Chapter Four: The Theory of Evolution and Rational Evidence for the Existence of the Lord or God

Chapter Four

The Theory of Evolution and Rational Evidence for the

Existence of the Lord or God

The Theory of Evolution and the Fallacies of Dividing it up and Denying the Existence of God

For evolutionary biologists, the theory of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution provide a reasonable explanation supported by scientific evidence that life on the earth began from chemical substances that assembled in a form capable of self-replication. These were the first replicators that gradually evolved over millions of years, proving that nature is the cause of the emergence of life on the earth. This means that if we consider living creatures to be an effect, they indicate a cause, not an unseen cause, but rather a familiar cause-the nature that exists around us. Thus, the creator of these living creatures is nature, and nothing else.

The theorizing atheists say they have a complete explanation of how life emerged and evolved on the earth, so they don’t need to assume the existence of a force that is invisible or outside the known forces of nature-or a god-in order to explain life and its evolution on the earth. The emergence of life from nonliving substances has been proven in the laboratory, even if only to a limited extent, and evolution and development have been proven with scientific evidence, so life on the earth is a natural result, rather than the result of the existence of a god.

As a matter of fact, the scientific explanation for life on the earth proves the existence of a god-not the opposite. If we scrutinize the theory of evolution (abiogenesis and development), we find that it is a process of implementing the purposeful, law-abiding genetic plan, making it an indicator of a purposeful lawmaker. Therefore, not only do they not conflict, but they completely agree with the rational evidence provided by the Quran to prove the existence of a god, specifically, that “the attributes of an effect indicate the attributes of its cause.” Therefore, evolution is entirely purposeful.

However, what evolutionary biologists and Dawkins (who theorizes for atheism) do is perform a trick of dividing up a single massive entity, because nature (i.e the environment we live in) and us are a single entity. In other words, nature and the replicators are a single entity, or let us say, they are all parts of a single entity. As a result, the combination of these parts (i.e this entity) is definitely purposeful. That is why Dawkins intentionally divided up this entity so that he could say, “Look, they appear to be purposeful when they are combined, but as a matter of fact, they are not like that!”

What Dawkins did was like going inside the body of a human who is running for a specific purpose then saying, “Look here, this heart is pumping blood vigorously because the muscles need oxygen and nutrients, the kidneys are eliminating urea from the body, the liver is eliminating poisons from the body, the stomach is digesting food, and so on. All of this isn’t in order to keep the body alive, but rather each organ has a short-term purpose within the limits of its functions. Each is blind to the life of the body and therefore not purposeful in the long- term, so there is no purpose.” In truth, they are purposeful as a whole, so it is the purpose of all of the processes together, and not just some of them.

Since Dawkins and the promoters of atheism set out from a position of denial, rather than doubt, they divided evolution according to their own perspective. They said, “Look, there is random genetic mutation, and there is non-random natural selection that only has a short-term purpose, since what happens is that the natural environment selects the most fit to live in it, so there is no ultimate or longterm purpose. The product, whether it is final or intermediate, resulted from the accumulation of the products of this process over time, so it is a blind process after all, not a purposeful one.”

Had they not set out from belief in atheism and disbelief in the existence of a god, but had instead set out from doubt in the existence of a god, and had they looked at evolution as a single entity, they would have seen that it proceeds based on an elaborate, productive system. This is analogous to the best foundry one could imagine. In a foundry, pieces of metal don’t come out refined from the casting site. Rather, they undergo several procedures, including refining and perhaps cutting, until they come out in the final desired shape. The same holds true for evolution. Moreover, had they considered evolution as a single entity, they would have found it purposeful, since it is productive.

Indeed, evolution produced intelligence, and consequently wisdom, altruism, and morals. One cannot give something that they don’t have, so if it wasn’t purposeful, and if it didn’t have a lawmaker behind it, it wouldn’t have given rise to such valuable products.

Unfortunately, by dividing up evolution and looking at its parts, they cannot see the product as belonging to evolution. What they are doing is no different than a person who divides a large industry into separate production lines so as to focus the attention of the researcher from the ultimate purpose of the industry to the purposes of each short-term production line.

One can view things from different perspectives, and sometimes it completely changes what one sees. A viewing filter placed in front of your eyes can completely change what you see as well. You can only view 3D images through a special viewing filter, or let’s say, from a particular viewing perspective. If you refuse to view the images from this perspective, even for the sake of experiment, you certainly won’t see the image as being 3D, even though it is 3D, and numerous other people see it as 3D.

Therefore, evolution is a complex, compound process that happens as a single, purposeful entity. Genetic mutations, the surrounding environment, and reproduction are all parts of a single, purposeful entity-evolution. What evolutionary biologists have done for the purpose of scientific research is to divide up evolution, then to view this entity as separate parts. Promoters of atheism, such as Dawkins, used this dividing up of evolution into genetic mutations and natural selection in order to invalidate the purpose of evolution, so that he could say, “Look at what we have, just short-term purposes, no long-term or ultimate purpose, so there is no conscious force behind this process, and therefore there is no god.” Nevertheless, the right thing to do is to look it as a whole, and to look at what it has reached, in order for us to clearly see it as purposeful.

Unfortunately, Dawkins and those who use the theory of evolution to prove atheism try to turn a blind eye to the obvious signs that indicate that evolution as a whole is law-abiding. These signs clearly appear to them when they search through the disassembled parts of evolution. They are forced to see the short-term purposes, and forced to see the possibility that these short-term purposes are attributable to natural selection, or even to genes. Moreover, they unwillingly admit that, in the short-term, evolution is law-abiding, not random. This is because, at the very least, there is the law of survival of favored genes, since there are certainly genes that left the race, and there are others that remained and have been firmly established and refined. Examples are genes that have provided the benefits of strength and speed, or the brain and intelligence.

Settling the Debate: “Evolution Is Purposeful”

We have genes, genetic mutations, and the law of the survival of the best gene-or we can say-the best organism. The difference between the gene and the organism is similar to the difference between the plans for a house and the house itself. The law of the survival of the favored gene improves these sets of genes. We now know, without a doubt, that the absolute best survival machine for life on the earth is the intelligence machine (the brain). Even though the economic cost of the intelligence machine, the brain, is very high for the organism, as it requires a massive amount of nutrients, evolution is ultimately forced to go down this path, i.e to evolve the intelligence machine.

Given that genetic mutations have always existed, genes for building the intelligence machine (the brain, for instance) will become available sooner or later, even if genetic mutations are completely random.

In addition, since the law of survival of the best gene or organism is what governs evolution, we can positively state that evolution has had a direction and purpose from the beginning: to produce the genes for the intelligence machine, or an intelligent being. In other words, evolution is purposeful.*

I believe this thorough explanation is enough to refute the atheistic theory of Dr. Dawkins in the context of life on the earth, which is based on the idea that evolution isn’t purposeful in the long-term.

In fact, if we wanted to expand on our previous conclusion and generalize it to any form of life imaginable, we would be able to positively state – according to the law of evolution based on the mutation of replicators, or replicating mechanisms, and the selection of the fittest-that any life, whether similar to life that exists on the earth (built from water, carbon, nitrogen and other chemicals), or on another planet or in another universe and built from ammonia instead of water, or silicon instead of carbon (since it is capable of forming long chains like carbon), the inevitable result of that life would be to produce the intelligence machine. According to the law we know now, this is the inevitable purpose of evolution. It isn’t possible for evolution or any life, replicator, or replicating mechanism to avoid reaching this point sooner or later.

We should also keep in mind that any other life in our universe is expected to be based on water and carbon, as water is considered to be the perfect liquid state for accommodating life, because the density of water decreases when frozen, causing it to float, thus enabling life to continue in the liquid water beneath the ice. Hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon are the most abundant elements in the universe. Moreover, carbon, unlike other elements, can form weak chains that are easily broken, which is suitable for metabolism and life, unlike silicon chains.

Thus, we have now settled the debate and resolved the disagreement regarding the possibility of proving the existence of a god or a lord using the theory of evolution. We have proven that life has the attribute of purposefulness, as well as that life and evolution are purposeful. Since the attributes of an effect indicate the attributes of its cause, it proves that the cause is purposeful, conscious, and knowledgeable. As such, we have proven the existence of a purposeful, conscious and knowledgeable cause. Consequently, the existence of a lord or a god is proven, whether God is the direct cause or the direct cause is one of the effects of God, which also indicate Him by having the attribute that we have proven: purposefulness. This alone is enough to refute the modern atheist theory, built on the foundation that evolution doesn’t have a long-term purpose.

The Intelligence Machine

I said that the purpose of evolution is to reach the intelligence machine, because it is the absolute best survival machine in the fierce competition for survival between genes. Although the existence of seven billion humans on the earth today is enough to prove this fact, I will still discuss this truth briefly for further explanation. If we were to assume that genetic mutation has been random from the start, we would definitely say that it must provide a gene that is suitable for building an intelligence machine. We don’t mean by “intelligence machine” the modern brain of humans and animals, but rather anything that we can imagine to have been the beginning of the brain, such as a single nerve cell. Those possessing intelligence are definitely favored in the competition and will have a greater chance of survival. If those possessing an intelligence machine compete with one another, the organisms with the intelligence machines that provide more intelligence will win the race for survival of the fittest. The emergence of the intelligence machine is inevitable in evolution, as is optimization of it over time. Therefore, we can say that the intelligence machine is an inevitable purpose of evolution. In short, evolution intends to reach intelligence.

I would like to point out that I am not saying that the result of any competition between individuals, or even species, favors the intelligent one. However, what I am saying is that the gene for building the intelligence machine is the one that is favored in competition, and it is definitely the winner of the race.

So, as a result of the nature and circumstances of confrontation, the more intelligent individual-or the one with a better intelligence machine-might lose to a less intelligent individual-that is, one with an inferior intelligence machine, or even no intelligence machine at all.

And the species with a better intelligence machine might lose, due to the nature and circumstances of the confrontation, to a species with an inferior one in the competition for survival.

Nevertheless, once the gene is found for building the intelligence machine and it is incorporated into the genome that builds living organisms, it cannot lose the competition to other genes, and it cannot be discarded from the genome that builds organisms, but will instead progress with a significant rate of acceleration that increases with time, because there is a significant difference between this and other genes in the competition to survive, progress, and to stay in the lead.

The competition between genes isn’t limited to survival. Rather, competition even exists between them to stay in the lead within the genome that builds the bodies of organisms. Genes strive to become the greatest in number, even though this competition doesn’t happen in an aware or conscious manner. Nevertheless, it still abides by the general law of evolution.

The Rational Evidence provided by the Quran to Prove the Existence of God

What has been mentioned earlier in this chapter is enough to prove that evolution is purposeful, and thus prove that there is someone behind it who wants to reach this purpose. As a result, we proved the existence of a god within the framework of the law, which states: the attributes of an effect indicate the attributes of its cause. This is the case since we have proven that the effect-life on the earth-is characterized as being purposeful. We have therefore proven that its cause has the attribute of being conscious and pursuing a purpose. We also proved the existence of a conscious and knowledgeable god. Yet, in the remainder of this chapter, I will demonstrate that evolution is purposeful even if the theory has been divided up. I shall focus on this, because biologists use the dividing up of evolution, and the atheists among them insist on considering evolution only from this perspective. I find doing that the equivalent of having or seeing with one eye.

With regard to evidence for “nothingness doesn’t produce”, it must be noted that the effect we should be discussing, to indicate that God is a cause, is the origin of the physical universe and everything beyond it. This cannot be discussed within the limits of Darwin’s theory or biology. However, it can be discussed scientifically within the limits of research and theories of physics, which deal with the universe and how it originated. This issue will be explored in detail in Chapter 6.

The First Proof of the Existence of an Absolute God: “The Attributes of an Effect Indicate the Attributes of its Cause”

This includes the evidence of lawmaking: the presence of laws in the effect indicate that its cause is a lawmaker, therefore indicating a knowledgeable cause, and this is what we seek to prove.

This also includes the evidence of systems: the presence of organization in the effect indicates that its cause is an organizer, therefore indicating a knowledgeable cause, and this is what we seek to prove.

This also includes the evidence of purpose: the existence of purpose in the effect indicates that its cause is purposeful, therefore indicating a knowledgeable cause, and this is what we seek to prove.

This also includes the evidence of wisdom: the fact that the effect-whether in speech or action-has the attribute of wisdom indicates that its cause is wise and knowledgeable, and this is what we seek to prove.

In summary, the conclusion is as follows: When we see something that is organized, we know that its cause is knowledgeable and capable of organization, thus proving the existence of an organizing and knowledgeable cause. When we find a saying or action that is characterized by wisdom, we know that it came from someone wise, which proves the existence of a wise cause. For example, when we see a stand of fruit trees that were planted in an organized way, we deem the planter organized and purposeful, and therefore knowledgeable and conscious of what they are doing, thus we say that it was done by a human being, for example. When we see a forest that has a group of random, unorganized trees, the attribute of randomness of the forest indicates that humans did not plant them. In general, this evidence can be somewhat applied within the boundaries of life on the earth. There are numerous examples, especially in regards to human beings, given that they are characterized by special attributes that indicate that their original cause is knowledgeable, capable of organization, and purposeful. It is possible for this evidence to have a connection to the theory of evolution.

“The Attributes of an Effect Indicate the Attributes of its Cause” in the Universe We Live in

There is no doubt that a set of physical laws govern the universe. Laws mean that there is a lawmaker. Without a doubt, law leads to order, and order means that there is an organizer.

I will give an example to make the issue clearer: when we see traffic lights at an intersection that organize traffic, we know that there is a conscious, knowledgeable, and organizing force that desires this organization and thus set up these traffic lights. In the same way, we say that the law of gravity indicates the one who set it down, and it is also true for the electromagnetic, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, at their level of presence and magnitude. They all impose universal laws of movement, just as in the intersection example. Had it not been this way, matter would not exist in the universe, and neither would we. Is it reasonable that when we see simple traffic lights, we conclude that traffic or city officials set up the lights at the intersection to organize traffic, and that there is a government behind the officers that organizes their work, yet we don’t conclude that a knowledgeable and wise force set down the universal laws that we have discovered and that have been scientifically proven to us: the laws that we find to be organizing and governing the movement of the entire universe?!

A reasonable person would undoubtedly conclude that an organizer set down those laws that organize the universe. As for the one who insists on denying the wise and knowledgeable organizer, his insistence is merely contemptible stubbornness, showing that he is not much different than the people who insisted that the earth doesn’t spin.

Is all of this organization without an organizer?! By God, I wonder about people who believe this, yet say that traffic lights were set down by traffic officials or roads administration. They should be fair to themselves and apply randomness in this case as well, and say that the traffic lights constructed themselves and came to the intersection on their own. Is it reasonable to say that there is an organizer when we see order and laws in one place, but say that there is no knowledgeable organizer when we see order and laws in another?!

To summarize the proof that the attributes of an effect indicate the attributes of its cause, thus indicating the existence of a cause with these attributes, we say:

The atheists and us have both entered the court of human reason with:

The effect = the universe The attribute(s) of the universe = law and organization The attribute of the cause = knowledgeable organizer The cause = unknown We have studied the universe with modern science and have learned its attributes. Knowing these attributes has allowed us to know the attributes of the one who brought it into existence. Based on his attributes, we have found that he is an organizer (a lawmaker), and thus conscious and knowledgeable. It has now been proven that there is a cause who is a conscious and knowledgeable organizer. Therefore, we have proven the existence of the knowledgeable organizer, who set down the laws of the universe, and for us, this is what we seek to prove.

The Attributes of an Effect Indicate the Attributes of its Cause in Life on Earth

There is no doubt that a set of universal physical laws are dominant on and within the earth. Therefore, this too can be used as proof here, as laws are the reason for this productive order, while nature, which carries out selection, is simply a product of these strict laws. Nature is built on these strict, firmly established laws, and it cannot be said that nature is random, or that it isn’t law-abiding. As a result, nature’s selection of the fit or fittest forms is law-abiding, or based upon laws. At the very least, as long as there are physical laws that are clear enough to us at the atomic and subatomic levels that life depends on (since they form life on earth), then there is a lawmaker, and this is what we seek to prove.

What we have stated here is sufficient, as the matter is clear, and we can move on to discussing other subjects, particularly three other issues related to life on the earth:

1. The genetic plan. 2. The law of evolution and development through natural selection. 3. The purpose of evolution and development by means of natural selection.

1. The Genetic Plan

The gene can be defined as a specific piece of information written in a language that uses a quaternary system of nucleotides. By means of replication, either a part of the gene or the entire gene can pass through generations.

Similar to a computer system or language, which is a binary language of zero and one, the genetic language is quaternary and consists of four different types of nucleotides symbolized by the four letters (A-T-C-G). These nucleotides are arranged in two long, coiled, connected strands, forming the chromosome. Therefore, the chromosome is one large file that contains a massive amount of information written in a quaternary nucleotide language. This information is called genes. Genes give every organism its form and operating system including the form and operating system of each of its parts, from hair, skin, fingers and limbs, to the heart, brain, digestive and respiratory systems.

This is also true for leaves, flowers, and fruits, all the way down to their roots.

Genes are a language used to communicate a plan. When this plan is implemented, the organism is formed. When a part of it is implemented, part of the organism is formed. Therefore, for example, each human has a uniform genetic plan in all of their cells. When the liver is formed while a fetus is in the mother’s womb, part of this plan is implemented to form the liver. When the heart is formed, another part of this plan is implemented. The same is true for glands within the body.

We can imagine a new gene appearing within the genome that is prevalent on earth in a number of ways:

A mutation occurs during gene replication resulting in the replacement of one nucleotide with another, or let’s say one of the four letters with another, therefore the gene changes and becomes something else-a new word. For example, if we have a gene with the sequence (AAAGCCCTGCCC), and a mutation occurs whereby one of the A’s is replaced with a G, the new gene will become (AAGGCCCT-GCCC). Some people explain this mutation as a replication error.

A mutation occurs because a gene segment splits. This gene segment is a collection of nucleotides, and it could be a part of a gene, an entire gene, or more than one gene. It might invert, transfer to another position on the same chromosome, or transfer to another chromosome and attach to it. In the latter case, it would be similar to taking a page or a group of pages from a physics book, and putting it in another book, such as a history, math, or chemistry book.

The production of new genes during sexual reproduction, which is the result of an exchange of the smallest genes between the genomes of the father and mother.

For example, a child takes 23 chromosomes from the father through the sperm, and 23 chromosomes from the mother through the ovum. The 23 chromosomes in the father’s sperm are a mix of the father’s 46 chromosomes-half from his mother, and half from his father. So he has two chromosomes that are the same in terms of specialty and function,“1M” from the mother and “1F” from the father. These chromosomes carry different information at their corresponding parts. For example, if gene 1 in chromosome 1M is responsible for skin formation, then gene 1 in chromosome 1F is responsible for skin formation as well. If gene 1-1M is responsible for skin color, then gene 1-1F is also responsible for skin color, and each one of them gives a different skin color. What happens when the body produces the sperm is that it doesn’t put all of the father’s chromosomes (“F” chromosomes) or all of the mother’s chromosomes (“M” chromosomes) in that sperm. Each chromosome in the sperm is a brand new file carrying some pages from his maternal (M) chromosomes, and some from his paternal (F) chromosomes. Therefore, the new chromosome is not the same as any of the father’s chromosomes. Rather, it is a new one, carrying the information in a new arrangement. Each of the sperm he produces carries a set of new chromosomes that is different than any other sperm. The sperm that fertilizes the ovum gives the fetus new chromosomes that are different than the chromosomes of his father, and different than that of his father’s father and his father’s mother. This is also true for the ovum, as the ovaries do the same thing when producing the ovum, taking half of the 46 chromosomes that the child’s mother inherited from her mother and father, yet none of the 23 chromosomes within the ovum will be her mother’s chromosomes (M), or her father’s (F) chromosomes that were inherited from them. Instead, each will be a new chromosome-a mix of the two, similar in function and formed from the 46 chromosomes. This means that the new chromosome is a new book that contains pages from the two old books of her father and mother.

To clarify further, let’s consider chromosomes to be textbooks. Every person, whether male or female, has 23 books from his father and 23 from his mother in each cell of his body. Each book he received from his father has a counterpart received from his mother, yet the content of each one is different. For example, he has a geography book from his father and a geography book from his mother, each with different contents. Moreover, he has a history book from his father and a different history book from his mother, as well as a physics book from his father and a different physics book from his mother, and so on, until we reach 23 pairs. When the male produces sperm, he inserts only 23 textbooks (chromosomes) into it. He takes the geography book that he received from his father, but doesn’t insert it as it is, Instead, he removes some of its pages, then replaces them with pages from the geography book he received from his mother. In the same way, the pages that were removed from his father’s book are inserted into his mother’s geography book to compensate for the removed pages.Therefore, we end up with sperm carrying only 23 books, but they are not the same as the books of the father or mother. Rather, they are something new-a mixture of the two.

Is Genetic Mutation One Hundred Percent Random?

Our opponent, or whoever denies the existence of God, cannot prove with conclusive evidence his claim that genetic mutation, or the continuous change in genes around which evolution revolves, is always a random change or mutation. The point is that he considers it random because the non-randomness of it hasn’t been proven. This means that both possibilities are scientifically plausible. Therefore, we can say it is random, or non-random and even law-abiding and organized, or we can say it is a combination of randomness and non-randomness within the vast spectrum of possibilities that amino acid chains can provide.

To make this more clear, we begin with an equal probability that genetic mutation is either random or non-random.

We can say that the possible number of potential genetic mutations in nature is enormous. We can even say that it is a number that the “age of life” cannot accommodate. In fact, the age of the universe is miniscule in comparison. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the massive and astronomical figures pertaining to genes, some of which I have demonstrated in the section regarding hemoglobin. This massive number makes it impossible for us-who are limited by this “age”-to perceive order and non-randomness if they exist. This is because we would only know that there is non-randomness in genetic mutation or change through the systematic repetition of mutation, as this repetition would show us that the system isn’t random. It requires a huge duration of time for this systematic repetition to happen, one that is beyond the limits of time that we are familiar with, let alone that would happen within the limits of time that we can observe. So it is impossible for us to positively conclude, beyond doubt, that genetic mutation, or the change around which evolution revolves, is non-random, or conclude that it is random (as Dawkins did), because proving randomness also requires us to examine the same enormous time span necessary to prove non-repetition and non-randomness. The existence of some random mutations is not sufficient for a judgement to be made, so the assertion of Dawkins and other biologists and geneticists here, that there is complete randomness, is mere conjecture not supported by scientific evidence, other than the presence of certain random mutations resulting from radiation bombardment of DNA, for example. The existence of these random mutations doesn’t prove that all genetic mutations are random.

Therefore, to us, within the limits of life that we know, there is uncertainty as to whether it is random or non-random, and there is no scientific reason to consider randomness more likely. Since it is neither possible nor correct to affirm that mutation or genetic change is random, the claim that evolution is without ultimate purpose is arbitrary, and it lacks proof.

We can conclude by positively stating that the claim that evolution has no purpose has been shown to be a mere arbitrary determination that holds no real scientific value. Rather, it is based only on it being impossible to prove otherwise. For example, is it reasonable to decide that Dawkins is a believer, because I don’t have enough evidence to prove that he is an atheist?!

Actually, this is what Dawkins has done concerning change in the genetic plan, or genetic mutations, which represents the essential basis of evolution. This might be one of the main reasons behind the conflict between us and Dawkins (and other atheist scientists), because if genetic change, or mutation, is proven to be non-random and lawabiding, it means that it is purposeful and law-abiding, and it therefore means a god exists who wrote its laws and who wants to fulfill a certain target with it. To claim otherwise requires proof as well. Dawkins has neglected this, repeatedly saying that genetic change, or genetic mutation, is random without any scientific proof. He only says this because he wants to deny the existence of a god. He decided to conclude that genetic change, or mutation, is totally random based on random mutations that can occur in meiosis to produce reproductive cells, or because of a replication error or cosmic radiation bombardment.

Therefore, determining if genetic change, or mutation, is random or not must be made externally. What is present externally, which is the result of evolution that we know and observe, makes it more likely that genetic mutation, or change, is non-random, and has been, and still is, occurring in accordance with a law.

The first genetic plan was put together based on a law that led to a complete system. This system includes life; metabolism; the ability to produce energy; reproduction; moves toward improvement; and the acceleration of genetic mutation during speciation, and its stagnation or deceleration in different time periods, or in relation to different species. Above all, it has produced the mechanism of intelligence. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the genetic plan has no lawmaker, since it is law-abiding; that it has no organizer, since it is organized; or that it has no speaker, since it is a language understood and translated into proteins, for example, by the factories of life within the cell. This will be discussed in detail in due course.

What is special is that these molecules are put together in much more complicated patterns than the molecules of nonliving things, and this putting together is done by following programs, sets of instructions for how to develop, which the organisms carry around inside themselves. Maybe they do vibrate and throb and pulsate with ‘irritability’, and glow with ‘living’ warmth, but these properties all emerge incidentally. What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, not warm breath, not a ‘spark of life’. It is information, words, instructions. If you want a metaphor, don’t think of fires and sparks and breath. Think, instead, of a billion discrete, digital characters carved in tablets of crystal. If you want to understand life, don’t think about vibrant, throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology (Dawkins 1996, 112).

2. The Law of Development through Natural Selection

Evolution or development through natural selection has three pillars: variation, selection and heredity. Its internal factors are variation and heredity, while its external factor is survival of the fittest, or nature’s selection of the fittest. Therefore, we can say that evolution by natural selection is a law-abiding process because it has several laws that govern it. We can also say that it is a precise process governed by a constitution with several laws. God willing, we will prove how it is a precise law and constitution and how it must have a lawmaker to achieve a certain clear-cut purpose.*

Natural selection takes place through the environment, whether through surrounding nature-such as weather conditions of heat, cold, humidity, snow, deep water, shallow water, pure water, and mud-or through hostility, meaning preying upon and being preyed upon, or through desire, such as sexual selection.

Selection through natural conditions and weather depends on the physical laws affecting the earth and the universe as a whole, and these laws certainly indicate a lawmaker.

As for natural selection based on the selection of the mechanism of hostility, or preying upon and being preyed upon, it is also law-abiding and indicates a lawmaker. At the herbivore level, they have evolved a system of digestion and nutrition that is suitable for their food. Plants have also developed defense mechanisms, such as thorns. At the carnivore level, they have developed hunting mechanisms such as speed, canine teeth, powerful eyesight, and camouflage. Meanwhile, the prey developed the ability to camouflage, move quickly, and to choose the right times to feed. Therefore, you will find that organisms strengthen each other and co-evolve, which is something that, as an integral unit, cannot be called random. In fact, it represents a law-abiding system, and therefore indicates an organizer and lawmaker.

An example of sexual selection is when certain female birds choose the male with the longest or most colorful feathers.

When we see a complex and sophisticated instrument such as a telescope or microscope, we conclude that there is a designer who made it, and a law that governed its making. Thus, It is unreasonable for us not to make the same conclusion when we see another complex and sophisticated instrument that resembles it to a certain degree, namely the eye. I will leave it up to the atheist biologist Richard Dawkins to describe the eye to us as he, a specialist, sees it:

This level of magnification shows the eye as an optical instrument. The resemblance to a camera is obvious. The iris diaphragm is responsible for constantly varying the aperture, the f stop. The lens, which is really only part of a compound lens system, is responsible for the variable part of the focusing. Focus is changed by squeezing the lens with muscles (or in chameleons by moving the lens forwards or backwards, as in a man-made camera). The image falls on the retina at the back, where it excites photocells. The light-sensitive cells (‘photocells’) are not the first thing the light hits, but they are buried inside and facing away from the light … The first thing the light hits is, in fact, the layer of ganglion cells which constitute the ‘electronic interface’ between the photocells and the brain. Actually the ganglion cells are responsible for preprocessing the information in sophisticated ways before relaying it to the brain, and in some ways the word ‘interface’ doesn’t do justice to this. ‘Satellite computer’ might be a fairer name. Wires from the ganglion cells run along the surface of the retina to the ‘blind spot’, where they dive through the retina to form the main trunk cable to the brain, the optic nerve. There are about three million ganglion cells in the ‘electronic interface’, gathering data from about 125 million photocells … As you look at the fine architecture of this cell, keep in mind the fact that all that complexity is repeated 125 million times in each retina. And comparable complexity is repeated trillions of times elsewhere in the body as a whole. The figure of 125 million photocells is about 5,000 times the number of separately resolvable points in a good quality magazine photograph. The folded membranes … are the actual light-gathering structures. Their layered form increases the photocell’s efficiency in capturing photons, the fundamental particles of which light is made. If a photon is not caught by the first membrane, it may be caught by the second, and so on. As a result of this, some eyes are capable of detecting a single photon. The fastest and most sensitive film emulsions available to photographers need about 25 times as many photons in order to detect a point of light. The lozenge-shaped objects in the middle section of the cell are mostly mitochondria … Each one can be thought of as a chemical factory which, in the course of delivering its primary product of usable energy, processes more than 700 different chemical substances, in long, interweaving assembly-lines strung out along the surface of its intricately folded internal membranes… Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of the body put together… When you eat a steak, you are shredding the equivalent of more than 100 billion copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica (Dawkins 1996, 17-18).

This assemblage, complexity and precise organization compelled Dawkins, despite being an atheist, to admit that there is order and no randomness or coincidence in all of this beautiful and splendid assemblage and complexity. However, because he is an atheist, he divided the mechanisms of evolution with the goal of weakening the fact that it indicates that evolution is law-abiding and purposeful as a whole, and he denied the purpose.

So he could say that there is a watchmaker of sophisticated and complex watches according to a precise law, yet, because Dawkins doesn’t wish to see the purpose, he said that this watchmaker is not conscious, or he is blind, so this watchmaker is merely nature itself. The truth of the matter is, by acknowledging the law, Dawkins put himself in a position where he has no choice but to acknowledge the lawmaker, and the lawmaker is inevitably conscious. Therefore, it has been proven that there is a conscious watchmaker, or a god. We have previously explained the purpose that Dawkins was blind to, and we will do so further and in more detail, God willing.

Fig 8. Nilsson et al., An illustration demonstrating the stages of eye evolution.

Fig. 9 The stages of eye evolution, as well as the number of generations expected for each stage of evolution. When we consider sonar, or ultrasound, we conclude that there is a designer who made this complex and sophisticated device that can find submarines in the depths of the oceans and stones in the human gallbladder. So is it reasonable that we don’t make the same conclusion when we come across sonar in the dolphin or the bat? Atlantic dolphins can identify the shape of targets, and the distance between targets that are very close together. The sophisticated technology of sonar (ultrasound) in bats enables them to move at night, to gracefully pass obstacles, and to distinguish between the frequency of their own echo and that of other bats, or noise. Using its sonar, the bat can easily hunt its prey at night, as some species of bats-such as horseshoe bats-have the ability while flying to calculate the relative speed of movement between themselves and their moving prey using the Doppler effect. This means that they use radar technology more sophisticated than that of the immobile traffic radar that calculates the speed of a car moving down the road. Moreover, bats developed their sonar millions of years before us.

If we say that the sonar of a ship, or a doctor, or a traffic radar was designed by a designer according to a precise and coherent law to fulfill the purpose it was made for, then we must say that the sonar of the bat was designed by a designer according to a precise law, to fulfill the purpose it was made for as well, with complete competence, as we can see. Bats use the sophisticated technology of echolocation. As Dawkins said:

These bats are like miniature spy planes, bristling with sophisticated instrumentation. Their brains are delicately tuned packages of miniaturized electronic wizardry, programmed with the elaborate software necessary to decode a world of echoes in real time. Their faces are often distorted into gargoyle shapes that appear hideous to us until we see them for what they are, exquisitely fashioned instruments for beaming ultrasound in desired directions (Dawkins 1996, 24).

Therefore, the sonar in bats confirms an important fact, namely, that it wasn’t randomly made. Rather, there is a system and a law that governs and perfects its making in order to accomplish the objective in the best way possible.

Darwin reached an important conclusion after discussing instincts and their evolution:

…it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers,-ants making slaves,-the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars,-not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die (Dar-

win 1859, 131).*

This conclusion that Darwin reached represents a clear statement that the theory of evolution, by itself, indicates the existence of a god, because the theory of evolution is, according to the above conclusion, a precise law of development. Once we see it, we cannot neglect or ignore that behind it is a conscious lawmaker who is knowledgeable, wise and even purposeful in every sense of the word, as we shall clarify. This proves, beyond doubt, the existence of a god. Dawkins also says:

If you think that Darwinism is tantamount to chance you’ll obviously find it easy to refute Darwinism! One of my tasks will be to destroy this eagerly believed myth that Darwinism is a theory of ‘chance’ (Dawkins 1996, xv).

Here, Dawkins decides that natural selection is law-abiding and not at all random, and that it is governed by order. However, as an atheist, Dawkins denies purpose. Having acknowledged order and law, he believes that denying purpose will be enough for his denial of the existence of a law-making and organizing god.

Dr. Richard Dawkins says:

Paley compares the eye with a designed instrument such as a telescope, and concludes that ‘there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it’. The eye must have had a designer, just as the telescope had.

Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker (Dawkins 1996, 5).*

As is completely clear, Dawkins admits that there is a complex product, that there is a law for making it, and a maker. He just doesn’t see purpose, so he says that the maker has no purpose and decides that the maker is not conscious of what he is doing, and therefore the maker is merely nature. With this, Dawkins denies the existence of a god. However, since Dawkins is an esteemed biologist-and not a philosopher as some like to describe him-he has overlooked quite a bit. For him to admit the existence of a law and a complex law-abiding product is enough to prove the lawmaking and conscious maker. Furthermore, his not seeing purpose doesn’t mean a purpose doesn’t exist. In order to deny the existence of purpose he absolutely must prove it doesn’t exist, which he cannot do. We have already proven purpose, and God willing we will further prove purpose, thus closing off any means of escape for atheism through natural selection.

Echo-sounding by bats is just one of the thousands of examples that I could have chosen to make the point about good design. Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer, but there is no suggestion that the bats themselves know or understand the theory in the same sense as a physicist understands it. The bat should be thought of as analogous to the police radar trapping instrument, not to the person who designed that instrument. The designer of the police radar speed-meter understood the theory of the Doppler Effect, and expressed this understanding in mathematical equations, explicitly written out on paper. The designer’s understanding is embodied in the design of the instrument, but the instrument itself does not understand how it works. The instrument contains electronic components, which are wired up so that they automatically compare two radar frequencies and convert the result into convenient units - miles per hour. The computation involved is complicated, but well within the powers of a small box of modem electronic components wired up in the proper way. Of course, a sophisticated conscious brain did the wiring up (or at least designed the wiring diagram), but no conscious brain is involved in the moment-to-moment working of the box.

Our experience of electronic technology prepares us to accept the idea that unconscious machinery can behave as if it understands complex mathematical ideas. This idea is directly transferable to the workings of living machinery. A bat is a machine, whose internal electronics are so wired up that its wing muscles cause it to home in on insects, as an unconscious guided missile homes in on an aeroplane. So far our intuition, derived from technology, is correct. But our experience of technology also prepares us to see the mind of a conscious and purposeful designer in the genesis of sophisticated machinery. It is this second intuition that is wrong in the case of living machinery. In the case of living machinery, the ‘designer’ is unconscious natural selection, the blind watchmaker (Dawkins 1996, 36-37).

The truth is, whoever reads Dawkins’ words above understands that this specialized scientist is admitting that the natural sonar of bats is undoubtedly the expression of a law and a lawmaker. And if the extremely precise interaction between the rest of the bat’s mechanisms, such as wings, is added to the natural sonar, then the issue of lawmaking becomes one hundred percent certain. In addition, there is interaction between the parts of the bat, such as the wings, with their natural sonar, at extremely high accuracy, making it one hundred percent confirmed that there is a law and a lawmaker.

Therefore, Dawkins admits the designer, but denies that the designer is purposeful. For this reason, he calls this designer the blind watchmaker. Dawkins intends everything these words mean, including all of the contradictions they bear. He claims that his book The Blind Watchmaker resolves this contradiction.

In fact, it doesn’t resolve anything. Instead, it is an attempt to divide a large factory, or a large industry (evolution), into stages with small factories or production lines in the course of studying this large industry, in order to conceal its purpose by dividing it up.

For example, we can divide any industry to say it doesn’t intend to reach a final purpose in the same way that he did. Let us take a look at the wool or cotton industry, including the cleaning and preparation of cotton or wool for spinning. Anyone who sees this process externally as separate parts, factories, or production lines, can say that this industry did not initially intend to reach a final purpose. The only thing that exists is the short-term purpose of each production line, and the next line benefits from the purpose of the previous line.

What happens in the first step, for instance, is a process of cleaning, preparation, and sorting the beneficial material from the non-beneficial. Afterwards, the spinning factory receives one of the products from the cleaning and preparation factory that is suitable for spinning, and spins it exclusively to varying grades. Each grade can be used for the manufacture of a different textile. Then a particular fabric factory selects only one of the spun products and it is woven to produce a particular fabric. Finally, a sewing factory chooses only one fabric to make a particular shirt. Whoever sees each production line by itself can say that the process has no long-term purpose and that the final product is coincidental and unintentional, as Dawkins does. However, whoever sees the process as an integral work can see the purpose clearly from the beginning, to achieve the production of clothes, blankets and curtains. Our vision of the final purpose is not affected by the industrial process having many branches with short-term purposes, losses, and damaged material throughout the journey of manufacturing.

3. The Final Target or the Purpose of Evolution

Before we delve into this topic, let us first understand what purpose is by way of an example. If we gather pieces of wood and carpentry tools to make a chair, our final target is to make the chair. However, the purpose or objective of making the chair is to sit on it. The same is the case with respect to evolution of the eye. The final target of the material and laws is to make the eye, but the purpose of the eye is sight. In truth, Dawkins, and those who say that evolution is non-purposeful, are not speaking about the purpose or objective of evolution. Rather, they are actually speaking about the final effect or final target that evolution achieves, and they call it a purpose or objective of evolution. Therefore, it must be noted that what we sometimes call a “final target”, Dawkins, in his books, calls a purpose. There is no problem with calling the final target a purpose, given that evolution intends to reach it. Regarding life on the earth, as we shall prove, the final target of matter and laws is to produce the living being who is conscious and capable of populating the earth. As for the true purpose or objective, it is communication with the unseen and worship. Regarding the subject of evolution, proving the final target is sufficient, and if we prove the final target, then the purpose is proven, because proving the final target is proving the existence of a god, which is what would be proven by proving the purpose.

We can recognize that a particular work intends to reach some target or purpose in a number of ways, such as by analyzing the plan it started from, and how it functions, such that if we know that it is a law-abiding and non-random plan, it is proven that its purpose is to reach a certain final target. We can also tell that a work has a certain final target it intends to reach by looking at its results, and the middle and final predicted outcome. One would then question whether that work sought and intended to reach the final target from its beginning, or whether it is just a pointless, unintentional result, indicating that the work is pointless and not law-abiding.

Evolution is Purposeful by Studying its Products and the Law-Abiding Nature of the Genetic Plan:

Producing the Ideal Survival Machine: The Intelligence Machine

In the process of evolution, there is genetic mutation, and given sufficient time it will inevitably provide every possibility. Additionally, in the process of evolution, selection allows the fittest and best to survive.

If we go back in time to before the existence of a mechanism to deal with light, sound, or electromagnetic frequencies or chemical scents-meaning we are talking about life at the level of either bacteria or eukaryotic organisms that don’t have sensory cells for sensing the environment-and then we apply what happens in evolution to this primitive life that was the only life that existed sometime in the distant past on the earth, we would say that mutation must provide sensory mechanisms sooner or later, whether they sense light or sense other things in the environment of the organism. The organism that has this mechanism, whether it is a light-sensing cell, or an electromagnetic wave-sensing cell (or others) has an advantage over others, because this mechanism provides it with a higher ability to procure food and escape enemies, and this is why evolution will definitely firmly establish a mutation like this, because this organism will be more successful than its peers in transferring its genes to later generations. If this starts with a light-sensing cell, for example, it is entirely expected-according to the aforementioned laws-that all mutations leading to increased efficiency would be added to the cell. Therefore, it is normal to achieve the eye in the end. In fact, it is normal to achieve an eye like a falcon, which can see clearly while attacking its prey at a very high speed. It is also normal for us to expect an efficient hearing mechanism to be achieved, like that of bats and dolphins that count as a superior sonar.

In general, what we want to make clear is that producing and evolving sensors is inevitable in the journey of evolution, as mutations must provide environment-sensing mechanisms and selection must firmly establish them. If the sensors came to life on the earth, even if as primitive as a group of light and electricity-sensing cells, then any other mechanism that ties them together, and organizes their work with the other parts of the organism, such that the organism benefits more from it, whatever the form, would certainly be firmly established by evolution. The truth is that this mechanism is the intelligence machine, or let us say the basis or origin of the intelligence machine, in the wording we are more familiar with. Since the intelligence machine is the ideal survival machine, it will definitely evolve to become a superior intelligence machine.

We can now summarize this introduction-and then start at a later phase where the ideal nature of the intelligence machine stands out clearly-by saying that the intelligence machine is the ideal survival machine, because intelligence as a survival mechanism, when available, surpasses all other survival mechanisms, such as strength and weapons (e.g. canines and claws), and so on. The best proof of that, right in front of us, is our control of a very high percentage of planet Earth, due to the fact that we have the best intelligence machine compared to other competing organisms.

Therefore, genetic mutation must provide intelligence machine mutations. Since it is the ideal survival machine, it must be selected by natural selection, while its evolution must continue until it becomes a superior intelligence machine once suitable conditions for improvement through evolution become available, such as walking upright. In addition, all of these conditions are subject to evolution, so they must become available sooner or later. Therefore, we can say that evolution has the intention of eventually producing a superior intelligence machine.

Evolution will not stop developing the superior intelligence machine until this machine, and its product, reach a level that stops the process of evolution itself, which is what has happened with humans today. We have almost stopped the process of evolution, at least in relation to us humans. One of the most important reasons behind that is the superior intelligence machine we possess, which has given us capabilities that allow most of the individuals of our species to survive and reproduce. As a result, the law of natural selection no longer governs us in order to continue the process of our evolution, and that of the superior intelligence machine that we possess. Indeed, there is one way to evolve our intelligence machine: through artificial genetic mutation. In other words, it can be done by our changing the genetic compositions in order to produce people with more intelligent brains, for example.

From the above, we can say that evolution intends to reach production of the intelligence machine inevitably, as an intermediate purpose. Once the intelligence machine is present, it certainly takes a path through evolution to reach a superior intelligence machine, sooner or later, because it is an ideal survival machine, and its development is required, and desired, once conditions become suitable and favorable for it.

Therefore, the goal of evolution is to produce a superior intelligence machine, once conditions suitable for its production become available. In our case, for example, these conditions might be standing on two legs, or a wide female pelvis, both being inevitably provided by genetic mutation sooner or later in the journey of evolution.

In general, evolution of the intelligence machine (the brain) into a superior intelligence machine in the human is caused by factors that are all inevitable, as long as there is evolution. Therefore, no matter how the issue is approached, the conclusion is that the purpose of evolution is to eventually reach a superior intelligence machine. These factors include:

- The availability of genetic mutation toward improvement: according to what we on this earth know, we can say that even if genetic mutation is completely random, it must provide a mutation that improves the intelligence machine, sooner or later, even if doing so at a particular time period attracts attention in a considerable way. We will discuss this in due course. Here, however, we will discuss the worst case scenario for us, which is the best case for the atheistic hypothesis, that genetic mutation is one hundred percent random.

- Walking upright: this has allowed the pelvic inlet to widen, therefore allowing the birth of children with bigger heads that hold bigger brains. In addition, once bipedalism freed the hands, they became tools for high quality creativity, and ideal survival tools in the presence of an intelligence machine that would lead it in the right direction, and take full advantage of it. This is why freed hands push the evolution of the brain toward improvement. Freed hands assist each brain improvement mutation to survive and become firmly established in the genetic group, as they make the availability of manmade tools possible, tools such as axes, spears, and so on, which is of great benefit to these mutations. This is also true when it comes to using these tools to the fullest extent. Accordingly, brain improvement mutations are passed to later generations, and they are firmly established, thanks to the availability of the trait of walking upright, which freed the hands.

Figure 10: The relationship between the evolution of the intelligence machine (the brain) and bipedalism.

- The need for linguistic communication: the intelligence machine is considered a reason for its existence and development. It is what allows linguistic communication (even if it is through signs) to exist and develop in the first place. Linguistic communication is a high quality means of survival that drives intelligence machines toward evolution and development, because the best intelligence machines are the the ones that are better at storing and handling information. Individuals who are capable of better communication are more capable of survival than others because they can escape predators and hunt prey more effectively. To make this more clear, language will benefit from genetic mutation toward brain improvement, because individuals will be able to handle a wider and more complex vocabulary, and therefore be able to communicate better. This means that these individuals are more capable of procuring food and a partner for reproduction, as well as escaping predators. As a result, their ability to survive and more frequently pass genes to later generations is greater than others, and these genetic mutations of brain improvement become firmly established. This is how the brain evolves over the course of generations to the point where we eventually possess a superior intelligence machine.

- The availability of the right type of food (such as fish that contain iodine and omega-3), that is of benefit to the brain, makes extremely beneficial brain improvement mutations. This makes these mutations a feature worthy of being chosen by natural selection, and they are passed down over generations.

- The elimination of the body’s thick hair; the existence of sweat glands that provide an ideal cooling mechanism for the body; and the superior brain, considered to be a machine that requires a great deal of energy to operate, generating tremendous amounts of heat that will kill the organism unless there is a mechanism to cool it when required.

To reiterate what I explained previously, the superior intelligence machine reached by evolution in our case (the brain), doesn’t mean that its evolution has come to an end, or that the path taken by evolution is the only path that produces a superior intelligence machine. In fact, it is possible that there were other paths that perhaps would have produced a superior intelligence machine better than the one we see today. Or, maybe it would be better in some ways and worse in others. However, in all cases, there is a definite purpose that evolution must accomplish sooner or later, namely, producing a superior intelligence machine.

Therefore, it is settled: evolution is purposeful, and its purpose is to produce a superior intelligence machine.

I could stop here in proving that evolution is purposeful, but there is no harm in supplementing our argument with other inferences to support what we have proven.

Evolution and the Stable Family:

Sexual reproduction (or reproduction by genetic sharing between two individuals) is a result that evolution must reach as organisms become more complex and compound, because as a survival strategy, it is better than sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction within a certain species means that its individuals are identical, repeated copies, due to the same genetic plan. The result of this is that any weakness in confronting an enemy exists to the same extent in all the individuals of the species. So for example, a certain virus would easily be able to destroy all individuals of the species, whereas sexual reproduction provides a great number of genetic plans that belong to individuals of the same species. Every couple can produce plans of children that carry completely different plans than the parents and the other siblings. This advantage enables the species to avoid extinction and gives it a better chance of survival because if an enemy defeats an individual of a species, that doesn’t absolutely mean it can defeat the other individuals because their genetic plans are different, so they are variations, and both their capabilities and resistance vary.

Therefore, since sexual reproduction is ideal for a species’ resistance to disease, plagues, and enemies, genetic mutations must provide the sexual reproduction trait sooner or later, and natural selection must choose this trait and firmly establish it because it is ideal for survival. Therefore, evolution must reach the point of sexual reproduction.

The trait of sexual reproduction often requires the couple to meet and be close to one another, meaning to be together in one place. This represents the first step toward building a stable family. However, it remains only a step at the beginning of the road, because sexual practice is restricted to the time of need, which is fertilization. For instance, most female organisms develop mechanisms to announce that they are ready for fertilization. This means that sexual practice is limited, which is not conducive to building a family. For example, the reproductive organs of female chimpanzees swell to show that they are ready for fertilization.

As far as Hominidae, the next step toward building a family may have come later, after the wearing of clothes, which was by no means a straightforward decision. There must have been a logical, rather strong reason for the law of natural selection to allow for wearing clothes, because they would cover the reproductive organs, or the distinct signs. This means it would become difficult to tell the time of female fertilization. This, in turn, would mean unsuccessful reproduction. Here, I will propose several hypotheses as to why clothes were worn:

- Cold: in fact, anthropoids were in the hot or moderate African Savanna, and it was possible to manage the cold with oily layers existing beneath the skin. Therefore, the cold might not be a sufficient explanation for the wearing of clothes.

- Modesty: the genes developed modesty in response to the genetic battle with the sexual partner who wants to spread his genes without losing effort on the difficult work of raising the children and other similar things, as he considers it important to put this effort into spreading his genes in great number instead. What is meant by modesty here, is modesty geared toward protecting the sexual organs from anyone other than the spouse. This type of modesty may be a reason for the initial wearing of clothes to cover the sexual organs, and thus fulfilling this purpose.

We can also say that the need for clothes for protection from enemies and the weapons of prey encouraged anthropoids to wear clothes. Leather clothes are like armor that protected them from the horns of predators, and possibly even from the spears of other hominids with whom they share a larger living space. This can explain the extinction of some hominids and the survival of Homo sapiens, as the latter not only discovered the weapons of axes and spears, but also armor and leather clothing. In fact, it is rather likely that the age of leather armor is close to the age of stone weapons, especially since leather armor was available in abundance following weapons production and the ability to hunt prey en masse.

It is also fair to assume that this armor provided other benefits for the ones who wore it, such as protection from cold, protecting the sexual organs, and loyalty to one’s partner.

We can imagine that with time, sexual practice developed into a continuous desire as a result of the wearing of clothes, because individuals who only engage in sexual intercourse when distinct signs appear won’t be able to pass on their genes to later generations after those distinct signs are covered with clothing. They will either not engage in sexual intercourse at all, or they will do so on a limited basis-perhaps rarely coinciding with the time of fertilization. Again, this too will limit the passing down of their genes. It is inevitable that if there are individuals who have sexual intercourse on a continuous basis, one of these instances will coincide with the time of fertilization. Such individuals will transfer their genes more successfully than others, so it is natural for the trait of continuous intercourse to prevail due to it being a successful trait that is passed on to later generations through natural selection. It can be expected that with time, distinctive signs like preparation for fertilization will disappear because they also have an economic cost, so during the course of the evolutionary journey it is likely that they will disappear just as other traits do when they are no longer required.

The sexual relationship that evolves into a continuous relationship-rather than just a relationship during preparation for reproduction-will build a profound relationship between the couple, and strengthen the bond between them. This is the first step toward forming a family. So we have scientifically proven that the family was formed a very long time ago, before Homo sapiens left Africa, because for the most part, Homo sapiens started wearing clothing approximately 170,000 years ago, with some evidence indicating that it may have begun earlier than that (News.ufl.edu 2015).

Dr. David Reed, a geneticist at the University of Florida, has studied the genetic evolution of different types of lice that are parasitic to humans. These lice come in three types: head lice, pubic lice, and clothing lice. Dr. Reed found a match between their evolutionary history and the evolutionary history of humans, and he specified the time when these parasites separated from their ancestors that had infested some animals. Based on his research, he found that humans without body hair existed around three million years ago. The University of Florida News website says that from his genetic research, Reed concluded that humans start wearing clothing about 170,000 years ago, and that body lice or clothing lice diverged from head lice after humans started wearing clothes (Toups 2010).

Fig 11: Origin of clothing lice indicates early clothing use by anatomically modern humans in Africa.

I believe that the scientific explanation I have presented on this topic is enough to refute the social theory that the family formed only recently (about 10,000 years ago) as a result of children gathering around their mother, since according to this theory they would not have known their fathers due to the existence of sexual communalism. Today we have evidence that the family may have formed far earlier, perhaps even before the emergence of Homo sapiens.

The Genetic Plan and its Law-abiding Function

This subject brings us back to what we have said previously: determining whether a certain work is purposeful or not follows from either knowing the plan that it began with and knowing that it was originally codified with a law and governed by a system, or knowing the outcome of the work. Since knowing its plan and course of action, and judging whether they are random or not, are matters that are not entirely available to us, what we are left with is its outcome (the human for example), or even parts of its outcome (the eye for example), and studying them in order to draw conclusions. When we do, we clearly see that it is likely to be purposeful. Whoever doesn’t wish to see this despite what we have clarified concerning the intelligence machine, that is their issue.

Existence of non-beneficial or harmful mutations, which produce genes that cause certain illnesses doesn’t prove that genetic mutation is 100% random, because they can be caused by radiation outside the living organism, like certain mutations that cause cancers. For the most part, such mutations aren’t related to the genetic plan and the internal mutation system that it possesses. Furthermore, we must recognize that when we say that genetic mutation is law-abiding and non-random, that doesn’t mean it is completely perfect, such that no deterioration or defect occurs producing disease-causing genes. It also doesn’t mean that subsequent generations cannot inherit such diseases through that gene, as in cases of breast cancer. These issues occur, but they don’t affect the overall, purposeful path of evolution. What matters is fulfilling the purpose. As for the presence of defects-due to the “receiver”-this can be disregarded since it generally doesn’t impede the path of evolution. This doesn’t mean that the genetic plan is random, nor does it mean that it isn’t designed to reach a certain purpose. The system of DNA, the accuracy of its composition, the precision of its replication of information, and the low probability of errors occurring in information replication, all attest to genes having a law governing their change and mutation, so that this change, for the most part, will be a productive one.

This is how Dawkins views this exactness in correct replication and how he regards this innovative system:

A good secretary in real life has an error rate of about one per page. This is about half a billion times the error rate of the histone H4 gene (Dawkins 1996, 124).

Dawkins also says that externally, natural selection is waiting for these errors, or non-beneficial setbacks, in order to eliminate them:

This whole comparison has been a bit of a cheat, but in an interesting and revealing respect. I gave the impression that what we are measuring is copying errors. But the histone H4 document hasn’t just been copied, it has been subjected to natural selection. Histone is vitally important for survival. It is used in the structural engineering of chromosomes. Maybe lots more mistakes in copying the histone H4 gene occurred, but the mutant organisms did not survive, or at least did not reproduce. To make the comparison fair, we should have to assume that built into each typist’s chair is a gun, wired up so that if he makes a mistake he is summarily shot, his place being taken by a reserve typist (squeamish readers may prefer to imagine a springloaded ejector seat gently catapulting miscreant typists out of the line, but the gun gives a more realistic picture of natural selection) (Dawkins 1996, 124).

Therefore, the remaining defects are negligible when compared to the evolution and development that result from the movement, change, and mutation of genes, which means that mutation, change, and transformation are law-abiding and non-random. A machine in a particular factory that produces something specific and beneficial is law-abiding and purposeful, even if one day, for some reason, it produces something else that is non-beneficial or even inferior, defective, and harmful. Furthermore, if we take genetic mutation and natural selection as an integral work group, then it is clear that they complete each other in order to bring about the existence of life, as well as its diversity, evolution and upward development. This means that this group is lawabiding and works according to a productive law.

As for the philosophical problem: why is the genetic system, or the DNA system, not perfect, and why there are defects in it? If the maker of the system is entirely perfect, then the system should be perfect and shouldn’t have defects such as what we see in the case of the recurrent laryngeal nerve or genes that transfer certain diseases. Why wasn’t a perfect genetic plan and why weren’t perfect evolutionary laws set down in such a way that defects and wasted energy wouldn’t occur during and following the process of evolution?!

In addition to what has already been mentioned, this argument can be rebutted in several ways:

First, neither the direct creator, nor the direct designer, are the Absolute Divinity. Rather, they are spiritual beings from the creation of God. God created with “hands” just as He stated in the Quran: ﴾And the heaven We constructed with hands, and indeed We are Expanders.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Winnowing Winds” 51:47. The hands of God are His creation who work by His will, while the maker of the genetic plan is the hand of God, meaning an imperfect creation, and he is unlike God, the Complete, the Absolute. Therefore, there is no problem saying that the maker of the genetic plan doesn’t set down a perfect plan. Rather, he makes a plan that reflects his own imperfection and darkness, as he is not an absolute divinity.*

Second, the physical world is characterized as one of darkness and light, so it is capable of having the law applied to it according to its own limits. This means that the receiver of the law is imperfect, so there must be a trace of imperfection in it.

Third, who said that the lawmaker doesn’t desire some of these setbacks, or these genes that pass down defective traits or diseases? At this level of our discussion, in which the original lawmaker is God, we say that diseases are trials through which God tests his creation in order to observe the extent of their patience. Therefore, on a religious level, the existence of defects and setbacks is justified.

Fourth, the above philosophical argument can be refuted with an established fact, namely that the one who constructed the argument did so based on results regarding which he is ignorant of the initial and intermediate foundations. This design can have benefits for the survival of organisms at specific, earlier stages of evolution, or even at specific stages in the lives of some organisms.

One very important issue remains concerning the recognition of the law-abiding nature of genetic mutation: is evolution the result of genetic mutation alone? In other words, is genetic mutation the driving force of evolution?

In fact, the following argument is always presented in order to refute the law-abiding nature of genetic mutation:

Mutation is necessary for evolution, but how could anybody ever have thought it was sufficient? Evolutionary change is, to a far greater extent than chance alone would expect, improvement. The problem with mutation as the sole evolutionary force is simply stated: how on Earth is mutation supposed to ‘know’ what will be good for the animal and what will not? Of all possible changes that might occur to an existing complex mechanism like an organ, the vast majority will make it worse. Only a tiny minority of changes will make it better. Anybody who wants to argue that mutation, without selection, is the driving force of evolution, must explain how it comes about that mutations tend to be for the better. By what mysterious, built-in wisdom does the body choose to mutate in the direction of getting better, rather than getting worse? (Dawkins 1996, 305-06).

Dawkins makes it sound like there are only two options: either the driving force of evolution is genetic mutation alone, or genetic mutation is a random process and selection alone determines the route of the evolutionary process. In fact, the truth lies somewhere in between: selection alone doesn’t drive the process of evolution, and mutation isn’t completely random. Genetic mutation has a law-abiding nature that provides the beneficial possibilities to produce this complete integration that we see. There is also an external selection force that preserves these genes and continuously spreads them, while also destroying other harmful genes. To disregard the mechanism of selection leaves mutation with no true evolutionary value, while disregarding the law-abiding and non-random nature of genetic mutation makes it rather difficult to scientifically and logically explain many occurrences that are inseparable from evolution, such as changes in the speed at which it takes place. We find that at times evolution almost stops, while at other times it accelerates substantially. This change cannot be explained by natural selection alone.

In addition, disregarding the law-abiding, non-random nature of genetic mutation would result in a extremely small probability that we would even exist-a probability that is unattainable within the limits of time that we know. Indeed, this probability is so small that it nearly reaches the point of nonexistence. It doesn’t increase with cumulative evolution, because it isn’t related to evolution as a whole. Rather, it is related to mutation. Every little detail of the body is beneficial within evolution and complete integration, no matter how small we imagine it to be, and it is a possible mutation within a massive range of possibilities, so it must be the case that mutation is law-abiding and nonrandom. Even Dawkins admits this, but within limits that don’t affect his atheism or prove the existence of a god.

While we write this off as mystical nonsense, it is important for us to be clear exactly what we mean when we say that mutation is random. There is randomness and randomness, and many people confuse different meanings of the word. There are, in truth, many respects in which mutation is not random. All I would insist on is that these respects do not include anything equivalent to anticipation of what would make life better for the animal. And something equivalent to anticipation would indeed be needed if mutation, without selection, were to be used to explain evolution. It is instructive to look a little further at the senses in which mutation is, and is not, random.

The first respect in which mutation is non-random is this. Mutations are caused by definite physical events; they don’t just spontaneously happen. They are induced by so-called ‘mutagens’ (dangerous because they often start cancers): X-rays, cosmic rays, radioactive substances, various chemicals, and even other genes called ‘mutator genes’. Second, not all genes in any species are equally likely to mutate. Every locus on the chromosomes has its own characteristic mutation rate. For instance, the rate at which mutation creates the gene for the disease Huntington’s chorea (similar to St Vitus’s Dance), which kills people in early middle age, is about 1 in 200,000. The corresponding rate for achondroplasia (the familiar dwarf syndrome, characteristic of basset hounds and dachshunds, in which the arms and legs are too short for the body) is about 10 times as high. These rates are measured under normal conditions. If mutagens like X-rays are present, all normal mutation rates are boosted. Some parts of the chromosome are so-called ‘hot spots’ with a high turnover of genes, a locally very high mutation rate.

Third, at each locus on the chromosomes, whether it is a hot spot or not, mutations in certain directions can be more likely than mutations in the reverse direction. This gives rise to the phenomenon known as ‘mutation pressure’ which can have evolutionary consequences. Even if, for instance, two forms of the haemoglobin molecule, Form 1 and Form 2, are selectively neutral in the sense that both are equally good at carrying oxygen in the blood, it could still be that mutations from 1 to 2 are commoner than reverse mutations from 2 to 1. In this case, mutation pressure will tend to make Form 2 commoner than Form 1. Mutation pressure is said to be zero at a given chromosomal locus, if the forward mutation rate at that locus is exactly balanced by the backward mutation rate.

We can now see that the question of whether mutation is really random is not a trivial question. Its answer depends on what we understand random to mean. If you take ‘random mutation’ to mean that mutations are not influenced by external events, then X-rays disprove the contention that mutation is random. If you think ‘random mutation’ implies that all genes are equally likely to mutate, then hot spots show that mutation is not random. If you think ‘random mutation’ implies that at all chromosomal loci the mutation pressure is zero, then once again mutation is not random. It is only if you define ‘random’ as meaning ‘no general bias towards bodily improvement’ that mutation is truly random. All three of the kinds of real non-randomness we have considered are powerless to move evolution in the direction of adaptive improvement as opposed to any other (functionally) ‘random’ direction. There is a fourth kind of non-randomness, of which this is also true but slightly less obviously so. It will be necessary to spend a little time on this because it is still muddling even some modern biologists.” (Dawkins 1996, 306-07).

In the above quotation, Dawkins clearly admits-as has been scientifically established-that there are “hotspots” for mutation. Among other things, he also admits that mutation pressure is not the same at all points. These admissions mean that the genetic plan is law-abiding and non-random, and is sufficient proof for a lawmaker behind it.

Dawkins defines randomness as follows:

It is only if you define ‘random’ as meaning ‘no general bias towards bodily improvement’ that mutation is truly random.

This is truly strange. He admits that there are hotspots in genetic mutation and there is unequal mutation pressure, and so on. We have seen that these issues, or laws, that govern the genetic plan have worked together with selection to produce an integrative, refined and complex composition, such as the superior intelligence machine in the human being. Therefore, we have every right to say that these laws not only indicate a lawmaker, but also that this lawmaker is purposeful and wants to improve the body, because we have actually observed bodily improvement over the course of evolution. The strangest aspect of Dawkins’ definition is his conclusion that bias has no purpose, even though bias exists. How did he reach the conclusion that there is no bias toward bodily improvement? Even if the body didn’t improve, Dawkins would need evidence to support his claims. However, improvement has actually occurred. One reason for this is that mutation is governed by laws. In some cases, biologists, geneticists, and Dawkins as well, are ignorant of some of these laws, yet are aware of others, such as the laws regarding hotspots, unequal pressure, and so on.

When Dawkins finds himself confronted by scientific facts that confirm that mutation tends toward and is biased toward improvement, he goes even further and admits that mutation is biased toward improvement:

Variation and selection work together to produce evolution. The Darwinian says that variation is random in the sense that it is not directed towards improvement, and that the tendency towards improvement in evolution comes from selection. We can imagine a kind of continuum of evolutionary doctrines, with Darwinism at one end and Mutationism at the other. The extreme mutationist believes that selection plays no role in evolution. The direction of evolution is determined by the direction of the mutations that are offered. For instance, suppose we take the enlargement of the human brain that has occurred during the last few million years of our evolution. The Darwinian says that the variation that was offered up by mutation for selection included some individuals with smaller brains and some individuals with larger brains; selection favoured the latter. The mutationist says that there was a bias in favour of larger brains in the variation that was offered up by mutation; there was no selection (or no need for selection) after variation was offered up; brains got bigger because mutational change was biased in the direction of bigger brains. To summarize the point: in evolution there was a bias in favour of larger brains; this bias could have come from selection alone (the Darwinian view) or from mutation alone (the mutationist view); we can imagine a continuum between these two points of view, almost a kind of trade-off between the two possible sources of evolutionary bias. A middle view would be that there was some bias in mutations towards enlargement of the brain, and that selection increased the bias in the population that survived. The element of caricature comes in the portrayal of what the Dar- winian means when he says that there is no bias in the mutational variation that is offered up for selection. To me, as a real-life Darwinian, it means only that mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement (Dawkins 1996, 308).

So Dawkins admits that genetic mutation can be biased toward bodily improvement, and that selection works toward increasing this bias toward improvement. In fact, this admission and compromise is enough to prove the law-abiding, deliberate and purposeful nature of genetic mutation. Can the bias of mutation toward specific and significant improvement, such as brain size, be explained without mutation being purposeful and law-abiding? Not to mention that this bias occurs at a specific time period? That is the case with evolution of the brain in the recent time period of human existence, the last few million years. Why didn’t this bias toward improvement occur in mammals at any time period before? If it isn’t deliberate and if the genetic plan isn’t law-abiding, why did this evolution occur in the recent time period of human existence at such an accelerated rate? Indeed, mutation in the genetic plan can be non-random at times.

Regarding Dawkins’ statement:

… mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement.

This conclusion-despite being arbitrary, unconvincing and lacking any evidence-doesn’t actually change the fact that the genetic plan is law-abiding, which was proven after it was shown that mutation is biased towards improvement. Natural selection’s increase and establishment of this improvement doesn’t mean that mutation doesn’t have systematic bias toward improvement. Rather, the entrance of selection into the improvement equation confirms that the organization of evolution as a whole-which consists of genetic mutation that is biased toward improvement and the law-abiding selection aimed at establishing this improvement-is a precise and law-abiding system with the purpose of accomplishing bodily improvement in a specific, predetermined direction, which is a purpose that this organization seeks to fulfill. These issues or realities clearly indicate that a lawmaker is behind them.

Inactive genes

One of the things indicating that the nature of genetic mutation is lawabiding and completely non-random is inactive genes, or genes that do not currently serve a function. They represent the majority of genes, at times exceeding ninety-seven percent. Even today, geneticists do not know their specific function. Some biologists and geneticists consider them merely an evolutionary inheritance.

It must be noted that, if the inactive genes are not law-abiding, and if these genes are merely an evolutionary inheritance that follows no law, then they should continue to carry out their role of affecting the body. However, if they were to continue to function, then the body would be significantly deformed, perhaps causing the gradual disappearance and extinction of various species most of the time. The fact that these genes do not function also indicates the law-abiding nature and non-randomness of the genetic plan. What is happening here is similar to what happens when any engineering project is implemented. When some parts of the engineering plan are implemented, they are not implemented in the same project again. Imagine the deformation and failure that would happen if the foundations in an engineering project were applied two or three times, or if a part of an engineering structure was applied twice or more. Therefore, the existence of such a precise system in the genetic plan, self-deactivating parts that have already been applied, absolutely indicates a wise, law-making, conscious force that wrote the law of composition and function of this plan. He also set it down it in an exactly precise and law-abiding way, exactly like how the systematic implementation of an engineering plan indicates its designer and executor to the outside.

An example of this would be how hair did not reappear on humans when they moved out of Africa to the cold parts of the world during the last Ice Age, despite the fact that they would have needed this trait in order to resist the cold. If genes had provided the trait of hair in sufficient quantities to cause evolution, we would have found another type of human being, covered with body hair like a gorilla, appear in Russia, Europe and North America. Just as the loss of the body hair trait and the trait of perspiration had led to the cooling of the body and provided humans with an advantage over other predators in the African savannah, the trait of hair and fur covering the human body would have given them a major advantage, or would have at least made them better able to compete, especially during the last Ice Age.

The Results of Evolution and its Purpose

I will first discuss their statement that evolution is non-randomness that resulted from randomness.

On the subject of determining randomness and non-randomness, when wanting to give an example to show that the process of natural selection is non-random and that it comes from random origins- which are, in Dawkins’ opinion, nature, genetic mutation, or genetic change-he says the following:

If you walk up and down a pebbly beach, you will notice that the pebbles are not arranged at random. The smaller pebbles typically tend to be found in segregated zones running along the length of the beach, the larger ones in different zones or stripes. The pebbles have been sorted, arranged, selected. A tribe living near the shore might wonder at this evidence of sorting or arrangement in the world, and might develop a myth to account for it, perhaps attributing it to a Great Spirit in the sky with a tidy mind and a sense of order. We might give a superior smile at such a superstitious notion, and explain that the arranging was really done by the blind forces of physics, in this case the action of waves. The waves have no purposes and no intentions, no tidy mind, no mind at all. They just energetically throw the pebbles around, and big pebbles and small pebbles respond differently to this treatment so they end up at different levels of the beach. A small amount of order has come out of disorder, and no mind planned it.

The waves and the pebbles together constitute a simple example of a system that automatically generates non-randomness. The world is full of such systems. The simplest example I can think of is a hole. Only objects smaller than the hole can pass through it. This means that if you start with a random collection of objects above the hole, and some force shakes and jostles them at random, after a while the objects above and below the hole will come to be nonrandomly sorted. The space below the hole will tend to contain objects smaller than the hole, and the space above will tend to contain objects larger than the hole. Mankind has, of course, long exploited the simple principle for generating non-randomness, in the useful device known as the sieve (Dawkins 1996, 43-44). As far as the example of pebbles and waves, I truly don’t know how Dawkins has overlooked the fact that this is law-abiding and non-random, and that it has produced non-randomness. One of the causes of wave movement is the effect of the law of gravity between the moon and the earth, due to the moon’s proximity to the earth. As such, wave movement is primarily governed by a law-abiding gravitational force, meaning that wave movement is not the result of randomness, but rather, it is the result of a system and the law of gravity. The pebbles on the beach are also subject to the laws of gravity, so they are tossed and sorted nearer or farther along the beach according to their own weight. The law of gravity is non-random and it didn’t come from randomness. God willing, we will discuss the law of gravity when we examine the big bang theory, because neither space that bends nor graviton particles come from randomness or absolute nothingness.

Dawkins has no right to say that randomness has produced nonrandomness; this is simply false. Indeed, Dawkins might ask, “What is the purpose of the pebbles being arranged on the beach by the nonrandomness of the law of gravity?” The answer to this is very simple. It isn’t necessary for it to have a specific purpose here. What matters is that it is an orderly non-random law that has not come from absolute nothingness, so it definitely has a purpose. It is sufficient to say that the purposefulness of the law of gravity has resulted in the existence of stars, galaxies and galactic clusters, and subsequently even our own existence. Therefore, it is law-abiding and purposeful. It isn’t necessary for us to know every purpose of the law of gravity, as we don’t even represent the size of an atom in comparison to the universe that the law of gravity brought into existence. So if on some occasion, at some moment and for some reason we are not conscious of the purpose of the law of gravity-such as when the time span of the purpose is a million years-that doesn’t mean that the law isn’t purposeful. It is sufficient that we have proven that it is a law and it is non-random. This proves it is purposeful and has a lawmaker who wants to achieve a purpose through it.

I believe it is clear now that the primitive tribe from Dawkins’ story of the Great Spirit is more rational than Dawkins himself because at the very least, they recognize the obvious: order and non-randomness don’t come from disorder and randomness. One who doesn’t have something cannot give it, so how can randomness create order?

The issue of the hole and the objects it sifts is clearer than that of the pebbles and the waves. When we place objects above a hole, we expose them to a law, and we cause them to be governed by the hole. In addition, the fall of these objects is governed by the law of gravity, so we have a law and non-randomness producing non-randomness and order. Therefore, it is purposeful.

I don’t find it necessary to discuss in detail the rest of Dawkins’ examples, such as the solar system example. Everyone is aware of the fact that the solar system is subject to the non-random law of gravity, so the non-randomness of the law of gravity is what has provided the solar system with non-randomness.

Also, in the example that was given prior to responding to the misconception or argument of probabilities in evolution, Dawkins explained the difference between single-step evolution-which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is refuted with the aforementioned argument of probabilities-and cumulative evolution, which takes place in nature, is a part of the theory of evolution, and is not refuted by the aforementioned argument. However, despite having explained this difference in general, Dawkins’ example put him in a position where genetic change or mutation is non-random, meaning that, according to the example, evolution is law-abiding and purposeful. It also means that it has a lawmaker who wants to fulfill a purpose with it. This proves the existence of the god that Dawkins sought to deny. Indeed, he proved this himself with his example. Even if Dawkins doesn’t believe that his example reveals what is happening in nature, because it means that evolution is purposeful, we see it as an example that brings together to a great extent what is happening in nature with how there is a process of evolution that is always revealing its purpose.*

Dawkins’ example of the monkey and Shakespeare’s phrase proves that cumulative evolution is completely purposeful, because in his example, he made the computer, in every time and in every generation, revise based on the phrase it wanted to reach through attempts, and compare it to what was obtained. In short, this means that the computer had a target to reach-the phrase to which it compared all of its attempts each time-and the most similar and most suitable one of its phrases was chosen from its attempts in order to eventually arrive at that phrase.

The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the ‘progeny’ of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase … (Dawkins 1996)

In summary, the computer had a plan that it was executing, not directly, but through attempts and cumulative evolution. This is exactly the point that we seek to arrive at: where evolution is law-abiding, and change or mutation in the genetic plan is non-random (meaning it is law-abiding), at least at times, while it pursues a specific goal. Therefore, there must be someone behind it who wrote its law in order to arrive at the goal. Alternatively, we can say that the goal was designated by the lawmaker, and he also set down the law that guarantees the goal will be reached, once applied.

In addition, the computer that carried out this work is capable of comprehension, exemplified by reading the results, comparing them with the target goal to be reached, and choosing the most suitable one with which to continue:

The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the ‘progeny’ of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase …

Therefore, it is incorrect to apply this example to an element of nature described by Dawkins as blind, unless we say there is a knowledgeable, conscious force that is externally directing the process of evolution, even if only to a certain extent and under certain conditions or with intervention when necessary. Taken from the same example of Dawkins above, this also proves our case.

Our evidence of this knowledgeable, conscious force that is dominating the natural selection process is that nature-or the environment of the organism, and everything in it, even the parts of the organism itself-is controlled by the laws of the quantum particles from which the elements of all bodies are formed, therefore the existence of these quantum particles traces back to one of the four universal forces. (We can specify the force of gravity here, as we shall explain in due course, gravity must exist due to an original eternal entity that is independent, which shall be explained later as well.) This proves the existence of the Absolute Independent One, not only in the nature surrounding the organism that carries out selection, but also in every part of the very body of that organism. These bodies depend on Him, as He is the origin of the quantum particles that matter consists of. It is exactly like the running of any electrical motor depends on the electricity produced by a power plant.

In addition, Dawkins returned to his example, commenting:

Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in each generation of selective ‘breeding’, the mutant ‘progeny’ phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn’t like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always shortterm, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. If, after the aeons, what looks like progress towards some distant goal seems, with hindsight, to have been achieved, this is always an incidental consequence of many generations of short-term selection. The ‘watchmaker’ that is cumulative natural selection is blind to the future and has no long-term goal (Dawkins 1996, 50).

Dawkins couldn’t escape admitting that there is a purpose directing evolution in order to make it non-random. However, he said that it is a short-term goal, rather than a long-term one:

In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success.

This means that there is a purpose. If this purpose is short-term, and if it is success in reproduction, that doesn’t change the fact that it is a purpose and that evolution is purposeful. To be more precise, the lawmaker of evolution is purposeful, so the final purpose is but an inevitable result of the accumulation of short-term purposes. Indeed, he might say that it is non-random accumulation centered around nonpurposeful, random mutation, but the response to that is what I have previously said, that the accumulation that occurs is a result of natural selection and genetic mutation, both of which are controlled by physical laws. These laws, as a final result, bring us to a unified theory or a unified law, which in turn brings us to an eternal, original reason for matter, i.e, nature with all that it contains. As a result, this original reason (God) dominates the natural selection that depends on Him. He runs through it by running the quantum particles that form it. As such, He is its lawmaker.

We shall explain this by way of an example: we have evolution occurring based on a short-term purpose, let us call it “general success in reproduction”. Now, let us imagine that this purpose is a red flag, and The Blind Watchmaker of Dawkins, evolution, follows these red flags, one after the other. Although this watchmaker cannot see the final purpose, he clearly sees the short-term purpose, and he follows it accurately according to the law fixed within him and the law of the environment that is directing him. As a result, following short-term purposes made him unknowingly reach the final purpose. This certainly means that whoever made the laws of evolution is definitely purposeful in the long run, because these laws that formed the short-term purposes are what ultimately brought evolution to this purpose. Therefore, we cannot dogmatically state that these laws, with all of them and their work combined, do not intend to reach that purpose. What is correct for us to say is that these laws are purposeful, and they were made to reach that result and purpose, especially given that it is something of importance. The fact that it is completely appropriate as a purpose of evolution cannot be overlooked. Is it possible for us to say that the spirals of a snailshell-that represent a precise mathematical equation-are not controlled by a law?! The truth is, they are controlled by a mathematical law. In fact, every quark, electron, and quantum particle in the matter of an organism follows a law. If we take this to its end point, we reach a unified law that came from an original, eternal reason. He is the maker of all the laws that run nature, and therefore run the process of biological evolution as well.

In nature, we see that life and evolution are law-abiding and they follow a certain path. Metabolism and life have a precise law that brought them into existence. They function according to that genetic plan, which represents a precisely organized and complex composition. Furthermore, the environment, or nature, has laws that govern the direction of the genetic plan externally toward a certain direction, or a short-term purpose. When we find that these short-term purposes have accumulated and brought us to a purpose-rather than to nothingness-then we will certainly conclude that these laws are purposeful, or to be more accurate, that their lawmaker is purposeful. Moreover, we may also find that these short-term purposes have reached a great and significant purpose that is externally valuable, namely, the intelligence machine of the human, or the human who made all that is new on this earth. Surely this is sufficient proof that the lawmaker of evolution, or whoever planned the paths that evolution would take, or let us say the maker of the genetic plan that produces life, has been purposeful and conscious of his work from the beginning-especially after it has been proven to us that he is the original reason for the existence and continuation of matter, as will be demonstrated in due course.

In truth, there is no rational person who doesn’t consider the human to be a great purpose.

It is indeed strange how Dawkins considers it a ridiculous notion that the human being is a valuable purpose. Even if we consider the human being, or his intelligence machine, as an intermediate-rather than a final-purpose, the human is still a great purpose that cannot be rationally denied. Therefore, it is not only truly strange, but also distasteful bias for Dawkins to say,

… although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution.

Let it be an intermediate purpose rather than a final one, but this is still enough to prove that the lawmaker of life and evolution is purposeful. Nevertheless, we have proven and will further prove that evolution is purposeful, even without turning to the human as its result and purpose. Furthermore, the process of natural selection that occurs with every generation is a product of a periodic law-abiding revision process imposed internally and externally in order to pass on what suits survival according to the prescribed law and to prevent what does not suit survival according to the same prescribed law of evolution, and to prevent traits that don’t meet the requirements for establishment, according to the same prescribed law of evolution. This clearly means that the law of evolution was set down to bring life to a certain result or a certain purpose. Indeed, wonders never cease concerning Dawkins and atheists who see all of this law-making and then say there is no lawmaker, who see short-term purposes, admit them, then deny the long-term purpose, even though the latter is an inevitable, cumulative result of short-term purposes.*†

To put it simply: We have a path that goes from point A to point Z. A person starts their journey from point A to point B, with the purpose of reaching point B. He makes another journey from point B to point C, with the purpose of reaching point C. He then continues his journey from point C to point D, with the purpose of reaching point D. The journey continues in this fashion until he eventually reaches point Z. Point Z was definitely not this person’s goal from the beginning. However, the law that made a certain point this person’s goal, that brought him a step closer to point Z each time, is certainly a law that when applied has a cumulative result of reaching point Z. So the accumulation of short-term purposes resulted in the long-term purpose, meaning the application of this law in each time has eventually brought us to point Z. Moreover, point Z must be reached by the general path of evolution. Imagine that point Z is the intelligence machine (the brain for example) or the light-sensing machine (the eye). Mutation must provide their genes and improvement, while selection must establish them and their improvement. Therefore, the issue has been settled in favor of evolution being purposeful. It must be noted that we could imagine evolution producing beings that are blind or without an intelligence machine, but it is not possible for us to imagine evolution not providing sight or an intelligence machine, or establishing and improving them along its overall path, within life in general (and not just within individuals of a certain species). Therefore, evolution is purposeful and law-abiding. This law has a lawmaker who is purposeful, and he intends to reach the purpose through the application of the law.

Independent Evolutionary Pathways Reaching the Same Result

There are advanced mechanisms, or compound, complex devices, such as the eye and sonar, that have been reached by animals far away from each other. Their evolution began from completely independent starting points and lines of evolution, but reached the same result. Echolocation is present in bats, in oilbirds that build their nests in semi-dark caves, and in whales and dolphins that live in the water. Although they are completely different animals with different habitats, they have reached the same result. Whether the medium of wave transmission is air (as in bats), or water (as in whales), and whether the waves are ultrasound (as in bats), or audible sound waves (as in oilbirds), the result reached by all of them is the same: the ability to utilize waves to determine location.

In addition, the eye of the octopus appears similar to our eyes, yet anatomically it is vastly different. The “wires” that link the photocells to the brain in our body go over the surface of the retina to form a network that blocks light to some degree. In the eye of the octopus, on the other hand, the wires that come out of the photocells don’t go forward, such that they pass in front of it and block the light. This means that the starting point of evolution of the octopus eye is certainly different than the starting point of our eye, yet evolution brought us and the octopus to the same result: eyes for vision that are nearly identical. This means that vision is a part of the purpose of evolution, such that completely different evolutionary pathways with completely independent starting points reach the same result at the end of evolution that we are familiar with, i.e. the present era. Even Dawkins confirms this fact, yet doesn’t notice that by proving it he has proven that evolution is purposeful.

… it is vanishingly improbable that exactly the same evolutionary pathway should ever be travelled twice. And it would seem similarly improbable, for the same statistical reasons, that two lines of evolution should converge on exactly the same endpoint from different starting points.

It is all the more striking a testimony to the power of natural selection, therefore, that numerous examples can be found in real nature, in which independent lines of evolution appear to have converged, from very different starting points, on what looks very like the same endpoint. When we look in detail we find-it would be worrying if we didn’t-that the convergence is not total. The different lines of evolution betray their independent origins in numerous points of detail. For instance, octopus eyes are very like ours, but the wires leading from their photocells don’t point forwards towards the light, as ours do. Octopus eyes are, in this respect, more ‘sensibly’ designed. They have arrived at a similar endpoint, from a very different starting point. And the fact is betrayed in details such as this (Dawkins 1996, 94-95).

Therefore, the evolution of parts, such as the eye, has reached a purpose, even though both the starting points and the evolutionary pathways were different. Dawkins expressed his astonishment with this result:

… it is all the more striking a testimony to the power of natural selection …

Indeed, Dawkins finds it astonishing that the result is the same despite the differences in both the starting points and pathways, yet he still refuses to admit that this convergent result of different paths is a clear purpose of evolution, because if he admits the purpose, he admits that God exists. This is a result that he doesn’t want to reach even if it is crystal clear.

At least two groups of bats then, two groups of birds, toothed whales, and probably several other kinds of mammals to a smaller extent, have all independently converged on the technology of sonar, at some time during the last hundred million years. We have no way of knowing whether any other animals now extinct - pterodactyls perhaps? - also evolved the technology independently. (Dawkins 1996, 97).

The African porcupine was long believed to be closely related to the American porcupines, but the two groups are now thought to have evolved their prickly coats independently. Presumably prickles were useful to both for similar reasons in the two continents. Who is to say that future generations of taxonomists won’t change their minds yet again? What confidence can we vest in taxonomy, if convergent evolution is such a powerful faker of deceptive resemblances? (Dawkins 1996, 269).

Dawkins views these facts as evidence of the power of natural selection, but unfortunately he doesn’t see their even stronger indication that-despite the differences in their starting points and environments-the same result (purpose) was still reached, because evolution is purposeful!

Is it possible for a rational person to see numerous objects carrying information about their movement and moving in paths that cause them to converge on a single point, yet then say that these objects aren’t purposeful and that the information guiding their movement changes in a random, non-law-abiding and non-purposeful way?

Can we ask ourselves: if the movement of genetic mutation or change is completely random and doesn’t follow a law for reaching a purpose, and if selection does not intend to reach certain purposes in the long-term, then how did this information cause everyone to ultimately reach the same point when their evolutionary paths were complete?

Figure 12: Ogura et al., Comparative analysis of genetic expression for convergent evolution of camera eye between octopus and human.

Specific Trends of Evolution and its Purpose

The brain and its increase in complexity and size with time, for example, is clear evidence that evolution is headed toward a certain result that it seeks to reach. This result or purpose is to increase the size of the brain.

These checks on modem skulls encourage confidence in Jerison’s estimates of long-dead brains. His conclusion is, firstly, that there is a tendency for brains to become bigger as the millions of years go by. At any given time, the current herbivores tended to have smaller brains than the contemporary carnivores that preyed on them. But later herbivores tended to have larger brains than earlier herbivores, and later carnivores larger brains than earlier carnivores. (Dawkins 1996, 190).

In light of this specific trend in evolution toward increased brain size over time, and with our knowledge of the huge importance of brain size, we see clearly that the purpose of evolution is to reach a large brain size that is qualified to perform a certain task. This is especially clear given what we see, and what we are now familiar with, of what the large brain provides. Indeed, no one doubts that the size and type of the human brain have great significance in terms of differentiating humans from other animals.

The significant and steady way the brain evolved in size and quality, particularly during the later stages of evolution, undoubtedly indicates that this is a purpose of evolution. Or let us say that the most important purpose produced by evolution is intelligence-a product of the brain-which we recognize as being more significant and better than any other product of evolution. Intelligence is an inevitable result of the emergence of life, or at least it is an inevitable result in relation to life within the limits we have become familiar with on this earth. Since the life we know is basically the genetic plan, and the selection that refines it, the result is that the genetic plan and selection-or evolution-is purposeful, its purpose being intelligence, or producing intelligent life. The purpose, within the limits of intelligence that we are familiar with, is a large complex brain.

The number of advanced civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy today depends on many factors, ranging from the number of planets per star to the likelihood of the origin of life. But once life has started in a relatively benign environment and billions of years of evolutionary time are available, the expectation of many of us is that intelligent beings would develop. The evolutionary path would, of course, be different from that taken on Earth. The precise sequence of events that have taken place here-including the extinction of the dinosaurs and the recession of the Pliocene and Pleistocene forests-have probably not occurred in precisely the same way anywhere else in the entire universe. But there should be many functionally equivalent pathways to a similar end result. The entire evolutionary record on our planet, particularly the record contained in fossil endocasts, illustrates a progressive tendency toward intelligence. There is nothing mysterious about this: smart organisms by and large survive better and leave more offspring than stupid ones (Sagan 1978, 240).*

The Inconsistent Speed of Evolution and the Genetic Law

… just about all evolutionists would reject constant speedism, and Darwin certainly would have rejected it. Everyone that is not a constant speedist is a variable speedist.

Within variable speedism we may distinguish two kinds of belief, labelled, ‘discrete variable speedism’ and ‘continuously variable speedism’. An extreme ‘discretist’ not only believes that evolution varies in speed. He thinks that the speed flips abruptly from one discrete level to another, like a car’s gearbox. He might believe, for instance, that evolution has only two speeds: very fast and stop … ‘Stopped’ evolution is the ‘stasis’ that is thought by punctuationists to characterize large populations. Top-gear evolution is the evolution that goes on during speciation, in small isolated populations round the edge of large, evolutionarily static populations. According to this view, evolution is always in one or other of the two gears, never in between. Eldredge and Gould tend in the direction of discretism, and in this respect they are genuinely radical. They may be called ‘discrete variable speedists’. Incidentally, there is no particular reason why a discrete variable speedist should necessarily emphasize speciation as the time of high-gear evolution. In practice, however, most of them do.

‘Continuously variable speedists’, on the other hand, believe that evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediates. They see no particular reason to emphasize certain speeds more than others. In particular, stasis, to them, is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution. To a punctuationist, there is something very special about stasis. Stasis, to him, is not just evolution that is so slow as to have a rate of zero: stasis is not just passive lack of evolution because there is no driving force in favour of change. Rather, stasis represents a positive resistance to evolutionary change. It is almost as though species are thought to take active steps not to evolve, in spite of driving forces in favour of evolution.

More biologists agree that stasis is a real phenomenon than agree about its causes (Dawkins 1996, 245-46).

We are not concerned here with the details of the ideologies of evolutionists, nor their disagreements about the mechanisms of evolution and the behavior of species within evolution. Rather, I have quoted the above in order to demonstrate a scientific issue that evolutionary biologists almost all agree upon, namely, that the speed of evolution is inconsistent. There have been stages where evolution has been fast and others where it has been slow. These changes in its speed may explain the problematic issue for evolutionary scientists concerning the gaps in the geological record. This is because the high speed movement of evolution (by evolutionary standards) in a certain period of time explains the absence of transitional fossils that a researcher would expect to find. From a geological perspective, the short period of time in which these transitional organisms lived and existed makes it difficult to obtain transitional fossils from that period.

However, at the same time, this gives us a clear indication of the law-abiding nature of the genetic plan. This inconsistent speed is certainly governed, to a great extent, by genetic mutation. This means that the speed of mutation is definitely changing throughout the path of evolution, and it is fast and accelerating at certain times. We can observe that these times are exactly the transitional periods between species, or periods of speciation. This generates a big question mark for which the researcher of evolution hasn’t found any reasonable answer.

The logical explanation is that chromosomes are governed by a law that determines the speed of their mutation, meaning that the genetic plan is law-abiding. That is why it produces a great deal of mutations in a specific direction during a specific time period; it pressures the path of evolution in that period and makes it accelerate and move at a very high speed until it reaches a specific purpose during a certain time period in evolution. We can term that purpose “new species”. Afterwards, the speed of mutation returns to stasis, or becomes very slow, and evolution does as well, because it depends on mutation, as without mutation there is no evolution.

In addition, when we find that the speed of evolution of a certain part increases at a certain stage, and its increase is specifically toward improvement, that means the speed of mutation also increased greatly at that stage and was biased toward improvement too. This is natural, because there are many options for the speed of evolution toward improvement. If we take the path of evolution of the modern human brain as an example, we find that it has greatly accelerated in evolution toward an increase in size over the last few million years. This increase in brain size represents an evolution that is beneficial to the body. In fact, it is unquestionably the most important result of evolutionary improvement. The only logical explanation for the great increase in mutation speed toward increasing brain size in the human over the last few million years is that mutation is law-abiding and purposeful. It also must be greatly dependent upon an internal law of the genetic plan that is neither completely random, nor dependent only on random causes, such as error in genetic replication and radiological bombardment from space.

… one of the fastest known evolutionary changes, the swelling of the human skull from an Australopithecus-like ancestor, with a brain volume of about 500 cubic centimetres (cc), to the modern Homo sapiens’s average brain volume of about 1,400 cc. This increase of about 900 cc, nearly a tripling in brain volume, has been accomplished in no more than three million years. By evolutionary standards this is a rapid rate of change: the brain seems to swell like a balloon and indeed, seen from some angles, the modem human skull does rather resemble a bulbous, spherical balloon in comparison to the flatter, sloping-browed skull of Australopithecus. But if we count up the number of generations in three million years (say about four per century), the average rate of evolution is less than a hundredth of a cubic centimetre per generation. The caricature of a gradualist is supposed to believe that there was a slow and inexorable change, generation by generation, such that in all generations sons were slightly brainier than their fathers, brainier by 0.01 cc. Presumably the extra hundredth of a cubic centimetre is supposed to provide each succeeding generation with a significant survival advantage compared with the previous generation …

We can, to be sure, discern long-term trends of change - legs get progressively longer, skulls get progressively more bulbous, and so on - but the trends as seen in the fossil record are usually jerky, not smooth …

The American paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, when they first proposed their theory of punctuated equilibria in 1972, made what has since been represented as a very different suggestion. They suggested that, actually, the fossil record may not be as imperfect as we thought. Maybe the ‘gaps’ are a true reflection of what really happened, rather than being the annoying but inevitable consequences of an imperfect fossil record. Maybe, they suggested, evolution really did in some sense go in sudden bursts, punctuating long periods of ‘stasis’, when no evolutionary change took place in a given lineage (Dawkins 1996, 228-29).

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning here that, if genetic mutation- which provides the variation necessary for evolution-is dependent on just unintentional error in genetic replication, mutation due to radiological bombardment of chromosomes, and similar things that can be called random and non-law-abiding, then it makes no sense for the effect of genetic mutation to completely stop such that an animal, or a fish (such as the Latimeria), remains without evolving or changing for hundreds of millions of years. This is the case even though we know for certain that the environment surrounding it is constantly changing, and these changes are sometimes extreme, such as the change that occurred almost 65 million years ago that led to the extinction of dinosaurs and most organisms on the earth. Error in replication and mutation due to radiation should always be possible as long as there is reproduction and replication, as well as the existence of constant radiation bombardment from space. So what happened that evolution froze in those organisms?!*

This strange phenomenon, as we see in the case of the Latimeria fish, the horseshoe crab and the Nautilus, or even the alligator snapping turtle, are explained by some punctuationists as the result of organisms resisting evolution. Dawkins, who perhaps doesn’t accept punctuationism, explains them to be the result of a group of genes being in harmony with each other and not allowing new genes into the group. Either way, the issue means that there is something in the genetic plan that caused evolution to stop, as in this extreme case of the Latimeria fish. We can call it an internal law of the genetic plan that governs the plan. This is what often makes it go in this direction or that direction, as well as what sometimes puts it in a condition of complete stasis for a very long period of time that doesn’t even correspond to evolution’s very slow rate.*

Genes are basically information written in a specific language in the chromosomes. The existence of laws that govern them, such as the one assumed by Professor Dawkins, means that there is a lawmaker for these genes, and that he is the one who set down the laws by which they function. Therefore, if they move in a certain direction, they can stop at a specific place, and point, whereas if it moves in another direction, it doesn’t stop at that point. This is clear in the case of the eye of the Nautilus, which is basically an open hole containing sensory cells. This means that it has a developed eye without a lens, whereas its other relatives, such as the octopus, have highly developed eyes with a lens.

Figure 13: The Stages of Evolution and Increased Complexity of the Eye structure through examining images of the eyes of an octopus, Nautilus, and others.

Figure 14: Illustrative comparison of the size of the eyes of several organisms that are gradated in evolution and complexity.. The Law of the Genetic Language The genetic language in the DNA of trees is the same as the genetic language in the DNA of any animal. Indeed, it is the same as the genetic language in the DNA of a human being. The uniformity, precision and laws of this language that make it readable and understandable to everyone-even though evolution has moved in different directions and at different speeds-is a clear indication that its maker speaks with a law and with knowledge, such that he set down the genetic language in a law-abiding way that protects it from the continuous impact of evolution. It has a precise, unchanging dictionary that is sufficient to encompass all the directions of evolution. We can understand the magnitude of this by comparing the genetic language to our languages that branch continuously, that are affected by the environment, and that change with every new development that occurs in our lifetime.

The Law-Abiding Nature of Balance in Selection

Certainly, the existence of a balanced system clearly indicates that there is someone who intended to arrange it in this way. This is because balance, at the critical point, is not a trivial matter. Rather, it is an extremely important, precise system, used frequently by designers in engineering systems and when it is found, it indicates that there is an organizer behind it, as it doesn’t come from randomness and nonorder; and one who doesn’t have something cannot give it. We have found that the system of evolution was arranged in such a way that it provides this balance, which at times is crucial. For example, selection is sometimes the result of the balance between sexual selection, and the natural selection of the environment and surrounding conditions. Sometimes sexual selection leads to developing certain parts, or giving them coloring, such as the tail of the Whydah bird, or the tail of the peacock. If this was left solely to sexual selection, the increase in these parts would not stop as long as genetic mutation and variation provide more of it, and as long as females prefer this increase in tail length which gives the long-tailed male an advantage in spreading his genes. However, when that increase due to sexual selection reaches a certain point, and the length of the tail becomes an obstacle to acquiring food easily or escaping a predator, then the damage from the increase becomes costly, causing the demise of the organism in accordance with the natural selection of the surrounding environment. That is when natural selection pushes in the opposite direction, and at a certain point a balance is achieved. Thus, evolution stops there in a state of balance.*

If not for sexual selection, evolution in this direction would not occur. Moreover, if not for natural selection, balance at a ideal point doesn’t occur. This means that the system of evolution works here as if it was an engineering system containing a safety valve, such as the ones used by engineers to set the amount of allowable pressure or heat. Once the pressure or temperature has reached the set allowable level, the valve closes the outlet and doesn’t allow the pressure or heat to increase further. If not for this valve, the system, engine, or the factory would explode.

We must take note of an important issue: even though we are capable of providing a scientific explanation for an event in a certain environment, that doesn’t mean that this medium is not law-abiding, or that it is random and non-purposeful with no external cause. The important point is that, to a certain extent, we have been capable of understanding and knowing the law-abiding plan by which this environment functions.

Figure 15: An image of a male Whydah bird showing the length of his tail to a female Whydah. Reference: Wilkinson’s World

How Do We See God Within His Creation?

Another way that lets us see the lawmaker when we find the law: Indeed, our use of the law as evidence for the existence of the

lawmaker is not negated by the fact that we do not see the lawmaker. This is because the existence of law and organization in itself indicates the existence of the lawmaker and organizer, even if we do not see this lawmaker or organizer ourselves. Rather, it is enough that we witness and observe the organization and law indicating Him. For example, let us suppose that a very intelligent life form on another planet wanted to rule the earth using their own computers and robots manufactured on earth. They sent an electronic message which were plans for producing high-tech, advanced computers and robots that we were not familiar with, as though they were, to some extent, intelligent. After we received the electronic message it had travelled via the Internet to factories that produce electronic circuits, computers and robots, and the message was implemented electronically. However, since there are things that interfere with the assembly and production process, such as human error, we expect that among the products of implementing the electronic message are computers that are poor, defective, or ordinary compared to the superior computers and robots the electronic message intended to produce. Even if it had produced intelligent, superior computers and robots-and as we know, intelligence is a product of chemical substances-and then completely ruled the earth and the production and construction process within it, and we saw this outcome not knowing where its plans came from, then perhaps many of us might attribute its plans to errors that occurred in the original computers, the Internet, or viruses that entered the factory systems, etc. This conclusion might be justified by the fact that there are average and inferior computers and robots that have also been produced.

In fact, that is what the theorizing atheists like Dawkins and his supporters have done with Darwin’s theory. However, when a reasonable person sees this result, they will analyze and study it in a logical way, and through the indications and the signs they learn that there is an organizer and a lawmaker behind it who wrote its law and sent it to be implemented on the earth using the available resources. Therefore, intelligence is a goal, and one way to achieve it is by the known chemicals that are abundantly available on the earth and that make up the nervous system.

The Intelligent Design Theory

The intelligent design theory relies on proving intelligent design in the lineage of organisms and their parts, and states that this design indicates a designer of these organisms, thus proving the existence of a god. There are two ways of approaching Intelligent Design.

The first way is to maintain that creation occurred in one burst, seeking to prove that organisms are designed by demonstrating the precision and complexity of living bodies and their parts, and therefore indicating that they were created exactly as we see them today without passing through any stages of evolution. This is the most common and well-known approach to intelligent design theory. However, the evidence for evolution is clear and powerful enough to render the belief that creation occurred in one burst as naive.

The second way: the theory of intelligent design can be molded in such a way so as to agree with evolution, seeking to prove through the complexity, structure, and precision of the organization of living bodies and their parts that organisms are designed, and that evolution is purposeful, so there is a god behind evolution who wants to reach this purpose.

The problem with both approaches is that there are major holes in the design, even though the so-called designer (the god) is omniscient and omnipotent. Such a god must create an integral design with no major holes, like the weakness of the spine in human beings for example. The reason for this weakness is that the spine is designed for a curved body. It is not ideally designed for an upright body like the human, which is why many people on the earth suffer from back pain at least once in their lives. Also, there is the laryngeal nerve and its elongation that some comparative anatomy experts consider a mistake in design. It could not have been designed for each species individually because its length does not provide any true benefit for the individual. In fact, it is harmful as its length makes the nerve more prone to damage than if it were shorter to the extent required.

With respect to those who believe that creation occurred in one burst, this argument cannot be logically refuted, because the laryngeal nerve error is a major error and is enough to refute the intelligent design of the body along along with all of its parts for every species. Since this defect demonstrates considerable deviation from a perfect, intelligent design, it cannot be explained unless it is an evolutionary inheritance.

With respect to those who believe in both evolution and intelligent design, while at the same time believing the designer is an absolute divinity, meaning that he is omniscient and omnipotent, the argument still holds, due to the fact that there is a defect in the design of living bodies that refutes the designer’s omniscience. However, if they say what God says in the Quran, that creation, or the design and execution of creation, were through the hands of God, meaning through the intercession of God Almighty’s creation, then the design that is not completely perfect can be justified as a little error in the design in the beginning that was made worse by evolution, until it became a cumulative evolutionary inheritance that appears as an obvious error in design.

This is also a clear indication that the original creator is God Almighty, the absolute God. However, the direct creator is not God Almighty is not the direct creator, but a sanctified creation who began to create by the command of God Almighty, and they reflected their imperfection as light-filled created beings containing darkness, because the light in which there is no darkness is God Almighty, the best of Creators, who created the first intellect, Muhammad pbuhap, then created the first lights from him, and then commanded them to begin creating as He wished, with His strength and might. This is why the Almighty said:

﴾Verily We created man from an extract of wet clay. Then We made him a sperm-drop in a firm lodging. Then We created the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We created the clot into a lump, and We created the lump into bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We formed him into another creation. So blessed is God, the best of creators.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Believers” 23:12-14

Note also the use of the singular and the plural in the verse: “we created … we made … we created … we created … we created … we covered … we formed”. The verse is then sealed with the statement that the dominant one over the creators who began creating is God Almighty: ﴾So blessed is God, the best of creators﴿. God clarified the status of these creators and that they are hands of God Almighty, meaning the ones, through whom God the best of creators, began the creation: ﴾And the heaven we constructed with hands, and indeed we are expanders.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Winnowing Winds” 51:47

Some might say that the position of the human spine, and the plans for the laryngeal nerve in this way, have certain benefits on the path of evolution, or even in certain times. The truth is, even if this is proven beyond doubt, it still does not refute the fact that these issues indicate that they are a historical evolutionary inheritance and therefore refutes creation occurring in one burst.

In addition, it does not refute the fact that it is not a design coming from an omniscient, omnipotent creator. A better design can be imagined, which means that it is not the best, most ideal, and most complete design. Therefore, there is no escape from accepting what God stated in the Quran: that the hands of God were intermediaries in the creation process.

Summary: In this chapter, we have proven that evolution is purposeful by proving that the superior intelligence machine has been its purpose from the beginning. Afterwards, through signs and indications, we sought to prove that:

Mutation is sometimes law-abiding, so it has been proven to be purposeful; and that evolution, which is the result of a coordinated activity of mutation and selection, is law-abiding and purposeful.

Our opponent assumes the opposite, yet is completely incapable of presenting decisive, irrefutable evidence for complete randomness, be it in the stage of all genetic mutation, or in the final result of evolution, or let us say the result that evolution reached so far. This itself is enough to keep those who want to prove the nonexistence of a god devoid of decisive evidence and incapable of concluding that there is no god at this stage. This is the case if he does not have to admit the existence of a god based on the evidence presented in this chapter, at least the evidence concerning the intelligence machine being the purpose of evolution.

230