[OPENING POST #1 OF 2 - SEE NEXT POST FOR COMPLETION]
God by defintion is beyond the limits of the finite human mind. Islam teaches that before creation, there was only Allah, and He decided to be known so he created Creation, and now there is still only God.
Within this imagined cosmos of his, is an imagined lab which will not be able to put him in a test tube and measure him and prove to God that he doesn’t exist. But that’s obvious. Both religion and atheism are unfalsifiable a la Karl Popper. They therefore both have no place in secular education. Science will take us as far as things such as disproving the current theory of evolution as utterly devoid of science. Beyond that, there is only mysticism, and beyond that, bridging the gap to ultimate Gnosis of Allah, there is only the will of Allah that can take you, you cannot proceed otherwise.
So on to the present matter: I do not believe l can absolutely prove Religion. However, Science disproves the currrent theory of Evolution.
DEFINITIONS:
- EVOLUTION PER SE: From now on, by evolution, l will mean - as everyone infers - evolution by gene mutation, as it’s the only way new structures can arise.
- NATURAL SELECTION / MICRO-EVOLUTION: Atheistic science editorials in popular journals BAIT AND SWITCH for NATURAL SELECTION (now sneakily often called “MICROEVOLUTION” as if it’s leading to PROPER SPECIES EVOLUTION!). Natural Selection is good science (despite Darwin turning it into something it isn’t, and weirdly that thing taking route by a belief in gene mutation caused by the later discovery that DNA is the unit of inheritance). However, NATURAL SELECTION (now sneakily often called “MICROEVOLUTION” as if it’s leading to PROPER SPECIES EVOLUTION!) PRODUCES NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN, IT JUST CHANGES THE RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF PHENOTYPES / ALLELES OF A GENE. The only way new structures that confer advantage in a given environment can form, is by gene mutation. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY GENE MUTATION IS A FANTASY and has no basis in science and is positively trashed by scientific enquiry. It can and has been and shall be dismissed outright. I have even proposed alternative theories for evolution myself, l won’t divulge them here - but l bet you never thought l’d say that. It’s important for me because l strongly feel faith can never be proven in this life otherwise it’d lose its merit.
- CREATIONISM: I am reluctant to use the word “Creationism” as that is a more Xtian-oriented belief which goes into some curious byways of thought, which l don’t endorse.
- THE ATHEIST: The “Atheist” in question claims to be Theist or Theistic, or something. To all intents and purposes they are Atheist, even if that is not strictly true, they behave precisely that way in their treatment of Monotheistic Abrahamic Faiths. Let me just say, the Atheist and those like him, are excellent speakers against societal wrongs. They are just wrong in this one little matter of God & [Abrahamic] Religion.
Here are some arguments for evolution, with my rebuttals:
1. ATHEIST CITES ABIOGENESIS: Organic molecules were found by thermal vents. Also the Miller-Urey experiment where electricity zapped a warm soup of chems resulted in interesting organic molecules!
I SAY: All living organisms are composed of matter. Matter is composed of elementary particles, which are ubiquitous. To find components for life does not mean life will naturally proceed from those components, any more than the presence of marine organisms in limestone means that the Parthenon will gradually appear on that site (“you need to understand, it’s a slow process spanning hundreds of millions, even billions, of years” and soon the Parthenon will just pop up and on the horizon a dolphin completes the picture with a knowing wink before disappearing into the wine dark sea).
The Atheist assumes that raw materials —> gradual formation of life. This is never observed scientifically.
Moreover, it is scientifically improbable i.e. beyond 1:1x10^50 chance. In fact l have no idea how many zeroes the exponent has to make it possible i.e. 1x10^???
Moreover, it’s not like over even an infinite timescale, a probability would manifest. For a coin to land on heads isn’t even guaranteed, not even over an infinite timescale. However, at least WE HAVE OBSERVED A COIN LANDING ON HEADS BEFORE, AND WE HAVE CERTAINLY AT LEAST OBSERVED THE HEADS SIDE. Not so with evolution by gene mutation. It’s NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, IT IS UNSCIENTIFIC.
You can’t even go from life (marine exoskeltons in chalk) to something relatively simple like the Pathenon. Plus the Miller-Urey experiment was actually an example of, well, blush … intelligent design. And in any case its products, simple molecules “and amino acids” (as if they aren’t mostly simple molecules too, and l don’t think they even isolated specific amino acids but guaranteed it’d be something simple like glycine) which was pretty much bound to happen given the ingredients but anyway … these molecules wouldn’t get you anywhere. To build proteins you’d need enzymes (which are proteins) plus co factors. To build enzymes, you’d need enzymes.
Also note how many mass extinction events (5 apparently) that have occurred. I’m guessing that includes the epoch when the earth was completely covered in ice.
2. ATHEIST CITES FOSSIL RECORD, SPECIES ADAPTATION TO ENVIRONMENTS: the fossil record, biogeography, comparative anatomy, embryology, and molecular biology, all of which demonstrate the shared ancestry and gradual change of species over time. The fossil record provides a chronological sequence of life forms, showing that organisms have changed over time and that extinct species are related to modern ones. The overwhelming majority of fossil evidence strongly supports the theory of evolution. In general, fossils document the changes in life forms over time, showing how species have diversified and adapted to their environments. Fossils provide evidence of transitional forms, showing how one group of organisms may have evolved into another. Fossil evidence is consistent with other lines of evidence for evolution such as comparative anatomy, molecular biology, and embryology.
The distribution of species across the globe provides compelling evidence of both evolution and geological changes. Organisms are not randomly distributed; their locations reflect their evolutionary history and the movements of continents over geological time. Geographic isolation, often caused by landmass movements or changing climate, can lead to unique adaptations and new species, as seen in Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands. The patterns of species distribution, especially in isolated regions like islands, reflect how organisms have spread, diversified, and adapted to different environments over time.
The movement of tectonic plates has played a major role in shaping species distributions. For example, the breakup of Pangaea to the unique flora and fauna of continents that formed from the supercontinents Laurasia and Gondwana. Climate changes, including glacial periods and interglacial periods, have influenced species distribution patterns, forcing species to adapt or migrate. Islands, due to their isolation, often exhibit unique species and diversification patterns, providing insights into evolutionary processes. Geological changes, like mountain formation or sea level fluctuations, have altered habitats and influenced where species can live.
Biogeography considers both isolation due to geological events and dispersal via migration over land or water in explaining species distribution.
I SAY: This is all ad hoc inference, i.e. post-fact - not a scientific observation of evolution via gene mutation occurring in the laboratory.
(i) The fossil records are shot through with fakery, e.g. the chart of horse evolution, which mixes up a rabbit-like creature, the Hyrax species (Cony) with horses, and thus shows horses starting tiny (Hyrax) and getting bigger and bigger (Equus). In fact even today in slavic languages they call Horse with the prefix “Konyy-”. But they are different species and the horse evolution records has different fake members appearing in radically different parts of the world.
It’s fanciful joining of dots. I think this is called the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy (target drawn around bullet holes, thus showing off the shooter’s accuracy).
Quote from National Geographic: "The popular notion that horses started off the size of small dogs and grew progressively bigger is now shown to be false. From the tooth-fossil evidence, MacFadden found that during an explosion in horse diversity some 20 million years ago, many species got smaller as well as larger."
(ii) I could easily create a flipbook which shows a rabbit morphing into a human.
(iii) I have seen Chinese propaganda videos showing black africans transforming into Laotians via animated graphics. Does mean the transition ever happened despite all the population groups being present.
I NOTE THAT THE ATHEIST ADMITS: “some fossil forgeries have been identified. While some individuals or groups may attempt to misrepresent or forge fossils to support certain agendas … Scientists acknowledge that there have been hoaxes. Examples include the infamous Piltdown Man hoax, where a fabricated skull was presented as evidence of a human ancestor, and more recent forgeries where soft tissues were painted onto fossils. The discovery of a few fakes does not undermine the vast body of evidence for evolution that comes from a multitude of genuine fossil discoveries.”
3. ATHEIST CITES SPECIES ADAPTATION TO ENVIRONMENTS AGAIN: The distribution of species across the globe reflects evolutionary history and geological changes, with similar species found in areas with similar environments and geographic connections. Similarities in the skeletal structures, organs, and other physical features of different species, even those that appear very different, suggest common ancestry.
I SAY: This is all ad hoc inference, i.e. post-fact - not a scientific observation of evolution via gene mutation occurring in the laboratory
Instead, it could be explained by God making species suited for their environments, plus any number of other factors. There’s no hard science in saying they look similar, therefore this fantastic mechanism called evolution that is the wonder of the universe is true despite no science verifying it and despite science in fact debunking evolution. Also my cat looked like a rabbit. Did they have a common ancestor? Did one branch of the family tell the other they’d be the cat, the other will be its prey the rabbit? And did they decide to wait 1,000,000,000 for the first meal, knowing in their hearts that it’s worth it, to break free of religion?
I’ve studied charts of species diversification at university, very long ago. They attach numbers to allele frequencies and probability of relationships to bolster the concept of “adaptive radiation” i.e. the radiating out of different forms from a progenitor, in response to environmental pressures etc. This does nothing for science. This is fancy. This is the epitome of lies, damned lies and statistics. It is just statistics to support some variant of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
In fact it could be argued that there need to be some basic genetic similarities in order for one species to be edible to another. This is God’s mercy. There may have been far more deadly interspecies viruses than at present, if there were more genetic dissimilarity. There could be all manner of explanations.
You’re saying, similarities in species - e.g. that they have arms and legs - imply that they had a common ancestor which evolved through evolution via gene mutation. And this is your proof / evidence of evolution via gene mutation.
In other words, something suggests evolution by gene mutation, which proves (with reasonable certainty) evolution by gene mutation. This is Circular Logic. You haven’t actually proven evolution by gene mutation to justify you THEN going farther afield for these further indications of evolution by gene mutation (by saying Animal X has arms and legs, and so does Animal Y, they therefore share ancestry!). You’ve just said, it looks likely to have occurred, and so it is. But “it” is a fantasy that you made up. I mean: evolution by gene mutation is a fantasy.
4. ATHEIST SAYS EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE WE’RE EVOLVING RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES!: The early developmental stages of different species often show striking similarities, indicating a shared evolutionary history.
I SAY: This is all ad hoc inference, i.e. post-fact - not a scientific observation of evolution via gene mutation occurring in the laboratory
This is again inference, fancy. It has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, you just think we resemble different things as we develop in the womb. You even refer to “gill slits” in the embryo (which is encapsulated in amniotic fluid, you know?)
It cannot be linked to evolution even if evolution were true. It has no route of entry into evolutionary theory. Why would the process of evolution recur during foetal development? To titilate the audience, only.
5. ATHEIST CITES MOLECULAR HOMOLOGY, CONSERVED SEQUENCES: DNA and protein sequences reveal universal similarities among all life forms, indicating a common ancestor, and differences in these sequences reflect evolutionary divergence.
I SAY: At the most fundamental level, there’s no mechanism for stock DNA to diverge via evolution. There’s the problem of hard science, L@@K:
(i) Inhertiability. The changes don’t get inherited except if gametes (sex cells) bear the mutation
(ii) Inter-species mating: it doesn’t produce babies. You’d need this to happen.
(iii) Mutations don’t produce anything good anyway, just cancers and other defects, or neutral effect. I need wings, badly need to grow wings. Everyday though, my fear is cancer, no wings my friend.
(iv) DNA assembly, maintenance, action, replication, etc. are vast operations. And then you want to throw in mutations to that balance? And then points (i) & (ii) as well?
(v) Zero scientific observation of mutations occurring which confer new physical features that give improved adaptation to the environment
(vi) Multiple mutations usually would have to occur simultaneously to give rise to new forms.
(vii) The plan of mutations wouldn’t be a linear progression either, it wouldn’t be mutation building upon mutation. It would be very convoluted.
6. ATHEIST PERPLEXINGLY CITES NATURAL SELECTION BEING OBSERVED IN THE LAB (DESPITE MY EXPLANATION OF NATURAL SELECTION BEING A BAIT-&-SWITCH FOR EVOLUTION): Scientists can directly observe evolution occurring in populations with short lifecycles, such as the development of pesticide resistance in insects.
Over extremely long periods, these small changes (microevolution) can accumulate, potentially leading to the formation of new species (macroevolution or speciation). This requires the accumulation of significant genetic differences between populations, often accompanied by reproductive isolation.
Finally, Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which states that organisms with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, is supported by numerous observations of adaptation and speciation.
I SAY: Natural Selection is good science, it can be and is, demonstrated in the laboratory.
Natural Selection is all too often BAIT AND SWITCH for evolution as we know it. It is used by adults to trick youngsters and the scientifically non-literate. Natural Selection PRODUCES NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. It merely changes the relative frequencies of alleles (forms of a gene) in a population. So, during the industrial revolution in England, when factory smoke blackened tree bark. the melanic form of a moth fared better than its white counterpart, as the former was effectively camouflaged from predators by its blackness. The white moth did not transform into the black moth. The gene pool merely narrowed. THAT IS NATURAL SELECTION.
7. ATHEIST HITS UP SOME GOOGLE AI & CITES GENE MUTATIONS (he has no science background, they rarely do): Some research suggests that mutation rates can be influenced by factors like nucleotide composition and DNA repair mechanisms, meaning they might not occur with equal probability across the genome. Natural selection acts on these variations.
The individuals with advantageous mutations are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on these mutations to the next generation, which gradually changes the genetic makeup of the population over time.
The core concept remains valid. While the specifics of how mutations occur are being refined, the basic principle that mutations are the driving force behind evolution remains a cornerstone of scientific understanding. The discovery that mutations may not be entirely random doesn’t undermine the core theory of evolution. It simply highlights that the process of mutation is more complex than previously understood and opens new avenues for research and understanding.
I SAY: As l’ve already explained: Mutations don’t produce anything good, just cancers and other defects, or neutral effect. So yes, mutations do occur, but they do not drive evolution. The only acceptable species are the ones Allah ordained. If a mutation is neutral, the creature doesn’t change. If a mutation is negative, the creature becomes ill, possibly fatally. The creature doesn’t have good mutation such that it gains a new attribute / structure which gives it advantage within its environment.
8. ATHEIST INVOKES HUGE TIMESCALES - & SORCERY, NO LESS!:
I SAY: Huge timescales don’t make the impossible more possible, at least from what l can tell. This is a Stastical Fallacy (e.g. a subgroup, e.g. a cousin to the Gambler’s Fallacy) - even over an infinite timescale, something may never occur. This is true for a coin landing on heads, but more blatantly true for evolution, which is inconceivable from the outset. At least a coin has been KNOWN to land on heads and at least the heads side has actually been SEEN.
Also, this is a Circular Argument logical fallacy. You say evolution is true. I will not see the proof now, but later. In fact l don’t need to wait, because every living thing around me has been produced by it. I don’t see it directly but it can be inferred to have occurred over time.
And in all that, you never proved “it” (Evolution). You took it for granted. You made it something when it is nothing. In Islam, we class Sophistry / “mere eloquence” as a branch of Sorcery. It is casting a glamour on someone so they accept a thing, but there is no thing. I think this is the root of why usury is banned in Islam - it is money out of nowhere. No creation of value, no addition to the economy.
9. ATHEIST GIVES BACK-RUB OF DEATH, LULLING ME TO ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS IT DOESN’T UNDERMINE THE TRUTH OF MY RELIGION (this is a variation of “Hey, let’s just say we’re ALL right”):
I SAY: It could be seen to displace Allah as creator.
My main gripe though, is that it’s a lie. In Islam, one definition of a lie is to merely repeat what one hears. Quote: “Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “It is enough for a man to prove himself a liar when he goes on narrating whatever he hears.” [listed in Sahih Muslim]”
And so, to promulgate evolution without sound scientific basis, e.g. hard experimental data, is a lie. In other words, the Unscientific is the Lie.
What you are proposing is Unscientific, and not just that, it is a Lie, even if it is true, it is a Lie because you’ve given no evidence.
10. ATHEIST ASKS ME TO PROVE CREATION IN THE LABORATORY:
I SAY:
(i) As stated from the beginning, it is not possible to prove God (and for that matter, to prove Atheism), because the entire cosmos exists within God and God is infinite while the cosmos is finite and contingent upon him. God can prove himself though, but his hand cannot be forced in the laboratory or anywhere else.
(ii) Moreover, as already stated: to prove Creation would be to prove Creator, which would be to prove God, which would to make Belief meritless, which would be to undermine the very purpose of this life.
(iii) I am not making the claim of evolution. The person bringing the extraordinary claim, the amazing claim, the claim that isn’t directly visible, needs to bring evidence of it. And when the claimant brings the evidence, the claimant should also deal with objections, integrating them into their narrative.
(iv) If it is said that lesbian sea monsters exist, does the inability to demonstrate in the laboratory that they do NOT exist, mean that they do?
(v) Anything that has a lack of evolution (e.g. a glass of water) could be evidence for evolution not occurring
(vi) There is a lot of evidence for Creation - the cosmos is full of wonders. There are many miracles associated with our Prophet Muhammad (the blessings of Allah be upon him, and peace), and the Qur’an, and Makkah. I have mentioned some already:
However, there is also our existence itself, which is a far greater miracle, especially our consciousness. Body, spirit and soul cannot be explained by evolution. Also, whenever l rebut an article as saying evolution has occurred via a laboratory experiment, when it in fact has not occurrred, that is a scientific article hinting at Creation.
(vii) The Atheist will not explain what science experiment will be acceptable to him, as demonstrating Creation. Moreover it’s rare for the Atheist’s skepticism to be quenchable and if divine evidence were given it would be the end for a person if they disbelieve - this was in the Qur’an before modern laboratories existed so it’s not a way to wriggle out of putting God in a lab experiment:
Qur’an 6:111 “And though We should send down the angels unto them, and the dead should speak unto them, and We should gather against them all things in array, they would not believe unless Allah so willed. …”
Qur’an 15:7 “Why bringest thou not angels unto us, if thou art of the truthful ?” / Qur’an 15:8 “We send not down the angels save with the Fact, and in that case (the disbelievers) would not be tolerated.”
Qur’an 41:14 “… they said: If our Lord had willed, He surely would have sent down angels (unto us), so lo! we are disbelievers in that wherewith ye have been sent.”
Qur’an 43:53 “Why, then, have armlets of gold not been set upon him, or angels sent along with him ?”
And so forth …
(viii) There’s not even funding for Religion in the laboratory, who would fund it? It’s not conducive to business, and laboratories are essentially businesses. Those funding an institution do not pay anybody to stand around discussing religion (or Atheism for that matter).
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
Poor thing
Peace!