Evolution Debate on BBC Big Questions

evolution_manSo, here is the blog post I promised on evolution. Last week, I was invited to a recording of the BBC’s Big Questions programme. The topic of discussion was ‘Is it time that all religions accepted evolution as fact’. It was a lively debate and was aired this morning on BBC1. You can still watch it here on i-player for the next seven days.

In addition to recording the Big Questions debate I also took part in an online debate with a Christian creationist for the BBC Religion & Ethics website. That debate can be read here.

I have previously written about how when I was younger I had misgivings about Darwin’s theory of evolution and was initially taken in by the pseudo-science in Harun Yahya’s popular books. It was only after I began reading books about evolution by actual scientists including Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Kenneth Miller, Steve Jones and many others that I realised how compelling the evidence for evolution (including human evolution) was and just how bogus and silly Harun Yahya’s arguments were.

So, I very much enjoyed my opportunity to make this clear on BBC’s Big Questions. It is a source of sadness to me that so many Muslims have a knee-jerk opposition to Darwin’s theory without taking the time to read books on the topic before making up their minds. This is all the more ironic from a religious community which holds the Qur’an in high esteem because the Qur’an’s very first verses emphasised the huge importance and centrality of reading, writing and learning.

The debate went pretty much as expected with a number of the religious creationists refusing to even contemplate the idea that Darwin was right because it went against their interpretation of Christian/Muslim scripture. At one point I specifically interjected to ask the creationists to consider that it might not be the science that was incorrect but it might be their interpretation of scripture that was incorrect. Science itself is a self-correcting mechanism and allows for scientists to correct the work of others through observation, experimentation and peer-review. It has been a hugely successful enterprise. Whereas, all the Muslim works I have read on evolution by Harun Yahya, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Zameelur Rahman, Shaikh Abdul Mabud and others have in my view been woeful in their understanding of science.

It is worth reflecting that Muslim civilisation reached its greatest creative height when Muslim scholars were willing to learn from others and encouraged study and innovative thought. Today’s Muslim societies cannot really hope to regain what they have lost unless they embrace science and research and learning. There is simply no greater engine for economic growth than science and innovations in technology.

One Muslim Imam (Abdullah Hasan) said on Big Questions that he would not accept Darwin’s theory because he was not aware of any Muslim scholar who accepted it. That is a very short-sighted outlook in my opinion. Darwin’s theory stands or falls on the evidence behind it. It does not require that any particular Muslim scholar accepts it in order to be true or not. The Imam displayed a fundamental ignorance of how science works.

The commonest objection to evolution I have encountered from Muslims is that it allegedly contradicts the Qur’anic account of the creation of Adam. So, it is worth noting here that very learned Muslim scholars such as Muhammad Abdul Haleem (Professor of Islamic Studies at SOAS and a translator of the Qur’an into English) and the late Muhammad Hamidullah (translator of the Qur’an into French) have said that the Qur’anic account of Adam’s creation uses figurative language and should be interpreted symbolically. That seems to me to be a very sensible approach.

I am grateful to Nicky Campbell and the BBC team for inviting me to their programme and giving me the opportunity to meet some of the scientists whose books I have very much enjoyed reading including Matt Ridley (Genome), Steve Jones (Almost Like A Whale) and Robert Asher (Evolution and Belief). Evolution and Belief is a superb book by the way. Asher is a paleontologist and a believing Christian who decimates creationist and Intelligent Design arguments in his book.

Anyway, do watch the BBC Big Questions here if you are interested in the evolution & religion debate. It is only available on i-player for seven more days.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Books, Islam, Science & Evolution and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Evolution Debate on BBC Big Questions

  1. “I have read on evolution by Harun Yahya, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Zameelur Rahman, Shaikh Abdul Mabud and others have in my view been woeful in their understanding of science.”

    Look, it is you who is woeful in your understanding of science. You are the one who said: “new species that appear in the fossil record always – without any exception – resemble immediately earlier species.”

    Whereas this contradicts what paleontologists have been saying since Darwin’s day. Consider the “Cambrian explosion” (530 mya), the “mammalian radiation” (60 mya) and “the angiosperm big bloom” (130 mya).

    Paleontologist David Raup said: “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” (Conflicts between Darwin and Paleongology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979):22-9)

    That this is the prevailing pattern of the fossil record (i.e. abrupt appearance and stasis) is also stated by R.L Carroll (“Limits of knowledge of the fossil record,” Zoology 100 (1997/8):221-31)

    How has Zameelur Rahman (me) been woeful in his understanding of science? You made an absolute statement that is factually wrong. What error did he make in the scientific analysis, here: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?99887-The-Theory-of-Biological-Evolution-and-Islam-by-Zameelur-Rahman&p=865216&viewfull=1#post865216 ? Why do you contest his premises or his conclusions? Where did he get it all wrong in the scientific discussion? Why is his view not a scientifically viable one? (For scientists who dissent see: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ )

    Answer these two questions:

    1) Do you admit you are woeful in your understanding of science because you made the ridiculous statement: “new species that appear in the fossil record always – without any exception – resemble immediately earlier species,” whereas even pro-Darwin scientists accept this totally incorrect?

    2) Where has Zameelur Rahman erred in his understanding of the science (as he has a long discussion on the science), if your comment above is true?

    Please do not dodge these questions by bringing in totally irrelevant issues.

    • 1. I have already replied to you and your Intelligent Design arguments at length in my earlier blog so I have no wish to go over the same ground again: https://inayatscorner.wordpress.com/2012/12/25/is-evolution-less-problematic-for-muslims-than-for-christians/

      2. Why do you insist on referring to Zameelur Rahman in the third person when you have already acknowledged that you and he are one and the same person in that same thread?!

      • As I suspected, you fail to answer simple questions. You made a false statement about the fossil record and refuse to accept it is a lie. A simple admission (“yes, I was wrong, there”) would have done.

        And you said I (Zameelur Rahman – and I said it was me in the post above too) showed a woeful ignorance of science, but you can’t show the scientific errors or misinterpretations in my scientific discussion.

        I think that shows you to be a dogmatic Darwinist and that you are not “willing to learn from others.” No wonder, Muslims are so backward!

  2. Nod says:

    How do you explain these Sahih hadith, in light of our understanding of the fossil record and human evolution? You might argue Adam was only 60 cubits tall in heaven, which is what I have heard other apologists say. However, “People have been decreasing in stature since Adam’s creation.” shows the verse implies on Earth as well. Where are the fossils that suggest this, as opposed to humans increasing in size?

    Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall. When He created him, He said to him, “Go and greet that group of angels, and listen to their reply, for it will be your greeting (salutation) and the greeting (salutations of your offspring.” So, Adam said (to the angels), As-Salamu Alaikum (i.e. Peace be upon you). The angels said, “As-salamu Alaika wa Rahmatu-l-lahi” (i.e. Peace and Allah’s Mercy be upon you). Thus the angels added to Adam’s salutation the expression, ‘Wa Rahmatu-l-lahi,’ Any person who will enter Paradise will resemble Adam (in appearance and figure). People have been decreasing in stature since Adam’s creation.

    Sahih Bukhari 4:55:543

    Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “Allah created Adam in his complete shape and form (directly), sixty cubits (about 30 meters) in height. When He created him, He said (to him), “Go and greet that group of angels sitting there, and listen what they will say in reply to you, for that will be your greeting and the greeting of your offspring.” Adam (went and) said, ‘As-Salamu alaikum (Peace be upon you).’ They replied, ‘AsSalamu-‘Alaika wa Rahmatullah (Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you) So they increased ‘Wa Rahmatullah’ The Prophet added ‘So whoever will enter Paradise, will be of the shape and form of Adam. Since then the creation of Adam’s (offspring) (i.e. stature of human beings is being diminished continuously) to the present time.”

    Sahih Bukhari 8:74:246

    • You are making the very same mistake that the Christian creationist made in my debate with him ie you are allowing your religious worldview to cloud your judgement about whether the science about evolution is accurate or not. Have a look at my response to him:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/20972171

      • Nod says:

        Thank you for replying.

        I am, in fact, an exmuslim, albeit a closeted one. I accept evolution, including human evolution. My contention is that these hadith are wrong. I wanted to know whether you accepted those hadith or not, and if you realised the implications for not doing so. Do you have authority to say that these Bukhari hadith are daeef? This isn’t a translational issue either.

        Imam Bukhari clearly didn’t think these hadith contradicted the Adam and Eve narrative in the Quran. It is funny how, only now, once evolution is more and more established as scientific fact, do we have individuals suddenly claiming the Quran and it’s Adam and Eve narration supports evolution. If you’re going to tell me about the “Muhammadan theory of evolution”, there is no evidence these early scientists derived their ideas about evolution from the Quran, more likely in spite of it.

        People can play textual ambiguities and logical gymnastics and pick and choose as much as they wish. Have you ever entertained the idea that Islam might be wrong?

        • Science and religion answer different questions. I touched on this in my debate with the Christian creationist in the link below so I will not go over the same ground again.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/20972171

          • Nod says:

            In certain aspects they do. However, when religion crosses the boundaries into the scientific realm of biology and physics, such as with this hadith, we can use our knowledge of these subjects to shoot it down.

            • Yes, I agree and I made that point in my debate with the Christian creationist:

              “Just as it is important for scientists to refrain from making unsupported atheistic claims about evolution, it is also surely important that religious people refrain from making unsupported claims about issues that are within the proper domain of science.”

              http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/20972171

              • Nod says:

                It wasn’t any old religious person, it was your Prophet Muhammad.

                • No – the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim collections of alleged sayings of the Prophet Muhammad were not collated until over two hundred years after he died. That leaves a lot of room for fabricated sayings etc. Only the Qur’an is regarded by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars to date from the actual time of the Prophet himself.

                  • 'Uthmān says:

                    The key word here is “collated” i.e. compiled into large and comrehensive collections, which is not the same as “invented out of thin air”.

                    There is, in fact, a very sophisticated science dedicated to scrutinising chains of narration and thereby classifying ahadeeth according to their levels of authenticity. Dr. Jonathan Brown, an academic in the field, describes the hadeeth tradition in Islam in this lecture as “one of the biggest accomplishments in human intellectual history”. It’s well known that Bukhari and his student, Muslim, employed very rigorous criteria in order to ascertain the authenticity of the ahadeeth that they ultimately placed in their collections.

                    Even if, for the sake of argument, one thought that the collection of Bukhari and Muslim came too late, there are earlier collections than that such as the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad (who was the founder of the Hanbali school of law). The earliest collection that we have which is still extant (although we know that even earlier ones existed) is that of Hammam ibn Munabbih, who was a student of the famous companion Abu Hurayrah. That’s pretty early on. Moreover, many of the ahadeeth from this collection match up pretty much word for word, with ahadeeth from Bukhari’s collection. That’s telling.

                    There also appears to be a shift within Western academia towards greater acceptance of the historicity of the hadeeh literature. See the work of Harald Motzki in this regard.

                    Simply dismissing the hadeeth literature as unreliable cannot be done that easily, I’m afraid.

              • IntelligentAnimation says:

                inayat, you make a great point when you warn against both theism and atheism bending science to their agenda. Many see one way or the other, but both atheist and theist extremists often try to subvert science to prove their religious views.

                Oddly, though, you promote Richard Dawkins’ books, which are essentially atheist apologist fiction. He is well known as an atheism advocate. I also see you linking to talkorigins. Please be aware that the site does not allow contrary opinions, and it is a very poor source of information. I would add that it is a matter of opinion whether or not Ken Miller “refuted” Behe. I would say Miller failed badly.

                I would advise you to seek more open-minded scientific sources from multiple viewpoints.

  3. Nazir Khan says:

    Your argument comes across as if you have made science your religion…. good luck with that!
    You keep mentioning Muhammad Abdul Haleem and Muhammad Hamidullah as if they are some great authorities in Islamic theology; which there not, most people never heard of them.

    Most muslims if shown evidence will accept evolution but the problem with you is you believe in human evolution i.e Adam (as) had a mother and father that was an Ape!!!

    I think you’ve lost the plot on this one mate from a muslim perspective… remember today’s science is yesterdays science.

    • No – my argument is that most Muslims have not read the evidence for evolution. And that is a shame given the premium the Qur’an places on reading and studying.

      Good luck with trying to debunk Darwin’s theory. Creationists have been trying for over 150 years and where has it got them?

      That is not to say that Darwin’s theory will not be improved upon. It is quite possible that an even more compelling theory will be found in future. That is the beauty of science.

  4. LibertyPhile says:

    I’m sure you won’t welcome praise from this quarter, but I enjoyed the BBC programme and your contribution to it.

    Unfortunately such programmes are not going to change the views of people like the “flat earthers” commenting here. It is going to take a long hard educational slog, unless there is an evolutionary equivalent of circumnavigating the globe!

    I think the ages of the earth and the cosmos are key aspects.

    It was also fascinating to hear you say “our current interpretation of the scriptures is wrong”. I wonder where that will lead!

    • Abu Sufyaan says:

      The term “flat earthers” is really not appropirate, precisely becuase there is no evolutionary equivalent of circumnavigatin the globe – and I cant imagine how you could get the equivalant – unless you invent a time machine and go back and see the process of man’s alledged evolution.

      I, as a muslim , can accept evolution on macro and mirco level, but I cannot accept the creation of man through this process, becuase the quran clearly state otherwise. And science cannot disprove that Adam was created by God directly.

      • LibertyPhile says:

        I’m sorry to be so late in replying to your thoughtful comment. I think there may be an “ evolutionary equivalent of circumnavigating the globe”. And it might involve a “time machine” or a better way of capturing and interpreting incoming radiation.

        It is likely that the number of planets in the cosmos that support life is enormous. Out there, somewhere, may be the common ancestor of man and chimpanzees walking the surface of his earth, and, heaven forbid, the creature that mankind will become (if he doesn’t destroy himself) in 500,000 years time.

        “ I cannot accept the creation of man through this process, becuase the quran clearly state otherwise” .

        How do you account for Neanderthals (assuming you agree they existed)?

        • IntelligentAnimation says:

          I believe the comment by Aby Sufyaan was not intended as a scientific statement, but as a religious view. He specifically cited the Quran. I do often wonder how creationists account for the early hominids, so good point there.

          I do not think we know enough about life’s origins at this point to make any reliable claims about the likelihood of life on other planets. I think science should be 50/50 on the subject because there is no evidence of it, and it only happened here on earth once (as far as we know). Even if life was discovered elsewhere, I don’t think it would be evidence of the evolution of man, but I believe we already have adequate evidence of that anyway.

      • nadeem says:

        AA Dear Abu Sufyaan,
        Could you kindly advise how you have come to accept evolution on macro and micro level, but cannot accept the creation of man through this process?

        I am asking this because I am not yet convinced that there is evidence for evolution of species from a common ancestor at all.

        Also, it seems odd to me to say that living organisms very similar in design and functions to human beings could emerge by process of evolution but humans could not.

        So, I think we need to examine the claims of evolutionists in light of science and engineering and determine if there is evidence for this hypothesis.

        I am a design engineer by profession. I had not given any importance to this debate because most evolutionists are atheists and they use scientific language etc. as a front to attack religion in general and Christianity in particular.

        But now they are attacking Islam. So I have started to examine their arguments and evidence. Also, many Muslims, like yourself, have started to say that they accept evolution of living organisms except Man. Sh. Yasir Qadhi also stated something similar in his presentation in Deen Institute’s recent debate on this subject.

        I also attended this debate. Later on I examined one of the evidences (hook like features on male water striders) that Dr. Ehab Abuhaif (a Muslim evolutionist) presented. I examined the original article and applied my own engineering reasoning (I have been a design engineer by profession for over 10 years). And frankly speaking, from an engineering point of view, these insects and their hook like features could not have been produced by random, coincidental events. These features alone require extremely deep and sophisticated multi-disciplined knowledge and design and manufacturing technology that we humans do not even know yet.

        My point is that, it is far too early to say that there is evidence for decent of species from a common ancestor. The evidence points to creation.

        I wrote to Innayat a few weeks ago on this blog and mentioned that we observe in nature that everything moves from an organised state to a disorganised state unless there is an external input. I gave the example of throwing bricks from a moving car. But he gave me some scientists argument about earth not being a closed system etc. etc. I did not respond to his comments thinking how can you reason with someone who cannot see plain and simple reality occurring in front of him.

        But, I would like you to think about it and explain how complex structures and living processes could come to exist without the involvement of an external input by an All-Knowing Master Designer and Creator.

        WS.
        Nadeem

  5. azhar says:

    Isn’t it a wonder how scientists in muslim countries such as professor Hoodbhoy have no qualification in Islamic theology comment on the wrongs and rights of Islamic practice and take the liberal ‘we are enlightened and you brown people are not’ approach. At, the same time you have muslim scholars who are prolific writers and have studied the intricacies of the Quran and Hadith but have only concentrated their efforts on Islamic studies yet try to comment on scientific principles which they are unqualified to speak on.

    Isn’t it then a wonder as to why scientific discoveries and progress is dismal in the muslim world (of course poverty and literacy is involved). You can probably count the number of citations on one hand.

    Consider this, Bangladesh allows its secondary school students to either have a secular education i.e. Maths, English, Science etc or a religious education i.e. Quran, Hadith (state approved), Farsi, Urdu and Arabic. Similarly, Syria allows its A+ students to study medicine only, Engineering for B+ students and the E students are sent to quranic school. This is not only propagated by the state itself but muslim families do so as well – the naughty child is sent to boarding madrassah.

    At the end of it, you have west leaning elite controlling the religious and the general population who have no practical skills to bring about an Islamic state.

    Islam was never like this and has only become like this in the last 150 years. Averroes, Ibn Sinna, Ibn taymiyyah, Maulana Rumi, and many others studied both the secular sciences and the Islamic sciences and furthermore, it was a self improving mechanism as they were continually rebutting the works of others, Once, we gain this type of educational framework, we would be able to rid ourselves of the Al Saud, Al Maktoums, Hashemites and the colonial subjugation that was made us unable to even speak of defending ourselves.

    Lastly on a little digression, doesn’t it make you mad that the BBC ‘the big questions’ can have a program questioning Islam and whether it encourages violence or not but can never look at how they went along with a war that has killed a million people? How they can talk about press freedom and cartoons yet they propagated American propaganda with the ‘in-bedded journalists’,which killed those millions of people. Where were these ‘enlightened liberals when Al Jazeera – the only non inbedded news agency covering the war – was bombed. Twice!

    • LibertyPhile says:

      “…. and the Islamic sciences”

      What on earth is that?

      “…. we would be able to rid ourselves of the Al Saud, Al Maktoums, Hashemites and the colonial subjugation that was made us unable to even speak of defending ourselves.”

      Oh dear , oh dear, oh dear, it’s sombody elses fault. Nothing to do with Islam!

  6. Dr Khalid Mahmood says:

    You may find late Dr Israr Ahmed’s views on this topic very interesting. A great scholar of Qur’an of modern times, he supports certain aspects of evolution and provides evidence from religious texts. You can watch him on YouTube , search ‘Dr Israr Ahmed on evolution, Big Bang and modern sciences’ where he holds a discussion with western academics in Lahore, Pakistan in 2004. watch part-2 if you do not have time for whole debate,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_S66sbPz3A&feature=relmfu

  7. G says:

    Thankyou Inayat. There is no long term future for an approach that rejects such overwhelming scientific arguments and evidence for the sake of literalism and tradition. Meanwhile it instils a fear of science, distrust of the intentions of and stigmatisation of scientists, and that does indeed hinder Muslims from benefiting from rising living standards and realising their talents and potential and fuller appreciation of nature. I fear though that while Christians suffer from young earth creationism, it is easy for most of them to take Genesis as metaphor, but harder for Muslims to interpret some of their verses non-literally as other verses seem to be premised on those verses being literal.

    I think what you are contributing most is helping break the taboo of openly questioning literal interpretations. Literalists thrive on taboos, and as it becomes more acceptable to break them, hopefully scholars who share your views can make and develop the theological argument.

  8. G says:

    I forgot to mention, when I say the ID approach instils a fear of science, I notice that rather than read about evolution in the books and websites of scientists who address creationist arguments, people will read what ID advocates *say* are the evolutionists’ arguments. They are afraid to approach the other side directly.

  9. Azhar says:

    “Oh dear , oh dear, oh dear, it’s sombody elses fault. Nothing to do with Islam!” Yes it’s always Islam’s fault, everything in the world. Please, enlighten us and democratise us and teach us human rights, even if your enlightened society perpetuates untold violence to a million people. It would be worth it in the end! You will be well rewarded with lots of oil, gas and land.

    • LibertyPhile says:

      “Yes it’s always Islam’s fault, everything in the world”. That isn’t what I said.

      Where you are wrong is failing to see the role played by Islam (and the cultures that nurture it) and the societies it creates when going on about “…. Al Saud, Al Maktoums, Hashemites and the colonial subjugation”.

  10. Azhar says:

    Islamic Science – The study of the Quaran and Hadith in particular. Relating to its historical, philosophical, jurisprudence and economic implications. Medieval Islamic scholars also considered mathematics, astronomy etc as an Islamic science. Also, the linguistic studies of the Quran and authenticity of Hadiths and the manner in which they were compiled – this is as far as i understand the term ‘Islamic Sciences’.

    • LibertyPhile says:

      The study of the Quaran, Hadith etc. is history, literature and philosophy. I think you really don’t understand science and the scientific method.

      And regarding Medieval Islamic scholars, mathematics and astronomy, are there today Islamic versions of Einstein’s mathematical calculations and theories?

      • azhar says:

        The point is Islam is regarded as a science among the scholarly elite, these days most scholars only specialise in Islam. That is what the ruling family’s of muslim countries want. Saudi Arabia is explicit in how it views science and that is it’s usefulness – they don’t understand that science has no bounds. Some scholars say that Muhammad (pbuh) meant this when he said he’s famous saying about seeking knowledge even if it be from China. China being the most developed and furthest civilization that the Arabs new of.

        Also, as someone who is studying economics, i have a great appreciation for the scientific method and was proud that it Ibn Haitham (C.965) was arguably one on the first to develop the scientific method across three Islamic states and is also regarded as the first theoretical physicist. Also, the manner in which hadiths were collected, analysed and interpreted is regarded by many as a precursor to Ibn Haitham’s scientific method. See the last two paragraphs of this article http://english.islammessage.com/articledetails.aspx?articleId=969.

        The Islam v Evolution debate will only definitively put to rest when Islamic Scientists study it, not on entertainment shows, not between me and you or Brother Bungawala or the Imam of Islam channel. Hopefully then we will have a muslim Einstein as religious as Ibn Haitham.

        • LibertyPhile says:

          You and many Muslims use the word science to mean the study of any subject in an organised and systematic way. Indeed, I use it like that sometimes, but it is not the formal or dictionary meaning of the word. True science involves observation, experimentation and establishing facts beyond doubt. The earth is not flat. Atoms release energy when split. The speed of light is 186,000 mps.

          A researcher can think up all manner of criteria to decide if a hadith is true or false but the process is entirely based on human judgements and preferences. On the other hand if someone came up with a (scientifically) dated inscription saying ”this is what Muhammad told me yesterday… “ you might be getting somewhere, unless of course, the inscription was a lie.

          And, BTW, it is not for nothing, that economics is called a pseudo-science (and I don’t mean that unkindly).

          “The Islam v Evolution debate will only definitively put to rest when Islamic Scientists study it …”. ID/creationism will fade away when most Muslims realise that the Qur’an is a man-made collection of religious beliefs found or promoted in seventh century Palestine and Arabia.

          • azhar says:

            “And, BTW, it is not for nothing, that economics is called a pseudo-science (and I don’t mean that unkindly)”

            Who claimed Economics is a pseudoscience?

            And i do think you mean it unkindly.

            Also, i have a very good understanding of the meaning of true science. You were the one that picked on it.

            Isn’t the fact there is a debate a good thing?

            Lose the enlightened, western-centric arrogance, its what some ID & creationists come across as (obviously from the opposite spectrum of the argument) . You might actually learn a bit about Islam and realise how much its benefited western culture and society. Also, you might like it.

            You don’t seem like many who have very obvious biases and come to antagonise rather then contribute.

            • azhar says:

              I take that back, i just clicked on to your blog via your screen name. You are obviously biased. It’s not even original.

              Good luck with the scaremongering, misinformation and islamaphobia. Also, Robert Spencer and his ilk are pseudo scholars, then again what else is to expected from lame sites such as yours.

            • LibertyPhile says:

              I’m sorry you took offence at my pseudo science remark. Google “economics pseudo science”.

              No, I don’t think debate is worthwhile. The theory of evolution hasn’t explained everything yet. There are gaps in our knowledge and some scientists are not completely happy with some of the theory’s explanations. The ID/Creationists say the gaps and uncertainties are explained by the existence of God, the intelligent designer behind creation (that is the essence of what they claim).

              The debate is really about the existence of God and, by definition, there is no way that anyone is going to prove or disprove his/her/its existence.

              Muslim ID/Creationists are also especially driven by the need to confirm their holy scriptures which are seen by most of mankind as man-made, contradictory and out-of-date.

              References to past achievements of Islamic civilisation mean very little. It is not a surprise or a particularly notable thing that men who happened to be Muslim, living in the economically rich part of the world in the early and middle ages, did useful things which advanced science.

              Of far more importance is the fact today 99% of Muslims in the world are:

              “… the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race…” (– Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf)

              • azhar says:

                Your playing with semantics when calling Economics a pseudo science. Its a fair point but the fact is Economics is a social science. The term Islamic Science is clumsy, however it is fortunate for muslims to regard Islam as a science – so rationality, rigor and systematic methodology can be applied to interpret the quran and hadiths.

                It is very relevant for muslims to point out past Muslim/Jewish achievements within an Islamic state. It wasn’t due to economics that the Islamic state spurned such achievements, rather Islam nurtured these scientist’s mindsets to produce such achievements.

                The fact is scientific achievements in the Islamic era is uncomfortable for liberal secularists and people critical of Islamist politics.

                Mr Musharraf and the general secular elite say these things as it provides justification for their corruption and dictatorships. I’m sure you could dig a quote up from Hosni Mubarrak.

                China is regaining its super power status after only a short gap. One day too, the Islamic countries will return to their former status. Although 99% (which is exaggerated) are all those things you quoted, Muslims had a far worse time in the Crusades and the Mongol invasions. The only way the west can top them is when they drop nukes again. But still, there will remain a few adhering to Islamic principles.

                • LibertyPhile says:

                  “The term Islamic Science is clumsy … “

                  Well, I’m glad there is some degree of agreement between us.

                  “muslims … regard Islam as a science – so rationality, rigor and systematic methodology can be applied to interpret the quran and hadiths”

                  Yes, but, all of that is based on human judgments and preferences, which is the point I’m making. It would start to be scientific if, for example, Muslims recognised the geographical fact that Mecca could not have been the kind of environment that it is described as being in Islam’s holy texts.

  11. “and Robert Asher (Evolution and Belief). Evolution and Belief is a superb book by the way. Asher is a paleontologist and a believing Christian who decimates creationist and Intelligent Design arguments in his book.”

    Here are replies to the parts of Robert Asher’s book dealing with ID by an intelligent design proponent:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/citation_bluffs068241.html

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/robert_ashers_i068231.html

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/robert_ashers_e068221.html

  12. nadeem says:

    Salaams Dear Br. Innayat,
    Hope you are doing fine.
    I have been reading your exchanges on the subject of evolution on your blog and on BBC website. Though I have not seen the BBC big question programme religion and evolution yet.

    I attended the deen instute’s recent conference on evolution. It was an interesting debate. I attended this conference with the aim to understand how Muslim scientists and academics view and explain evolution.

    I am a design engineer by profession with over 10 years of design experience in various global automotive companies. So, I have some knowledge of how designers think and the tools and processes they must utilise in order to design and manufacture components and machines.

    I try to listen to people with an open mind and quantify everything that is said.

    Before I state my thoughts on the presentations of the evolutionists in the conference, I like to share a concept known as “entropy in the universe”. It is a real process and we experience it daily.

    The concept is that in a closed system, such as our universe, things will tend to move from an organised state to a disorganised state.

    This concept is usually illustrated by examples such as if you throw a pile of bricks from a moving truck, the chances of bricks scattering on the ground will be higher than the bricks landing on the ground in a pile. Or, if you leave a cube of ice in a glass of water, it will slowly dissolve away into water. And, in thermodynamics, we observe that heat tends to flow from a hotter object to a colder object or surroundings until it reaches a thermal equilibrium.

    So, we observe in this universe, that matter will tend to transform towards its elementary states,
    UNLESS THERE IS AN EXTERNAL INPUT.

    Professor Ehab Abuhaif’s presentations:
    Professor EA field of research is evolutionary biology in insects. So he showed examples of insects such as water striders and super spiders. He started with the clarification that it is a common misconception that evolution states that one species transitions into another species. According to Professor EA evolution is “Decent with modifications of organisms from a common ancestor”.

    I am only going to make some comments on the example of water striders to keep my email short.

    He explained that male water strider has antennas that have hook like features that fold over the eyes of the female WS to capture and grip it in position for mating. I also read the parent article on this topic in the discover magazine.

    Now, I examined the insects’ organs and movements involved during the mating struggle from an engineering perspective. After all every creature, including human beings, is a machine made from constituents of the earth and are subjected to and experience the forces in nature.

    Engineering Requirements to achieve this function:
    1. Male WS must have adjustable hooks to fit over varying sizes of eyes of female WS. This would require flexible joints and freely moving links. It will also require rigid components attached to softer materials. My assumption is that there are cussions on MWS hooks where they are in contact with the FWS.

    2.MWS’s movements need to be precise to lock hooks in correct locations otherwise there is risk of injuring FWS’s eyes. This requires precision control and very complex movements in all 3 directions

    3. Also, the movements are extremely swift and precise. Therefore they require tremendous accelerations and decelerations. And the controls system to produce and control such movements must need to be extremely rapid. Far superior than the technologies we have today.

    4. Female WS eyes must be able to withstand the forces and pressures applied by the male WS. Otherwise there is risk of damage or dislocations.

    5.The manufacturing processes required to produce the individual components, links and joints would also be infinitely complex and nothing like we have in the world today.

    6. And all this at a sub-microscopic level.

    7. To produce such devices, would have required knowledge of kinematics of forces involved, materials sciences, manufacturing requirements, sophisticated electronics and software to control all the motions and much much more.

    8. The structures will have to be extremely light but strong to withstand the shock loads resulting from the rapid accelerations and decelerations as well as impacts during their struggle.

    9. The joints will require, besides connecting sections of the antennas and to the bodies, the ability to allow movements in all 3 directions. These movements can only be generated using complex system of hydraulics etc. working together.

    This is just a very simplistic over view of the components and mechanisms required to produce the required movements and forces. And I have not even mentioned anything about lubrication, temperature controls, electronics and control software requirements.

    At work, I design components and assemblies for diesel engines. We have to perform various structural analysis using powerful computational programmes to analyse and optimise load bearing components and assemblies to ensure they can withstand loads and impacts. The engineering knowledge, tools and skill required are just too numerous to list here.

    Now, the movements produced by an engine are much simpler than those produced by the male WS to capture the female ws. And all the action taking place on a moving and flexible surface.

    Therefore, the information presented by this respected scientist is not enough to dismiss the possibility of Divine level design, engineering, manufacturing, planning and control in producing this remarkable insect.

    I am sorry, but the more deeply I examine the designs and engineering involved in these insects, the more I move away from the idea of evolution i.e. Decent of all organisms from a common ancestor by some abstract process functioning on its own without an external input.

    The idea of evolutionary process creating super complex and marvellous living machines also goes against the law of entropy that governs this universe.

    I am more inclined towards the idea that an All knowing and All Powerful Master Designer, Engineer, Artist, Manufacturer, Planner and Controller is behind the production and sustenance of every species

    Therefore, I think, with all due respect to evolutionary biologist scientists, it is far too early to start claiming that evolution is a fact of science. The actual scientific and engineering evidence points the other way.

    As for your comments and reference to Muslims in early and recent history believing in evolution and that the creation of Adam and Eve is just a symbolic story, I wish to state that the idea of evolution of animals from a common ancestors is no where to be found in the first three generations of Muslims, let alone the idea of humans decending from apes. This topic requires detailed analysis and discussion. I will come back to you in the next few days IA.

    WS.
    Your brother in Islam

    Nadeem
    (Luton)

  13. AA Nadeem,

    1. Your argument about entropy is a very common one and is constantly cited in creationist books. I regularly came across it in Harun Yahya’s books. They always fail to point out that our system on Earth is not a closed system because we continually receive energy from the Sun. Hence it is not a closed system. Here is an article from the excellent website Talk Origins which responds to the objections regarding entropy (and many others!):

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

    2. Your argument that you personally find it difficult to see how the intricate structures in insects and other creatures could possibly have evolved is more commonly known as the ‘argument from personal incredulity’ and these kinds of arguments are very often presented by the Intelligent Design movement.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

    The problem is that science continually advances and often fills in these gaps in knowledge. The ID flagship argument of the Bacterial Flagellum showing ‘irreducible complexity’ and hence the impossibility of it evolving has now been debunked by science. So the argument from personal incredulity is not an impressive one in my view.

    • If you expect anyone to take anything you say serious you *must* be able to back up your assertions. I will ask you to back up one point. Since it was Michael Behe who introduced the idea of irreducible complexity, and you say “The ID flagship argument” is “of the Bacterial Flagellum showing ‘irreducible complexity’ and hence the impossibility of it evolving,”

      Can you show where Michael Behe said in Darwin’s Black Box on any subsequent work that irreducibly complex systems are impossible to evolve?

      • Your trolling here on behalf of ID is becoming very tiresome so this will be your last post on this blog and this will be my last response to you.

        Here is the quote from Behe:

        “An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. …. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.”

        And to see Behe’s argument comprehensively dismantled see this superb article from Professor Ken Miller:

        http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

        Goodbye.

        • That is quite unfair. You will notice that most of my posts have not been about ID, and I only brought up ID when you attacked it. So it’s completely unfair to characterise my posts as trolling on behalf of ID. And by the way, accusing Behe of saying that evolving irreducible complex systems is impossible – I know it was not you that came up with it. The critics of ID who misrepresent it like Ken Miller say this. You just copied him. But I was trying to point out that it is unfair to use ID critics to understand ID.

          Behe does NOT say it is impossible to evolve an IC system. In fact Behe says it is indeed *possible* an IC system could have evolved by an indirect route, though not a direct one. He says in DBB:

          “Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows
          (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p. 40)

          You may choose not to show this, but both you and I know that the only reason you’re doing that is because you have no leg to stand on. That’s how bullies behave not sensible rational people.

          • You asked me to show you a quote from Behe where he makes grand claims about ‘irreducible complexity’. When I showed it to you, you now say that he was indeed allowing for it to evolve by an indirect route. So what on earth is all the nonsense about ‘irreducible complexity’ other than wind as Ken Miller and mainstream scientists have been arguing all along. Please go away.

    • IntelligentAnimation says:

      inayat, I have to agree with nadeem. Saying something is a “creationist argument” is not a rebuttal. Creationists say a lot of things, some right, some wrong. My responses:

      1. The presence of sunlight in no way excuses evolution from very well established and scientifically correct laws of entropy. There is some sort of starlight almost everywhere in the universe and this does not accomplish functional ordered arrangement. In fact the primary focus of the laws of thermodynamics is energy sources, such as the sun. Random energy from the sun should also reduce to elementary states, equilized temperatures (colder), randomness leading to uniform disorder and basically the opposite of everything we see in evolution. Sunlight does not make evolution an open system, but we know it is an open system because we do have evidence of the reversal of entropy.

      2. His argument is not one of “personal incredulity” but the learned assessment of a mathematical professional. The argument against random chaos causing functional order, purposeful movements and even thought itself is one that is well supported by clear mathematics. It is not just that Darwinism seems too incredible to be true, but that mathematics have proven conclusively that it isn’t true. Engineers, mathematicians and physicists are among the harshest critics of random chance creation, because they know what they are talking about while Darwinist Biologists have no mathematical skills.

      3. Be careful what you assume fills “gaps”. Sometimes science gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong. Many times further advancements only repudiate the claims of dogmatic science and lead to more mind boggling mysteries. When some use the term “gaps” to try to offset arguments against their beliefs, it is meant to infer that they have almost everything answered, with just a few loose ends to tidy up, an inference that should be strongly questioned.

      In materialistic biology, it would be more accurate to say they have one enormous continuous void, not just a handful of gaps.

    • nadeem says:

      WS Inayat,

      I am very disapponted by your reply.

  14. Junaid says:

    As-salam-ualaikum brother Inayat,

    I would like to express concerns over your appearance on the BBC Big Questions show. I seek not to belittle you but I fear that you are going astray and therefore I must say something from my limited knowledge (Allah knows best). If you are God-fearing and righteous then my reminder will be of benefit to you. I only ask that before you consider what I say that you adopt a neutral stance and that you leave all your views regarding the theory of evolution aside for a moment.

    Firstly, as Muslims we must be careful about how we view things. We can either view this world from the view of Islam i.e. what is established in the Qur’an, the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammed (S.A.W.) and other pious persons; or we can view everything from the viewpoint of ‘science’. My fear is that your own approach is based on the latter and it is taking you from the right path. I say this because you talk about the theory of evolution as fact and you describe it as ‘beautiful’. This is worrying to me because I think you have accepted the theory as fact and it is how you genuinely believe Allah created man. I also fear that now you have accepted this theory as fact you are trying to reconcile evolution with Islam by searching for any alternative translation of the Qur’an which would seem to fit with Darwinist views.

    This is a whole topic in itself but I wish you remind you of a few small points regarding translation of the Qur’an. Firstly, we must avoid falling into the trap of modern communication/ media where it is now fashionable to have debates on televisions, youtube, blogs for the purpose of insulting and slandering others in an attempt to appear more intelligent. Furthermore, this new type of culture of ignorance has bred a new problem: the lay-man interpreting the Qur’an. Yes, it is true that some parts of the Qur’an are speaking in literal terms and others in metaphorical language; but how do we make these distinctions? It is even more difficult when we realise that Arabic is very concise and different to the English language since each word can carry several meanings. Despite this, we now see many attempts by individuals who think because they are skilled in other arts that translating the Qur’an will be easy. The result is spread of corruption and misguidance.

    It is also clear that some people who may be great academics in other fields are unable to comprehend the status of the experts in Islamic sciences (i.e. Mufasarin, Muhadithin, Fuqaha etc.). These individuals probably think that because they may be doctors, lawyers, scientists etc. that they must also be intelligent enough to translate the Qur’an and they cannot accept that the rightly guided persons who have a proper understanding of the Qur’an and sunnah of the Prophet (S.A.W.) may be the poorest and simplest of people. Such arrogant people look down on these people as old-fashioned yet they fail to understand in the sight of the Almighty Allah (S.W.T.) these people are the most successful. Another misconception is that people fail to understand that to understand the Qur’an we need to go back to the Qur’an itself and the interpretation offered by the Prophet (S.A.W.) and his companions and successors (R.A.). Instead, people seem to think that we need to look at the Qur’an through modern science and keep changing its interpretation to suit the time we live in. I recommend a great volume called Ma’ariful Qur’an by Mufti Muhammed Shafi which offers amazing commentary on the Qur’an. In the detailed introduction chapters there is great elaboration on many issues such as: the nature of revelation, preservation of the Qur’an, the science of Tafsir, the example of the Prophet (S.A.W.) and the Sahabah (R.A.) etc.

    Finally, there are another couple of points I would like to make. Firstly, I would kindly and humbly request that you ask yourself how did you come to your conclusions regards evolution? Did you consider and appreciate the sciences of Tafsir (interpretation) or did you gain this ‘knowledge’ from other sources? Secondly, I would ask you consider the path you are pursuing and if it is one that will earn the pleasure and reward of Allah (S.W.T.). I think you are embarking on a dangerous path because you are seeking knowledge that Allah (S.W.T.) does not command us to seek. How far will we go? We will never be able to go back to the moment when Allah (S.W.T.) created Adam (A.S.) and even if you were to ascertain how our physical being was created you would never be able to explain or comprehend our spiritual being. This is something that cannot be seen or measured. So why chase this path? It is also not knowledge that can benefit you. The significance is not in how Allah (S.W.T.) created man but rather we should focus on why he created us. We should aim to seek his pleasure and reward.

    I apologise if I have upset you in any way but I hope that you will consider what I said seriously and it will be helpful to you. May Allah (S.W.T.) help us in acquiring only knowledge which is beneficial and make us successful in the hereafter. Ameen.

    • AA Junaid,

      Thank you for your polite response and questions.

      Be assured that I have not become convinced of Darwin’s theory of evolution on a whim. I have been reading books on this topic for around fifteen years now. I have put a lot of effort into reading books by scientists on this topic and looking at a number of Muslim critiques of evolution. This reading convinced me that mainstream scientists are correct in saying that all living organisms share a common ancestor.

      To those who are unsure of this and are curious I always suggest that they read books on this topic by prominent scientists like Kenneth Miller or Stephen Jay Gould etc and then compare them with any book by Muslims or other critics of evolution and make up their own minds about which side has the more convincing arguments. Don’t let prejudice (religious or otherwise) stand in the way of ascertaining the truth.

      I am rather staggered by this quote from you:

      >>I think you are embarking on a dangerous path because you are seeking knowledge >>that Allah (S.W.T.) does not command us to seek.

      Why do you think seeking knowledge about life on earth is something that God would not want us to look into?

      ws,

      inayat

  15. azhar says:

    Brother Innayat – would you kindly elaborate your views on secularism as well. When you were with the MCB i used to look up to you and as childish as it may seem thought you were in “our corner”.

    Also, i really do not understand how you could come with the conclusion that Adam (as) is a metaphor when the hadiths paint a different picture. Saying the hadiths are unreliable doesn’t work as hadiths on Adam (as) being the first man has been mentioned many times in different hadiths and by different compilers. i dont think even western orientalists would say that the hadiths were using figurative language.

    • I have become increasingly disillusioned with the idea of an ‘Islamic state’ over the years. I just see too many extremists and fanatics who are willing to use force and intimidatory tactics to force their views on others in society. So, to safeguard the right to free thought, beliefs and freedom from discrimination etc I think a secular democratic state is the least worst of all options that are currently available.

      The issue of hadith is not a problem for me as I don’t really regard them as being authoritative if they contradict common sense and established science. If you do not want to regard the verses about Adam as being symbolic then that is fine. I prefer a less literal interpretation. Hope that is fine too.

      • azhar says:

        Either the texts which go against what you say is “common sense” are authoritative and genuine or there not. So if authoritative genuine texts are wrong then we must say Muhammad (SAW) was wrong.

        I don’t think you can just say because they go against common sense they must be fabricated, you must believe the person who said those things was wrong.

        • No: there is an alternative possibility which you have not considered. Many of the sayings attributed to the Porphet in the hadith literature may not be sayings of the Prophet at all but later inventions. Muslim scholars already accept that there were tens of thousands of fabricated sayings. Are you absolutely sure that Bukhari and Muslim managed to root out every single one that was false?

          • azhar says:

            They did a very good job of doing so. As i understand they traveled the Islamic empire collecting hadiths from multiple sources. If an authentic hadith is to be believed to be fabricated we must then deduce that the narrators where in a conspiracy. Hamza Tzortis explains it with asking unrelated people if China exists – presuming they haven’t visited China – they believe China exists because unrelated people have testified China exists. therefore China does exist.

            I believe over 250 thousand people saw and heard Muhammad (SAW) speak. I believe a good proportion of those 250 thousand narrated to their descendants what the prophet said about Adam (as). Thereafter, Bukhari et al collected their narrations; much of which was corroborated word for word or slight differences. Therefore, what Muhammad (SAW) said about Adam (as) is to be believed to be his words.

            Thus, as Muslims we should believe that Adam (as) existed and he had no ancestors. Modern science gives an alternative answer which too should be believed as it has empirical evidence backing it. Therefore, the only explanation that i can think of with my LIMITED knowledge is that the creation of Adam (as) was a miracle and through him came free will and our natural fitra.

            Your explanation of Adam (as) being a metaphor is weak and you can only explain it theologically. Will you be able to do that or simply say i don’t know?

            • azhar says:

              Also, regarding the Quran using figurative language; would the early muslims not have realised this and thought to themselves that fabricating hadiths which support a literal understanding was wrong? What would be in it for them to fabricate it in the first place?

              Therefore, the story of Adam (as) must be both literal and figurative.

              • LibertyPhile says:

                I believe there are about 5000 “reliable” hadiths. Given Muhammad’s 22 years as a prophet that works out at 4.4 hadiths per week. I suspect most Muslims will say, yes, isn’t that wonderful.

                But to non-Muslims like me it stretches credibility. A hadith for nearly every day of his life for 22 years! Did he ever take time off! It just casts another big question mark over the origins of the hadiths.

            • If you really believe that both Bukhari and Muslim were able to collate alleged sayings of the Prophet over two hundred years after he died without making even a single error in their compilations then you have placed a huge amount of faith in very fallible human beings. I am not able to do that.

  16. azhar says:

    oh and i still believe you are in “our corner”

  17. Junaid says:

    Brother Inayat,

    I was preparing a response to you but I see now that there is no point. It’s sad because I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about you and I wanted to say so much more but I have now discovered the crux of the issue: you have no respect for the hadith of the Prophet Muhammed (S.A.W.) and I see now that you will always favour ‘science’ over the wealth of established Islamic teachings and knowledge preserved by the righteous believers. This is where we part ways since I realise that we are on different paths. If we cannot even agree on the status of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) then I will not continue any discussions with you. However, I implore you to reconsider your views. I will try to remember you in my du’as and I say with sincerity that I hope Allah guides you to the right path. Ameen.

    Junaid

  18. azhar says:

    Brother Inayat do you not see that the fanatics and extremists are a symptom of western exploitation and attacks against muslim countries? Fair enough we have our own extremists who have committed atrocities in the name of Islam straight after the death of Muhammad (SAW) but the Khilafa was righteous and safeguarded many of those freedoms which we have in a secular state.

    Separating Islam from the state has failed as has been demonstrated by the Arab spring and the general political climate in muslim countries. Muslims want Islam therefore we should work towards integrating Islam into the state. I believe this to be part of the Islamic creed and to work against it is kuffar. Or do you not believe this to be the case and favor the Quilliam view?

    “I was preparing a response to you but I see now that there is no point. It’s sad because I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about you and I wanted to say so much more but I have now discovered the crux of the issue”

    I don’t think its worthwhile for you to give up. Excommunication is not the answer.

    • I have very little confidence that a non-secular religious state established by anyone – Muslim, Christians etc – would be a just state that did not discriminate against others because of their beliefs, freedom of speech, sexual orientation etc. Remember, when I was younger I too believed in establishing an Islamic state and the rest of it. My experience of the real world changed my worldview.

  19. Robert says:

    Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in the August 29, 2005 edition of The Scientist: “I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

    Philip S. Skell. August 29, 2005. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? The Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 16, p. 10.

    Also:

    Evolutionist John Horgan wrote:

    The Origin of life is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion (1996, p. 138).

    Horgan, John (1996), The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Science in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. New York: Broadway Books.

    Also:

    Science journalist John Horgan, a former senior writer at Scientific American (1986-1997) and regular columnist for Scientific American online summed it up after an Origins Project conference at Arizona State University. Here is part of what he wrote in a Scientific American online blog on February 28, 2011:

    “[S]cientists don’t have a clue how life began.” “Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life.” “RNA, DNA’s helpmate, remains the most popular answer to this conundrum”. “But the ‘RNA-world’ hypothesis remains problematic. RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions. Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist.” “The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out — literally — speculation.”

    Evolution is not science. Its pseudoscience and a load of utter codswallop nonsense masquerading as science.

    I still havent even got to the outright lies, fabrications, distortions by evolutionists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s