a variable and continuous process of heat exchange. This is due to the existence of multiple systems, rather than just one system. In addition to this, because the earth’s core is hot and consists of magma, there are unorganized processes of energy exchange between the core, crust and atmosphere of the earth.

Likewise, the space encompassing the earth is also a system, and heat exchange occurs between this space and the earth.

The moon’s gravity also affects the earth, and this effect even changes over time because the moon is continuously moving further from the earth.*

Therefore, based on the earth’s conditions as described above, the law of thermodynamics for two systems would be that the total entropy of those two systems will not decrease when heat exchange occurs between them. So increasing order on earth is possible due to the energy exchange between the earth and the surrounding universe. Similarly, increasing order in only some parts of the earth is also possible since several systems exchange energy with each other. What matters is that the total entropy of both the systems-not just the one-doesn’t decrease.

The earth itself is neither a closed system nor a single system, but rather it is comprised of multiple systems. There is no problem with entropy increasing in one place on the earth and decreasing in another, nor is there a problem with the deterioration of life, demolition, earthquakes and floods occurring in one place on the earth, while at the same time construction, growth and the flourishing of life occur in another. This is something we witness every day, and it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Furthermore, the fact that the universe has not headed toward collapse in the past or present is a topic that has been settled. It has been scientifically proven-by observing a type of supernova, cosmic background radiation, and the Doppler effect-that the universe is flat, and that its expansion is accelerating, and that this will continue for a long time to come. We will address this issue later when we discuss dark energy.

I believe that my explanation of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics is sufficient to rebut the prior simplistic argument. But to make it even more clear, let’s leave entropy and go to the conclusion that they depend on, that the universe has moved, and is still moving, toward disintegration, decay, and collapse. This is incorrect. In fact, it is actually the complete opposite. According to observations and precise astronomical monitoring, taking into account the Doppler effect, cosmic background radiation, and supernova observations, it has been clearly proven that the velocity at which galaxies are moving away from each other is accelerating. The material universe in which we live has been, and still is, expanding, multiplying and being added to. Even the galaxy that we live in still contains clouds of gas and dust that bring about the formation and birth of new stars, and this will continue for a long time to come. This scientific fact, proven beyond doubt, is enough to refute what Korani claimed in his book.

In addition, according to the standard model, or the big bang theory, the universe did not begin as a compound, complex universe, but rather began as a point of singularity, or quantum event, as proven by scientific evidence such as the divergence of galaxies, and the cooling of the universe over time. Then the big bang occurred, and matter began to gradually form. It is clear that the universe is still young, still expanding, and still being added to. According to precise scientific calculations that depend on accurate observations, the universe is not currently heading toward collapse, nor has it done so in the past, but is being added to and expanding.

Even if we assume that the universe has a positive curvature, like the surface of a ball rather than being flat, and will eventually head toward contraction and collapse, it wouldn’t be scientifically possible until the universe reaches its maximum expansion point, then heads toward contraction and collapse when the positive energy within the universe-the energy pushing it to expand-is unable to resist the gravity of matter.

The universe hasn’t reached the maximum possible expansion point. Actually, its rate of expansion is accelerating.

Therefore, their claim that the universe has been, and still is, heading toward collapse, based on the second law of thermodynamics, is scientifically incorrect. It is also inconsistent with the facts provided by accurate astronomical observations and mathematical scientific calculations. What’s more, according to the Doppler effect and the presence of cosmic background radiation, the universe is not currently heading toward collapse. And it did not begin as a complex, compound universe, then head toward decrease and collapse. On the contrary, it began as a simple universe, then headed toward augmentation, structure, and complexity, and it continues on this course now.

If we apply what has happened, and what is still happening, in the universe as a whole-just as Korani, his associate, Sistani, and his center wanted us to do-considering that it started out from zero, then was augmented to include the earth and its inhabitants, then the idea of evolution on the earth, and the trend of life or organisms toward multiplicity and additional structure and complexity isn’t a problem. It actually completely corresponds with the general course of the universe, past and present, toward expansion and multiplication.

Even though I responded with the above answer, and I demonstrated the mistake that Korani made in his book, and that was presented by Sistani on his ideological website, and I have shown that the universe was, and still is, adding and expanding, and this will continue for a long time to come, it would have been enough to say to them that growth, being added to, multiplication, and movement from simplicity to complexity and multiplicity, and toward an optimal state and improvement, are occurrences that we see every day in life on the earth. So if evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, then the growth and multiplication of plants violates it as well. And if evolution isn’t possible for this reason, then the growth and multiplication of plants isn’t possible either.

A plant starts as a seed-genetic plans-that then grows and is augmented with the passing of time. This applies to the growth of the fetus and the baby animal as well. There is no difference between the growth of a fetus, plant, or child, and evolution. They all demonstrate multiplication, augmentation, and a trend from simplicity to complexity over time. If evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics-as they claim-then the growth of fetuses, plants, and children violates the law as well, yet we see fetuses, plants, and children grow, augment, and multiply.

Note: I do not know how Korani, Sistani and his “Belief Center”- all having adopted the statements above-can make physics an axis on the graph that they mentioned. In fact, it is the first time I have heard that physics, with all that it is, can even be an axis on such a graph. I hope they don’t keep their genius all to themselves. I hope they send this graph to well-established universities around the world so these establishments can learn how physics can be an axis on a graph like that in order to share the benefit. If they don’t know what physics is, then there is no problem with giving them a simple definition. Physics is the branch of science that deals with the behavior of matter, energy, and dimensions (such as the three spatial dimensions and the dimension of time), as well as the interactions and associations between them and the laws that connect them.

I am not ridiculing those people and the ignorance that they have presented, because we have too much on our plate to be concerned with ridiculing anyone. I only wish to draw the attention of the deceived and oppressed followers of Ahl al-Bayt to the great lengths these people will go to in order to do what they do best: shamelessly preach without knowledge.

This is the reason why any believer, who believes in Muhammad and the progeny of Muhammad pbut, and who fears for their faith and their hereafter, should not trust such people to make a decision regarding their hereafter for them.

Sayyid Muhammad Shirazi and his “Dialogue” with Darwin

Sayyid Muhammad Shirazi responded to Darwin’s theory in a book he called Between Islam and Darwin. He identified himself in the beginning of his book as “His Eminence, the Supreme Religious Authority, Imam Shirazi, ‘may his life be prolonged’”.

There is no harm in going through some of his arguments against the science of historical geology and the theory of evolution in order to determine whether they have scientific value, or if he has “heard incorrectly so he answered likewise”. Shirazi imagined what Darwin would have said, then attributed speech to him, and then responded under the name “Muslim”, a name he chose for himself in his “dialogue”.

In his book, Shirazi wrote:*

Darwin [What Shirazi imagines Darwin would say]: The experiment is examination and other evidence. Examination: If a person were to examine the layers of the earth, he would find fossils of plants, animals, and humans. The fossils of each layer are different than the fossils of the others. Also, the closer a fossil is to the crust of the earth, the closer it is to being ideal, and the further away the fossil is from the crust of the earth, the further it is from being ideal.

Muslim [Shirazi responds to what he claims are Darwin’s words]: How is this connected to evolution, knowing the origin of things, and that the human being used to be a monkey?

Darwin [what Shirazi imagines that Darwin would say]: Now I say, the connection is:

1. The bottom layer of the earth contains fossils of clam, sponge, coral, shrimp, fish, a unicellular shelled organism, and an alfalfa plant.

2. The second layer contains pine trees, palm trees, reptiles, birds, fish, and marsupials.

3. The third layer contains snakes, whales, apes, and modern trees. 4. The fourth layer contains mammoths, wooly quadrupeds, human beings, and all modern trees… Muslim [Shirazi]: First of all, how can you prove your claim that these layered fossils exist? And how can you prove your claim that the fossils in each layer have evolved from the fossils of the previous one? … Fifth: If we were to assume that humans do not exist at all in the lower layers, would this successive change of fossils prove evolution to be true? What if someone told you that God created a sponge in the lower layers, and so on, how would you respond? Furthermore, does the existence of a small car on the first floor of a building, a bigger car on the second, and a bigger one on the third, and so on, since they have various shapes, prove that the car evolved by itself and that each one was not manufactured separately? Moreover, let us suppose that a landslide occurred in New York City and then a thousand years later a person discovered the building whose floors contained the cars. Would they have the right to say the same thing as you did? How would you answer them if they said so? What is the difference between what you are saying and what they would say? (Al-Shirazi 1972. Arabic source, translated).

Response: Just like that, with the stroke of a pen, and with extremely simplistic arguments, he wants to eradicate historical geology in all its splendor, and its ability to determine the age of the layers of the earth, and thus the age of the fossils therein. Shirazi says:

…how can you prove your claim that these layered fossils exist?

Then, in his dialogue, he claims that science, Darwin (or whoever he is talking to) couldn’t refute this question!

According to the example of the building, it seems that Sayyid Shirazi imagines that geologists classify the layers of the earth based on their order, and which one is on top, without any scientific standards or laws to significantly reduce the risk of falling into error. So he imagines that they would overlook natural occurrences such as landslides, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or the movement of the earth’s tectonic plates without paying any attention to them while setting these scientific standards for classification. He should have first become acquainted with the geological methods of classifying and determining the age of the earth’s layers, the conventional mechanisms and methods of examination, and whether or not those methods are scientifically accurate, so that he would not present such a naive and simplistic argument while at the same time calling himself an “Imam” (a divine leader) and an “Ayatollah” (a sign of God)!

In general, anyone searching for the truth only needs to investigate to find that the following scientific methods are used to classify the age of the layers of the earth:

1. Relative Dating Method:

This method depends on certain factors that include: for any sequence of rock layers not deformed by either cleavage or severe folding, the lower layer is older than the upper one, and so on. Therefore, determining the older layer is not random in the way that Shirazi imagines, but is a classification subject to scientific standards. Basically, this method determines the age of the rock layers relative to others, without knowing the actual age of each layer.

2. Absolute Dating Method:

This method makes use of the radioactive isotopes of elements. With time, the nucleus of an atom decays and forms a radioactive isotope.

This decay occurs at a constant rate over time for each element. Therefore, the time period of a rock layer containing a radioactive isotope can be calculated by comparing it to its known original isotope. This method has been well-known for decades, and was well-known long before Shirazi wrote his book. It is now used to determine the age of the rock layers with high accuracy. Several isotopes are used to determine the age of rocks, fossils and organic materials, such carbon (C) and argon (Ar).

This is how Shirazi responded to Darwin and the evolution scientists:

And how can you prove your claim that the fossils in each layer have evolved from the fossils of the previous one?

The answer to this is very simple. We have earth layers, one on top of the other, that we have examined using highly accurate scientific methods that leave no room for error. We have found that the bottom layer is the oldest, the top layer is the newest, and the difference in age between layers sometimes reaches hundreds of millions of years. The older layers contain primitive organisms, and as we move toward the present, the organisms are more developed, evolved, and complex. Therefore, it cannot be said that the entire process of creation occurred in a single burst, because some of these organisms came hundreds of millions of years after others. So, based on accurate scientific data, the inevitable conclusion is that some organisms came after others. In fact, even bodily complexity and multiplicity came after a simplicity that preceded them by hundreds of millions of years.

The analysis, classification and comparison of the organisms was then carried out by means of rigorous sciences, such as comparative anatomy, with the most advanced analytical devices. According to scientific evidence and research, it has been found that they are generations of organisms that evolved from one another.

Now whoever rejects the results of these scientific tests and analyses would say that these organisms were created directly, each group in a particular period of time. However, they should explain why God created them in groups and made it look as if one evolved from another. Was it to deceive the people?! The Almighty is far above that!

Therefore, the issue is simple: these organisms have evolved from one another.

Today we can test this in a laboratory, manipulate genes, and create new species of organisms.

Shirazi also says:

Ninth: Assuming that the first cell was a living cell is not enough to provide life for millions upon millions of organisms. Where would the life of these organisms come from? Does the existence of one piece of iron explain the existence of millions of tons of iron? Certainly not! (Al-Shirazi 1972, translated).

Response: I don’t know if Shirazi even understands the concept of reproduction. Does he know that in a laboratory a single bacterial cell can multiply to form millions of bacterial cells?! I believe this is enough to prove that the multiplication of life is something that is very natural and ordinary, once the raw materials and suitable conditions are available. I believe it is indisputable that the earth provides sufficient conditions for life to multiply, and this is something that can be easily tested in a laboratory. The variation of life forms is both extremely natural and inevitable, as long as we keep in mind that there is a basis for physical life-the genetic plan-and that there are mutations that can always occur in this plan that lead to variation. If variation, reproduction, and a natural environment that selects the most fit to survive are all present, and the living organism transfers its genes to the next generation through reproduction, evolution will definitely occur.

Shirazi also says:

Second: If nature selects the fittest, why do primitive plants and animals still exist? Why do apes still exist? Why didn’t nature transform them into the best form?

Third: Why do you see the unfit attack the fittest and eliminate them? For example, lions prey upon humans, and poisonous animals like scorpions and snakes sting or bite humans (i.e the fitter animal) and kill them, and germs (microbes) kill humans, who are more fit.*

Fourth: Why do things that are more fit regress to a less fit state? Just as humans become weak, die, and then turn into dust, the same thing happens to plants and animals. Fifth: Why are there fossils of extinct animals that belong to the highest classes as far as size of body and perfection of form … Sixth: What is this nature that selects? If it has a mind, comprehension and feeling, then what is it? If it has no mind or comprehension, then how does it select? If someone said, “This piece of iron has selected that brick to be

its mate,” wouldn’t that be ridiculous and ludicrous? How could nature be credited with this “alleged” selection that

happens to be better than the selection of all scientists, wise men and philosophers, people of science, comprehension, and experience?! (Al-Shirazi 1972, translated).

Response: Shirazi’s statement that apes and plants didn’t evolve is incorrect. These are historical matters that can be easily resolved by comparing fossils and referring to facts concerning archaeology and fossils. For example, it has been proven that flowering plants did not exist in the past, so plants have evolved. Apes have also changed and evolved, as the apes we see today are completely different than the first apes. There were no great apes in the past. In fact, seventy million years ago there were no apes at all. Rather, there were small mammals from which others, including apes, evolved, after dinosaurs became extinct.

As for Shirazi’s statement that an individual from among the lower-ranked animals kills an individual from the higher-ranked ones:

For example, lions prey upon humans, and poisonous animals like scorpions and snakes sting or bite humans (i.e the fitter animal) and kill them, and germs (microbes) kill humans, who are more fit.

His assumption that this example is a refutation of natural selection proves that he has no understanding of the matter. Lions, scorpions, snakes, bacteria, and viruses all represent nature’s tools that surround the species undergoing natural selection-the human being in his example. These tools select the individuals of that species that are the most fit to survive, or that are able to escape, overcome these obstacles, and pass their genes on to the next generation. Moreover, members of the same species sometimes play this role with even more ferocity than members of other species, as they compete for limited space in a shared environment.

I will present an example based on Shirazi’s standards for examples in order to help those deceived by him to understand what I am saying:

Assume that we went back two million years to a time when a human species called Homo erectus existed. This species had a small brain (larger than that of a chimpanzee, but smaller than that of Homo sapiens, or the modern human being). It is believed that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, evolved from Homo erectus and became a separate species about two hundred thousand years ago. Now let us imagine that we are observing a Homo erectus group consisting of ten adolescent females and ten adolescent males surrounded by deadly predators like lions, venomous and deadly animals like snakes and scorpions, and deadly bacteria. These twenty adolescents differ from one another, as is always the case. Some are tall and others short. Some have completely straight legs and others have legs that are still slightly bent, an inherited trait that reduces their speed. Some have strong bodies and others have weak ones. Some have a strong resistance to bacteria, and others a weak resistance to bacteria. Some have larger than average brains and others smaller. Now when they are attacked by deadly predators, the strongest, fastest, and most intelligent will usually survive, and the weakest, slowest, and least intelligent will usually perish. For example, the intelligent ones will find a way to prevent a snake bite more often than the unintelligent ones, and in this manner the intelligent one (the one with the larger and better brain) will survive, reach puberty, mate, and pass his genes to a new generation. In this way, generation after generation, and by means of variation, selection, and reproduction, the size of the brain and the straightness of the legs will become more firmly established, as is the case for resistance to bacteria and other traits. Likewise, humans, deer, scorpions, snakes, and bacteria will all form a part of nature’s tools of selection for the lion. Therefore, if we have two lions, one of them strong and fast, and the other weaker and slower, to the point where it is slower than the average deer and antelopes that live in its natural environment, it would probably perish, or be so weak that it could not compete with other males to mate, reproduce, and pass its genes to the next generation. On the other hand, the strong and fast lion would probably be able to mate, reproduce, and pass on its genes. This is how nature selects those most able to survive and endure within it. As for the deer, the lion is one of nature’s tools of selection in the sense that nature will select the fastest deer that is most capable of eluding and escaping predators. In this way, the genes most able to keep up with their environment endure, while the genes that cannot keep up will be eliminated. So this is natural selection and survival of the fittest, and it is not as it was understood by Shirazi-that members of a less developed species are unable to harm any member of a more developed species. He presented his argument based on this misunderstanding.

The remainder of Shirazi’s arguments are based on his misunderstanding of natural selection. If he had known that natural selection is the survival of the fittest to live and reproduce in the organism’s natural environment, then he wouldn’t have presented this simplistic set of arguments. For example, natural selection of tall animals that exist in an environment in which food is available at a certain height means that animals tall enough to obtain plentiful food will pass down the tallness trait to their offspring. It also means that the short animals will either die, or they won’t obtain enough food to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. Moreover, an environment that provides plenty of food for a particular animal allows it to increase in size whenever mutation provides the genes for increased size. Therefore, natural selection of the fittest means that conditions within nature allow for the survival of some individuals of a species that possess favored genes, while not allowing for the survival of others. This is because these conditions are suitable for the survivors, not those who perished-those who didn’t pass their genes on to the next generation because they didn’t reproduce.

Shirazi also wrote the following imaginary dialogue:

Darwin: The second proof is evolution, which occurs in many animal species. So we see that if a human is born in a cold climate he will become white. The same applies to animals. Thus, one species has a certain condition, shape, and certain habits in each environment. The same is the case with respect to plants. Therefore, if this is possible, then there is no difference between horizontal evolution, in which the color, size, and habits of one animal change due to differences in climate and other conditions, and vertical evolution, in which a cell turns into a plant, a plant turns into an animal, and an animal turns into a human.

Muslim [Shirazi]: Your inference is very strange, as there are two ways of looking at it here:

1. That individual animals, plants, or humans differ slightly depending on the differences in the environment and climate, while at the same time all individuals belong to a single species, as is the case with humans, but some are black, red, or yellow.

Or that all members of the species are bears, but all polar bears have certain traits, and the other bears in warmer areas have other traits.

Or that all members of a species are the wheat plant, but the Iraqi wheat has its own traits and the Australian wheat has its own traits.

2. That one thing differs drastically based on environmental differences, for example, being an ape in one environment, or a human or plant in another, even though all of them have a single origin.

What we see, and what everyone knows to be correct, is the first way of looking at it.

As for the second way of looking at it, what is your evidence to prove it?

It is like saying: Just as mud can be used to make bricks, pottery, and adobe, it can also be used to make iron, ivory, and water. Could such an analogy be possible? Darwin: I am thinking! Muslim [Shirazi]:Then your second piece of evidence has been refuted. What is your third piece of evidence? (Al-Shirazi 1972. Arabic source, translated).

Response: Darwin is slandered in Shirazi’s imaginary dialogue. Darwin didn’t divide evolution horizontally and vertically, just as he never said that a cell can turn into a plant, a plant into an animal, or an animal into a human. Also, he didn’t advocate transmutation, nor do any of today’s evolutionary biologists or punctuationists.

As for Shirazi’s saying,

What we see, and what everyone knows to be correct, is the first way of looking at it.

This means that Shirazi has admitted evolution without realizing it. He has admitted evolution within the limits of family, like the Ursidae family, while rejecting it when it reaches a level of higher taxonomic separation. Therefore, he is the one who should present evidence that evolution stops at the limits of the family. Why wouldn’t it reach a higher degree of separation, a point it must reach over time, since it is a normal result of the accumulation of evolution over time?

We have genetic mutations that definitely lead to variation. The combination of genetic mutation, natural selection, and reproduction leads to the emergence of new and distinct traits in organisms, such as size, shape, hair type, claws, etc. The differences become substantial due to their accumulation over time. Shirazi and people like him accept all of this within the context of a single family. This means that they accept the accumulation of differences over hundreds of thousands of years, or maybe even a few million years. But Shirazi doesn’t accept that these differences reach the point of a different family, even though this differentiation is an inevitable and natural result of the accumulation of variation over a longer period of time-tens of millions of years, for example. This is long enough to emphasize this separation in a substantial way, resulting in the biological classification of an organism into a different family.

He accepted that there is continuous modification and restructuring of the organism that depends on its environment. This restructuring and modification is responsible for the variation between polar bears and sun bears, considering the tremendous differences between them in shape, size, weight, color, food type, and metabolism. However, he rejects the argument that modification and restructuring reach a level of variation that places them into different families, for example. So Shirazi is required to present evidence for this, because classification is an inevitable result of the accumulation of modification and restructuring. It is a process that relies on genetic mutation, and in nature it is theoretically possible for genetic mutation to form species, genuses, and families when given sufficient time.

It has been proven in the laboratory that genes can be structurally altered. This can be done in an uncontrolled way, as in radioactive bombardment, or in a controlled way, as is widely done today.

Furthermore, the point has been reached in which a complete bacterial genetic plan can be constructed using non-living chemical substances. In this way, we can theoretically produce a human being in laboratories by using the ovum and sperm of chimpanzees, or by using just the cell nucleus of a chimpanzee and the enucleated ovum of a woman. All we have to do is alter the chimpanzee chromosomes in order to have the same number and likeness of human chromosomes, which is theoretically possible.

A point has been reached that goes even farther than this. Just as a complete bacterial genetic plan was produced in the laboratory using non-living chemical substances, and it was implanted in the cytoplasm of bacteria and the chromosomes were able to live and replicate, a complete human chromosome plan can also be produced using nonliving chemical substances (Alleyne 2010), because the difference between bacterial chromosomes and human chromosomes is like the difference between a small building and a large one, as both of them have the same building materials. We should keep in mind that biological classification of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans places them all in one family-the Great Apes-just as all bears are placed into one family, Ursidae. The difference between humans and chimpanzees is like the difference between sun bears and polar bears. Actually, some of the differences between chimpanzee and human bodies are less than those found between the sun bear and polar bear. Therefore, when Shirazi admitted that evolution exists, considering it exclusively within the limits of the family, without realizing what he was saying, he admitted that chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans have evolved from a common origin as well, since they are all members of one family.*

As for his statement:

It is like saying: Just as mud can be used to make bricks, pottery, and adobe, it can also be used to make iron, ivory, and water. Could such an analogy be possible?

This is meaningless because making bricks from clay doesn’t alter atoms at the level of nuclear particles. So we cannot compare this to the transformation of clay into another element such as iron, for example, since the transformation of one element into another requires the restructuring of nuclear particles. We have two levels here that are entirely different, so this comparison is meaningless. It is also meaningless for Shirazi to compare this simplistic example to what happens in evolution, since the variation in evolution occurs at a single molecular level, which is the restructuring of chromosomes that have the same molecular composition in all organisms. The only difference between chromosomes in each organism is their arrangement. In fact, it would have been better for him if he had not made this comparison. And this concludes my response, but there is no harm in explaining things further.

It seems that Shirazi doesn’t know what he is talking about because when it comes to the evolution of life, we are talking about the restructuring of chromosomes-the building blocks of life. And when comparing chromosomes to elements, the analogy would be the restructuring of atomic nuclei-the building blocks of elements. Chemical elements can be reformed and restructured. Had he asked any astrophysicist or physicist, he would have learned that iron is produced from other elements in the surrounding universe, and in tremendous quantities as well. Iron, and many other elements, are produced through nuclear fusion, a process that occurs in the stars around us. Nuclear fusion causes the structuring and formation of the elements. So when our discussion is taken to the subatomic level, and it is about the transformation of atomic nuclei, there is no difference between iron, oxygen, carbon, helium, and hydrogen, since they are all constructed from the same building blocks. Therefore, elements can be reformed and restructured to produce other materials from the same primary building materials of the elements. This is what happens in stars as they burn hydrogen and helium. Heavier element nuclei that contain more protons and neutrons are produced as a result of the fusion of light element nuclei. In this way, carbon, oxygen, and the remaining elements are produced until reaching iron, the most stable element. Then, if a great supernova explosion of the star occurs, the nuclear fusion process goes beyond iron to heavier elements such as uranium.

So we can create iron from another element if we control the atomic nuclear particles (protons and neutrons). All we need is a large amount of energy in order to create such a small distance between these particles that the strong nuclear forces can begin to work, and then nuclear fusion occurs. This amount of energy is available in stars, for example. For this reason, the production of one element from another element occurs in the universe that surrounds us all the time. However, it is even easier to produce lighter nuclei from heavier nuclei through nuclear fission, as the large amount of energy needed to bring particles closer to one another isn’t required. We must simply induce the fission of an unstable nucleus, like the nucleus of uranium-235. This is what occurs in nuclear reactors, but in a controlled way. For example, it can be controlled by adding a material like a cadmium alloy to absorb excess neutrons so that nuclear fission proceeds at an acceptable rate, rather than at an exponential, uncontrolled rate that turns it into an atomic bomb.

Is Creationism (Single or Multiple Bursts) Acceptable, Based on the Scientific Method?

Truly, anyone who has a basic background in evolution and how it occurs scientifically, or has read a book by any scientist of evolution and examined their responses to arguments, or has simply read the book that Darwin wrote in the nineteenth century where he included and responded to numerous arguments, and then proceeds to examine the works that those who call themselves religious authorities and religious scholars have written, will find that they address issues that they know nothing about. They don’t even understand evolution, or how it occurs according to scientists. Instead, they have understood evolution in a backward way, and then proceeded to argue in an extremely superficial and simplistic manner based on that backward understanding. We also find them repeating Darwin's original arguments-that Darwin had already presented and refuted in his book-similar to how they present superficial arguments in an attempt to refute the accuracy of the principles and methods of historical geology used to determine the age of the older rock layers, even though the accuracy of these methods is undeniable. They argue against the theory of evolution, asking why the circumcision of children isn’t inherited, and why an ape that is trained to walk doesn’t pass the walking trait down to its offspring. When average people read these arguments, people who don’t know what evolution is-they might fall for them. But they are simplistic arguments to those who understand the theory of evolution and how it works. The traits that are inherited by the next generation are those written in the genetic plan of the organism. They are not acquired traits, like the walking of a trained ape or the circumcision of a child. This is self-evident to evolutionary biologists.

On the other hand, some of the people who challenge the theory of evolution assume that evolutionary biology states that compound and complex organs such as the eye came into existence through a single mutation. Not even Darwin says that, let alone modern scientists. They are supposed to be refuting what is taught in well-established universities around the world. These universities don’t teach that compound and complex organs such as the eye came into existence through a single mutation, or even tens or hundreds of mutations. In fact, they are ignorant of the basics of the theory of evolution. So these people present a distorted version of the theory, and respond based on their erroneous understanding of it. This is nauseating for whoever reads their books, and it makes them conclude that they are completely defeated in the face of evolution, as well as the atheist movement, the movement that they are trying to confront using single-burst creationism that excludes evolution. This theory contradicts not only biology, historical geology and archeology, but also the literal meaning of religious scriptures as well. This will be clarified when we discuss religious scriptures, like the Quran, which clearly indicate that creation occurred in many stages and through evolution.

A single question is enough to topple single-burst creationism that excludes evolution. It has definitely, and undoubtedly, already been proven through historical geology, that when the rock layer is older, it contains organisms of lower rank, and when the layer is newer, it contains organisms more developed than the ones in the layers that preceded it. The issue is one of development: moving from bacteria to eukaryotes to multicellular organisms, reaching the fish of the ancient world, passing through the vertebrates and fish, then amphibians and land animals, then mammals, then the diversity of mammals and increasing size, and so on. So the question is: why did God create living things in multiple bursts in different time periods, while in each period creating a group more developed than their predecessors, so that whoever sees them believes that they have evolved from the earlier ones? Do those who deny evolution think that God wants to deceive us?! God is far above that.

Do they have a logical, scientific explanation-other than evolution-for these bursts that succeed each other in time, development, and complexity? For example, if we were to take the whales and dolphins that now live in water, that are considered to have evolved from mammals that lived on land, we would find-in the fossils discovered so far-a chain of intermediate organisms appearing consecutively over time, each one separated from the other by millions of years. They started as land mammals, then gradually developed so as to descend into and live in the water. We find that each group evolves progressively toward living easily in water, until we eventually reach the whale. Is there a reasonable explanation or answer as to why God created these creatures over consecutive time periods, so that whoever sees them determines that the whale is an inevitable result of this chain of organisms that appeared consecutively over time, and progressively evolved towards life in water?!

I believe there is no logical answer except evolution. Otherwise, the alternative answer, which contradicts science, would be to accuse God Almighty of doing all of this in order to deceive the people, but He is far above that.

We look at whales and dolphins and we find that they swim by bending their bodies up and down in a manner identical to land mammals when they run. They don’t swim like fish that, in most cases, bend from side to side. When we observe whales, we find that they give birth and feed milk produced by mammary glands to their young in exactly the same way as mammals.

Sometimes the opponents of evolution also resort to books by biologists and geneticists who are resistant to, or critical of, the theory of evolution, without recognizing that some of them don’t deny evolution, but instead simply regard it as a controlled process, or present it in a novel way. For example, scientists disagree about how mutation works (its speed, pausing, etc.) to affect biological diversity. There is a tremendous difference between those who say that the theory of evolution is true, with a god directing it, and those who say it is false. Their shared belief is that a god exists, not that the theory of evolution is false. Furthermore, not every statement by a biologist has scientific value. One should not just present an opinion, especially when it is the opinion he has adopted. Supporting evidence should also be presented in order for people to see whether it has scientific value, or if it has already been scientifically refuted, and then the issue will be settled. There are universities and research centers around the world that adopt precise scientific standards and have people who evaluate research papers, books, and critiques of scientific theories. If there was a valuable scientific critique by an expert, these universities and scientific centers would have quickly embraced it, and it would be published and promoted, and scientific seminars would be held to discuss it. However, what we see is the exact opposite. Today, in all the well-known universities around the world, the theory of evolution is the only explanation for the existence of life on the earth. Whoever wants to search for the truth themselves by conducting scientific research should at least acquire sufficient knowledge in historical geology, evolutionary biology, genetics, anthropology and archeology. They should then read the scientific critiques of the theory of evolution, as well as the responses to them, so as to make their position scientifically solid and valuable. However, if someone says that some biologist has responded to the theory of evolution in some book, or some scientist said something about the theory of evolution so it is false, or if one refers to someone who is not even a specialist when evaluating the theory, then these are truly contrived and unscientific stances. When you read their scientific reviews, you sometimes find they lack any credibility, since some of them present the theory of evolution in a twisted, backward way, and then respond to it. It is as if the responses are intended for the average person who doesn’t know anything about the theory of evolution, and are meant to be a marketing tool for their insignificant research. There is no scientific basis for these responses. Rather, they are based on the fact that their authors have advanced degrees in biology, or in a field that is not even relevant to the topic, such as cosmology.

In summary, whoever says that they want to refute the theory of evolution shouldn’t distort or twist it. He must refute the theory as it is presented in well-established universities around the world today, not as he imagines it, or as the opponents of the theory have incorrectly presented it.

A note of caution: I have noticed that those who reject the theory of evolution repeat the same arguments that evolution scientists have already presented and responded to themselves. This is inappropriate for whoever claims to have knowledge and claims to be scientifically refuting the theory. They should read and recognize that evolution scientists have already responded to their arguments, some of which were presented by Darwin himself in the nineteenth century. Therefore, whoever repeats the same arguments is either incapable of discussing and refuting the responses of the evolution scientists to these arguments, or he hasn’t read what evolution scientists have written and doesn’t know that they were the first to present and respond to these arguments as well as dozens of other arguments. In either case, it was inappropriate for them to put anything down in writing without knowledge.