The theory of evolution that is pursued in academia is different from the theory of evolution perceived among common men. What you and I have been taught in school was the representation of evolution to something of this sort right?
This is indeed how a common man perceives evolution. But this is not how biologists, palaeontologists and evolutionists think of evolution. Henry Gee, a British palaeontologist and an evolutionary biologist in his book The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution puts up the same picture and calls it totally false. In The Philosophy of Human Evolution, Michael Ruse yet again uses the same representation and holds the same opinion.
Now, this question is asked as a Muslim, and the primary concern here is how to reconcile the idea of evolution with the existence of a Creator. For that, let us go back to where it all started i.e. Darwin’s book The Origin of Species. I’ll quote here the last line of the book
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Darwin observed the small variation in the Finch bird’s beak. This variation only hinted at how life evolved. Darwin’s last statement makes it more clear that he explained how species adapt to changes and not how life began. In addition to this, the sixth chapter of his book ”Difficulties in theory” is where Darwin himself highlights the flaws in his theory, many of which remain unanswered.
So how did evolution gain so popularity? One popular opinion is that prior to Darwin when Galileo spoke against the church, he was poisoned. So this time, when someone came up with a theory that seemed to be going against the church beliefs, a significant portion of the science community united in support of the theory. Their support was not for any evident truth but to strengthen themselves against religion. In his book Religion Without Revelation, Julian Huxley said that he wanted evolution to be taught as a religion. Interestingly, Jullian Huxley went ahead to become the first president of The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Now let us talk about the central claim of Darwinian evolution that natural selection and random variation can account for a great deal of complexity. We have never been able to, in any way, theoretically examine this claim. To understand this, let us take the example of Physics.
When Newton claimed that planets are attracted by an inverse square force, he showed that if you make this assumption, the result would be an orbit that confirms exactly the observed orbit. And then Newton went ahead to prove the inverse i.e. if we take the observed orbit to begin our calculations, we eventually reach the conclusion that the planets are attracted by a force which is an inverse square.
There is nothing like that in evolution i.e. a demonstration of the mechanism that random variation, natural selection is adequate to the generation of any level of complexity. From the point of view of serious science, without this demonstration, one has no idea if the mechanism is adequate for its intended purposes or not.
Similarly, you can program a computer with the equations of general relativity or with the equations of quantum mechanics and you can actually see the consequences emerging in a simulation. But we can’t do any of this when it comes to evolution. In fact, no genetic algorithm ever generates any realistic results if it uses Darwinian evolution but instead, it does generate realistic results if it does not use the Darwinian mechanism.
Lastly, there is an utter absence of laboratory evidence for natural selection. Species do not change in their fundamental nature no matter how far back we go. A dog remains a dog. A bug remains a bug. The Darwinian theory gives no good explanation for this inherent species limitation. What has been observed in the laboratory is highly bounded and in fact cyclic variations like that of a Finch bird’s beak.
Physicists and Mathematicians do not even consider real science, the extrapolation of this variation into the evolution of life. John E. Bernard, a highly influential mathematician of the 20th century laughed at the idea of evolution. Fossil records are often put up as evidence to prove evolution. David Berlinski, a mathematician as well as a biologist when looked upon this pictorial representation of fossils, his first question was “So when were these arrows discovered?”
These are only a handful of many important questions that either the evolutionists fail to understand or fail to answer. To sum up, the observable small variations that exist in nature does not prove anything more. The layers of theories and beliefs that were added upon serve as a mere tool for the atheists to counter religion. Evolution is no more science now, it has become a matter of faith. A faith that makes you an “intellectually” fulfilled atheists.
Comments
Post a Comment