Islam and Evolution
a letter to Suleman Ali
©Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1996
In the name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate
14 July 1995
Dear Suleman 'Ali:
Thank you for your fax of 27 June 1995 which said, in part:
"Recently a pamphlet has been circulated around Oxford saying that evolution is synonymous with kufr and shirk. I myself am a biologist and am convinced by the evidence which supports the theory of evolution. I am writing to ask whether the Quranic account of Creation is incompatible with man having evolved. Are there any books which you would recommend on the subject?"
During my "logic of scientific explanation" period at the University of Chicago, I used to think that scientific theories had to have coherence, logicality, applicability, and adequacy, and I was accustomed to examine theory statements by looking at these things in turn. Perhaps they furnish a reasonable point of departure to give your question an answer which, if cursory and somewhat personal, may yet shed some light on the issues you are asking about.
Coherence
It seems to me that the very absoluteness of the theory's conclusions tends to compromise its "objective" character. It is all very well to speak of the "evidence of evolution," but if the theory is thorough- going, then human consciousness itself is also governed by evolution. This means that the categories that allow observation statements to arise as "facts", categories such as number, space, time, event, measurement, logic, causality, and so forth are mere physiological accidents of random mutation and natural selection in a particular species, Homo sapiens. They have not come from any scientific considerations, but rather have arbitrarily arisen in man by blind and fortuitous evolution for the purpose of preserving the species. They need not reflect external reality, "the way nature is", objectively, but only to the degree useful in preserving the species. That is, nothing guarantees the primacy, the objectivity, of these categories over others that would have presumably have arisen had our consciousness evolved along different lines, such as those of more distant, say, aquatic or subterranean species. The cognitive basis of every statement within the theory thus proceeds from the unreflective, unexamined historical forces that produced "consciousness" in one species, a cognitive basis that the theory nevertheless generalizes to the whole universe of theory statements (the explanation of the origin of species) without explaining what permits this generalization. The pretences of the theory to correspond to an objective order of reality, applicable in an absolute sense to all species, are simply not compatible with the consequences of a thoroughly evolutionary viewpoint, which entails that the human cognitive categories that underpin the theory are purely relative and species-specific. The absolutism of random mutation and natural selection as explanative principles ends in eating the theory. With all its statements simultaneously absolute and relative, objective and subjective, generalizable and ungeneralizable, scientific and species-specific, the theory runs up on a reef of methodological incoherence.
Logicality
Speaking for myself, I was convinced that the evolution of man was an unchallengeable "given" of modern knowledge until I read Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". The ninth chapter (The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Ed. J.W. Burrow. London: Penguin Books, 1979, 291-317) made it clear, from what Darwin modestly calls the "great imperfection of the geological record" that the theory was not in principle falsifiable, though the possibility that some kind of evidence or another should be able in principle to disprove a theory is a condition (if we can believe logicians like Karl Popper) for it to be considered scientific. By its nature, fossil evidence of intermediate forms that could prove or disprove the theory remained unfound and unfindable. When I read this, it was not clear to me how such an theory could be called "scientific".
If evolution is not scientific, then what is it? It seems to me that it is a human interpretation, an endeavor, an industry, a literature, based on what the American philosopher Charles Peirce called abductive reasoning, which functions in the following way:
(1) Suprising fact A.
(2) If theory B were the case, then A would naturally follow.
(3) Therefore B.
Here, (1) alone is certain, (2) is merely probable (as it explains the facts, though does not preclude other possible theories), while (3) has only the same probability as (2). If you want to see how ironclad the case for the evolution of man is, make a list of all the fossils discovered so far that "prove" the evolution of man from lower life forms, date them, and then ask yourself if abductive reasoning is not what urges it, and if it really precludes the possibility of quite a different (2) in place of the theory of evolution.
Applicability
Is the analogy from micro-evolution within a species (which is fairly well-attested to by breeding horses, pigeons, useful plant hybrids, and so on) applicable to macro-evolution, from one species to another? That is, is there a single example of one species actually evolving into another, with the intermediate forms represented in the fossil record?
In the 1970s, Peter Williamson of Harvard University, under the direction of Richard Leakey, examined 3,300 fossils from digs around Lake Turkana, Kenya, spanning several million years of the history of thirteen species of mollusks, that seemed to provide clear evidence of evolution from one species to another. He published his findings five years later in Nature magazine, and Newsweek picked up the story:
"Though their existence provides the basis for paleontology, fossils have always been something of an embarrassment to evolutionists. The problem is one of 'missing links': the fossil record is so littered with gaps that it takes a truly expert and imaginative eye to discern how one species could have evolved into another.... But now, for the first time, excavations at Kenya's Lake Turkana have provided clear fossil evidence of evolution from one species to another. The rock strata there contain a series of fossils that show every small step of an evolutionary journey that seems to have proceeded in fits and starts" (Sharon Begley and John Carey, "Evolution: Change at a Snail's Pace." Newsweek, 7 December 1981).
Without dwelling on the facticity of scientific hypotheses raised under logic above, or that 3,300 fossils of thirteen species only "cover" several million years if we already acknowledge that evolution is happening and are merely trying to see where the fossils fit in, or that we are back to Peirce's abductive reasoning here, although with a more probable minor premise because of the fuller geological record--that is, even if we grant that evolution is the "given" which the fossils prove, an interesting point about the fossils (for a theist) is that the change was much more rapid than the traditional Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection would warrant:
What the record indicated was that the animals stayed much the same for immensely long stretches of time. But twice, about 2 million years ago and and then again 700,000 years ago, the pool of life seemed to explode--set off, apparently, by a drop in the lake's water level. In an instant of geologic time, as the changing lake environment allowed new types of mollusks to win the race for survival, all of the species evolved into varieties sharply different from their ancestors. Such sudden evolution had been observed before. What made the Lake Turkana fossil record unique, says Williamson, is that "for the first time we see intermediate forms" between the old species and the new.
That intermediate forms appeared so quickly, with new species suddenly evolving in 5,000 to 50,000 years after millions of years of constancy, challenges the traditional theories of Darwin's disciples. Most scientists describe evolution as a gradual process, in which random genetic mutations slowly produce new species. But the fossils of Lake Turkana don't record any gradual change; rather, they seem to reflect eons of stasis interrupted by brief evolutionary "revolutions" (ibid.).
Of what significance is this to Muslims? In point of religion, if we put our scientific scruples aside for a moment and grant that evolution is applicable to something in the real world; namely, the mollusks of Lake Turkana, does this constitute unbelief (kufr) by the standards of Islam? I don't think so. Classic works of Islamic 'aqida or "tenets of faith" such as al-Matan al-Sanusiyya tell us, "As for what is possible in relation to Allah, it consists of His doing or not doing anything that is possible" (al-Sanusi, Hashiya al-Dasuqi 'ala Umm al-barahin. Cairo n.d. Reprint. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.d, 145-46). That is, the omnipotent power of Allah can do anything that is not impossible, meaning either:
(a) intrinsically impossible (mustahil dhati), such as--creating a five-sided triangle--which is a mere confusion of words, and not something in any sense possible, such that we could ask whether Allah could do it;
(b) or else impossible because of Allah having informed us that it shall not occur (mustahil 'aradi), whether He does so in the Qur'an, or through the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in a mutawatir hadith, meaning one that has reached us through so many means of transmission that it is impossible its transmitters could have all conspired to forge it. This category of the impossible is not impossible to begin with, but becomes so by the revelation from Allah, who is truthful and veracious. For example, it is impossible that Abu Lahab should be of the people of paradise, because the Qur'an tells us he is of the people of hell (Qur'an 111).
With respect to evolution, the knowledge claim that Allah has brought one sort of being out of another is not intrinsically impossible ((a) above) because it is not self-contradictory. And as to whether it is (b), "impossible because of Allah having informed us that it cannot occur", it would seem to me that we have two different cases, that of man, and that of the rest of creation.
Man
Regarding your question whether the Qur'anic account of creation is incompatible with man having evolved; if evolution entails, as Darwin believed, that "probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from one primordial form, into which life was first breathed" (The Origin of Species, 455), I apprehend that this is incompatible with the Qur'anic account of creation. Our first ancestor was the prophet Adam (upon whom be peace), who was created by Allah in janna, or "paradise" and not on earth, but also created in a particular way that He describes to us:
"And [mention] when your Lord said to the angels, 'Truly, I will create a man from clay. So when I have completed him, and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down prostrate to him.' And the angels prostrated, one and all. Save for Satan, who was too proud to, and disbelieved. He said to him, 'O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating to what I have created with My two hands? Are you arrogant, or too exalted?' He said,'I am better than he; You created me from fire and created him from clay'" (Qur'an 38:71-76).
Now, the God of Islam is transcendently above any suggestion of anthropomorphism, and Qur'anic exegetes like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi explain the above words created with My two hands as a figurative expression of Allah's special concern for this particular creation, the first human, since a sovereign of immense majesty does not undertake any work "with his two hands" unless it is of the greatest importance (Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi. 32 vols. Beirut 1401/1981. Reprint (32 vols. in 16). Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1405/1985, 26.231-32). I say "the first human," because the Arabic term bashar used in the verse "Truly, I will create a man from clay" means precisely a human being and has no other lexical significance.
The same interpretive considerations (of Allah's transcendance above the attributes of created things) apply to the words and breathed into him of My spirit. Because the Qur'an unequivocally establishes that Allah is Ahad or "One," not an entity divisible into parts, exegetes say this "spirit" was a created one, and that its attribution to Allah ("My spirit") is what is called in Arabic idafat al-tashrif "an attribution of honor," showing that the ruh or "spirit" within this first human being and his descendants was "a sacred, exalted, and noble substance" (ibid., 228)--not that there was a "part of Allah" such as could enter into Adam's body, which is unbelief. Similar attributions are not infrequent in Arabic, just as the Kaaba is called bayt Allah, or "the House of Allah," meaning "Allah's honored house," not that it is His address; or such as the she-camel sent to the people of Thamud, which was called naqat Allah, or "the she-camel of Allah," meaning "Allah's honored she-camel," signifying its inviolability in the shari'a of the time, not that He rode it; and so on.
All of which shows that, according to the Qur'an, human beings are intrinsically--by their celestial provenance in janna, by their specially created nature, and by the ruh or soul within them--at a quite different level in Allah's eyes than other terrestrial life, whether or not their bodies have certain physiological affinities with it, which are the prerogative of their Maker to create. Darwin says:
"I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide" (The Origin of Species, 454-55).
Indeed it may. It is the nature of the place in which Allah has created us, this world (dunya), that the possibility exists to deny the existence of Allah, His angels, His Books, His messengers, the Last Day, and destiny, its good and evil. If these things were not hidden by a veil, there would be no point in Allah's making us responsible for believing them. Belief would be involuntary, like the belief, say, that France is in Europe.
But what He has made us responsible for is precisely belief in the unseen. Why? In order that the divine names--such as al-Rafi' or "He Who Raises," al-Khafidh "He Who Abases," al-Mu'ti "He Who Gives," al-Mani' "He Who Withholds," al-Rahim "the Merciful," al-Muntaqim "the Avenger," al-Latif "the Subtlely Kind," and so on--may be manifest.
How are they manifest? Only through the levels of human felicity and perdition, of salvation and damnation, by the disparity of human spiritual attainment in all its degrees: from the profound certitude of the prophets (upon whom be peace), to the faith of the ordinary believer, to the doubts of the waverer or hypocrite, to the denials of the damned. Also, the veil for its part has a seamless quality. To some, it is a seamless veil of light manifesting the Divine through the perfection of creation; while to others, it is a seamless veil of darkness, a perfect nexus of interpenetrating causal relations in which there is no place for anything that is not material. Allah says,
"Exalted in Grace is He in whose hand is dominion, and He has power over everything. Who created death and life to try you, as to which of you is better in works, and He is the All-powerful, the Oft-forgiving. And who created the seven heavens in layers; you see no disparity in the creation of the All-merciful. Return your glance: do you see any fissures?" (Qur'an 67:1-3).
The last time I checked, the university scene was an atheistic subculture, of professors and students actively or passively convinced that God was created by man. In bastions of liberalism like the University of California at Berkeley, for example, which still forbids the establishment of a Religions Department, only this attitude will do; anything else is immature, is primitivism. The reduction of human behavior to evolutionary biology is a major journalistic missionary outreach of this movement. I am pleased with this, in as much as Allah has created it to try us, to distinguish the good from the bad, the bad from the worse. But I don't see why Muslims should accept it as an explanation of the origin of man, especially when it contradicts what we know from the Creator of Man.
Other Species
As for other cases, change from one sort of thing to another does not seem to contradict revelation, for Allah says,
"O people: Fear your Lord, who created you from one soul [Adam, upon whom be peace] and created from it its mate [his wife Hawa], and spread forth from them many men and women" (Qur'an 4:1),
and also says, concerning the metamorphosis of a disobedient group of Bani Isra'il into apes,
"When they were too arrogant to [desist from] what they had been forbidden, We said to them, 'Be you apes, humiliated'" (Qur'an 7:166).
and in a hadith, "There shall be groups of people from my community who shall consider fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful: groups shall camp beside a high mountain, whom a shepherd returning to in the evening with one of their herds shall approach for something he needs, and they shall tell him, 'Come back tomorrow.' Allah shall destroy them in the night, bringing down the mountain upon them, and transforming others into apes and swine until the Day of Judgement." (Sahih al-Bukhari. 9 vols. Cairo 1313/1895. Reprint (9 vols. in 3). Beirut: Dar al-Jil, n.d., 7.138: 5590). Most Islamic scholars have understood these transformations literally, which shows that Allah's changing one thing into another (again, in other than the origin of man) has not been traditionally considered to be contrary to the teachings of Islam. Indeed, the daily miracle of nutrition, the sustenance Allah provides for His creatures, in which one creature is transformed into another by being eaten, may be seen in the food chains that make up the economy of our natural world, as well as our own plates.
If, as in the theory of evolution, we conjoin with this possibility the factors of causality, gradualism, mutation, and adaptation, it does not seem to me to add anything radically different to these other forms of change. For Islamic tenets of faith do not deny causal relations as such, but rather that causes have effects in and of themselves, for to believe this is to ascribe a co-sharer to Allah in His actions. Whoever believes in this latter causality (as virtually all evolutionists do) is an unbeliever (kafir) without any doubt, as "whoever denies the existence of ordinary causes has made the Wisdom of Allah Most High inoperative, while whoever attributes effects to them has associated co-sharers (shirk) to Allah Most High" (al-Hashimi: Miftah al-janna fi sharh 'aqida Ahl al-Sunna. Damascus: Matba'a al-taraqi, 1379/1960, 33). As for Muslims, they believe that Allah alone creates causes, Allah alone creates effects, and Allah alone conjoins the two. In the words of the Qur'an, "Allah is the Creator of everything" (Qur'an 13:16).
A Muslim should pay careful attention to this point, and distance himself from believing either that causes (a) bring about effects in and of themselves; or (b) bring about effects in and of themselves through a capacity Allah has placed in them. Both of these negate the oneness and soleness (wahdaniyya) of Allah, which entails that Allah has no co-sharer in:
(1) His entity (dhat);
(2) His attributes (sifat);
(3) or in His acts (af'al), which include the creation of the universe and everything in it, including all its cause and effect relationships.
This third point is negated by both (a) and (b) above, and perhaps this is what your pamphleteer at Oxford had in mind when he spoke about the shirk (ascribing a co-sharer to Allah) of evolution.
In this connection, evolution as a knowledge claim about a causal relation does not seem to me intrinsically different from other similar knowledge claims, such as the statement "The president died from an assassin's bullet." Here, though in reality Allah alone gives life or makes to die, we find a dispensation in Sacred Law to speak in this way, provided that we know and believe that Allah alone brought about this effect. As for someone who literally believes that the bullet gave the president death, such a person is a kafir. In reality he knows no more about the world than a man taking a bath who, when the water is cut off from the municipality, gets angry at the tap.
To summarize the answer to your question thus far, belief in macro-evolutionary transformation and variation of non-human species does not seem to me to entail kufr (unbelief) or shirk (ascribing co-sharers to Allah) unless one also believes that such transformation came about by random mutation and natural selection, understanding these adjectives as meaning causal independence from the will of Allah. You have to look in your heart and ask yourself what you believe. From the point of view of tawhid, Islamic theism, nothing happens "at random," there is no "autonomous nature," and anyone who believes in either of these is necessarily beyond the pale of Islam.
Unfortunately, this seems to be exactly what most evolutionists think. In America and England, they are the ones who write the textbooks, which raises weighty moral questions about sending Muslim students to schools to be taught these atheistic premises as if they were "givens of modern science." Teaching unbelief (kufr) to Muslims as though it were a fact is unquestionably unlawful. Is this unlawfulness mitigated (made legally permissible by shari'a standards) by the need (darura) of upcoming generations of Muslims for scientific education? If so, the absence of textbooks and teachers in most schools who are conversant and concerned enough with the difficulties of the theory of evolution to accurately present its hypothetical character, places a moral obligation upon all Muslim parents. They are obliged to monitor their children's Islamic beliefs and to explain to them (by means of themselves, or someone else who can) the divine revelation of Islam, together with the difficulties of the theory of evolution that will enable the children to make sense of it from an Islamic perspective and understand which aspects of the theory are rejected by Islamic theism (tawhid) and which are acceptable. The question of the theory's adequacy, meaning its generalizability to all species, will necessarily be one of the important aspects of this explanation.
Adequacy
Of all the premises of evolution, the two that we have characterized above as unbelief (kufr); namely, random mutation and natural selection, interpreted in a materialistic sense, are what most strongly urge its generalization to man. Why must we accept that man came from a common ancestor with animal primates, particularly since a fossil record of intermediate forms is not there? The answer of our age seems to be: "Where else should he have come from?"
It is only if we accept the premise that there is no God that this answer acquires any cogency. The Qur'an answers this premise in detail and with authority. But evolutionary theory is not only ungeneralizable because of Allah informing us of His own existence and man's special creation, but because of what we discern in ourselves of the uniqueness of man, as the Qur'an says,
"We shall show them Our signs on the horizons and in themselves, until it is plain to them that it is the Truth" (Qur'an 41:53).
Among the greatest of these signs in man's self is his birthright as Khalifat al-Rahman, "the successor of the All-merciful." If it be wondered what this successorship consists in, the ulama of tasawwuf, the scholars of Islamic spirituality, have traditionally answered that it is to be looked for in the ma'rifa bi Llah or "knowledge of Allah" that is the prerogative of no other being in creation besides the believer, and which is attained through following the path of inward purification, of strengthening the heart's attachment to Allah through acts of obedience specified by Sacred Law, particularly that of dhikr.
The locus of this attachment and this knowledge is not the mind, but rather the subtle faculty within one that is sometimes called the heart, sometimes the ruh or spirit. Allah's special creation of this faculty has been mentioned above in connection with the Qur'anic words and breathed into him of My spirit. According to masters of the spiritual path, this subtle body is knowledgeable, aware, and cognizant, and when fully awakened, capable of transcending the opacity of the created universe to know Allah. The Qur'an says about it, by way of exalting its true nature through its very unfathomability:
"Say: The spirit is of the matter of my Lord" (Qur'an 17:85).
How does it know Allah? I once asked this question of one of the ulama of tasawwuf in Damascus, and recorded his answer in an unpublished manuscript. He told me:
"Beholding the Divine (mushahada) is of two sorts, that of the eye and that of the heart. In this world, the beholding of the heart is had by many of the 'arifin (knowers of Allah), and consists of looking at contingent things, created beings, that they do not exist through themselves, but rather exist through Allah, and when the greatness of Allah occurs to one, contingent things dwindle to nothing in one's view, and are erased from one's thought, and the Real (al-Haqq) dawns upon one's heart, and it is as if one beholds. This is termed 'the beholding of the heart.' The beholding of the eye [in this world] is for the Chosen, the Prophet alone, Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). As for the next world, it shall be for all believers. Allah Most High says,
'On that day faces shall be radiant, gazing upon their Lord' (Qur'an 75:22)."
[I wrote of the above:] If it be observed that the term heart as used above does not seem to conform to its customary usage among speakers of the language, I must grant this. In the context, the term denotes not the mind, but rather the faculty that perceives what is beyond created things, in the world of the spirit, which is a realm unto itself. If one demands that the existence of this faculty be demonstrated, the answer--however legitimate the request--cannot exceed, "Go to masters of the discipline, train, and you will be shown." Unsatisfying though this reply may be, it does not seem to me to differ in principle from answers that would be given, for example, to a non-specialist regarding the proof for a particular proposition in theoretical physics or symbolic logic. Nor are such answers an objection to the in-principle "publicly observable" character of observation statements in these disciplines, but rather a limitation pertaining to the nature of the case and the questioner, one that he may accept, reject, or do something about (Keller, Interpreter's Log. Manuscript Draft, 1993, 1-2).
Mere imagination? On the contrary, everything besides this knowledge is imagination, for the object of this knowledge is Allah, true reality, which cannot be transient but is unchanging, while other facts are precisely imaginary. The child you used to be, for example, exists now only in your imagination; the person who ate your breakfast this morning no longer exists except in your imagination; your yesterday, your tomorrow, your today (except, perhaps, for the moment you are presently in, which has now fled): all is imaginary, and only hypostatized as phenomenal reality, as unity, as facticity, as real--through imagination. Every moment that comes is different, winking in and out of existence, preserved in its relational continuum by pure imagination, which constitutes it as "world." What we notice of this world is thus imaginary, like what a sleeper sees. In this connection, Ali ibn Abi Talib (Allah ennoble his countenance) has said, "People are asleep, and when they die, they awaken" (al-Sakhawi, al-Maqasid al-hasana. Cairo 1375/1956. Reprint. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-'ilmiyya, 1399/1979, 442: 1240).
This is not to denigrate the power of imagination; indeed, if not for imagination, we could not believe in the truths of the afterlife, paradise, hell, and everything that our eternal salvation depends upon. Rather, I mention this in the context of the question of evolution as a cautionary note against a sort of "fallacy of misplaced concrescence," an unwarranted epistemological overconfidence, that exists in many people who work in what they term "the hard sciences."
As someone from the West, I was raised from early school years as a believer not only in science, the practical project of discovery that aims at exploiting more and more of the universe by identification, classification, and description of micro- and macro-causal relations; but also in scientism, the belief that this enterprise constitutes absolute knowledge. As one philosopher whom I read at the University of Chicago put it,
Scientism is science's belief in itself: that is, the conviction that we can no longer understand science as one form of possible knowledge, but rather must identify knowledge with science" (Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests. Tr. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971, 4).
It seems to me that this view, in respect to evolution but also in respect to the nature of science as a contemporary religion, represents a sort of defeat of knowledge by an absolutism of pure methodology. As I mentioned at the outset, the categories of understanding that underly every observation statement in the theory of evolution arise from human consciousness, and as such cannot be distinguished by the theory from other transient survival devices: its explanative method, from first to last, is necessarily only another survival mechanism that has evolved in the animal kingdom. By its own measure, it is not necessary that it be true, but only necessary that it be powerful in the struggle for survival. Presumably, any other theory--even if illusory--that had better implications for survival could displace evolution as a mode of explanation. Or perhaps the theory itself is an illusion.
These considerations went through my mind at the University of Chicago during my "logic of scientific explanation" days. They made me realize that my faith in scientism and evolutionism had something magical as its basis, the magic of an influential interpretation supported by a vast human enterprise. I do not propose that science should seriously try to comprehend itself, which it is not equipped to do anyway, but I have come to think that, for the sake of its consumers, it might have the epistemological modesty to "get back," from its current scientistic pretentions to its true nature, as one area of human interpretation among others. From being the "grand balance scale" on which one may weigh and judge the "reality" of all matters, large and small--subsuming "the concept of God," for example, under the study of religions, religions under anthropology, anthropology under human behavioral institutions, human behavioral institutions under evolutionary biology, evolutionary biology under organic chemistry, organic chemistry (ultimately) under cosmology, cosmology under chaos theory, and so on--I have hopes that science will someday get back to its true role, the production of technically exploitable knowledge for human life. That is, from pretentions to 'ilm or "knowledge," to its true role as "fann" or "technique."
In view of the above considerations of its coherence, logicality, applicability, and adequacy, the theory of the evolution of man from lower forms does not seem to show enough scientific rigor to raise it from being merely an influential interpretation. To show the evolution's adequacy, for everything it is trying to explain would be to give valid grounds to generalize it to man. In this respect, it is a little like Sigmund Freud's Interpretation of Dreams, in which he describes examples of dreams that are wish fulfillments, and then concludes that "all dreams are wish fulfillments." We still wait to be convinced.
Summary of Islamic Conclusions
Allah alone is Master of Existence. He alone causes all that is to be and not to be. Causes are without effect in themselves, but rather both cause and effect are created by Him. The causes and the effects of all processes, including those through which plant and animal species are individuated, are His work alone. To ascribe efficacy to anything but His action, whether believing that causes (a) bring about effects in and of themselves; or (b) bring about effects in and of themselves through a capacity Allah has placed in them, is to ascribe associates to Allah (shirk). Such beliefs seem to be entailed in the literal understanding of "natural selection" and "random mutation," and other evolutionary concepts, unless we understand these processes as figurative causes, while realizing that Allah alone is the agent. This is apart from the consideration of whether they are true or not.
As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else.
Books
I realized after writing the above that I had not talked much about the literature on the theory of evolution. Books that have been recommended to me are:
1. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Michael Denton. Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986. Originally published in Great Britain by Burnett Books Ltd. This would probably be the most interesting to you as a biologist, as it discusses molecular genetics and other scientific aspects not examined above.
2. Enclyclopedia of Ignorance. Ed. Duncan Roland. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1978.
3. Thinking About God (Exact title?). Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood. Bloomington, Indiana. American Trust Publications.
Thank you for asking me this question, which made me think about my own beliefs. I remain at your service,
Nuh Ha Mim Keller.
Title:
Does Islam Refute Evolution?
Question:
What is Islam's view on evolution? How do we explain the fossil bones of our ancestors? Does that mean that the prophet Adam also looked like them?
Answer:
In your question, if 'evolution' implies that man is actually an evolved form of a certain other creature, then Islam does not affirm such a standpoint. According to the Qur'an, Adam (pbuh) - the first man - was a direct creation of God, as a man. The Qur'an does not support that Adam evolved from another species.
However, it may be of some interest to note that in Al-Sajadah 32: 7 - 9, the Qur'an has referred to three different stages involved in the creation of man in such words that a slightly varied version of 'evolution' may be derived from it. The Qur'an says:
He, Who perfected everything that He created - He started the creation of man from clay then he inculcated in him [i.e. man] the potential to reproduce through a drop of humble fluid then He embellished and fashioned him in due proportion; and breathed into him of His spirit and [thereby] developed in you [the abilities of] listening, vision and feeling.
The above verses clearly tell us that in the beginning man was created from clay. The words 'creation from clay', obviously, do not necessitate that God created an effigy of man from clay and then gave life to it. It may, as we know, imply that in the beginning man came into existence out of the earth [the mud or the clay etc. of the earth]. In other words, God inculcated in earth - mixed with water - the potential to produce life. Over centuries or even millennia, the life-bearing potential of the earth materialized and a species quite similar to, yet somewhat different from man was born[1]. This was the first stage in the creation of man, as is evidenced by the words: "He started the creation of man from clay".
In the second stage, the potential of reproducing life - of bearing offspring - through sexual contact between the male and the female genders was inculcated in this species. This stage is mentioned in the words: "then he inculcated in him the potential to reproduce through a drop of humble fluid".
In the third stage, the species was physically fashioned into proportion and with that God also breathed into it of His spirit, which developed in it the abilities of listening, vision and feeling[2]. The words: "then He embellished and fashioned him in due proportion; and breathed into him of His spirit and [thereby] developed in you [the abilities of] listening, vision and feeling", point to this final stage in the development of the human species.
It may be interpreted from the above explanation that it was only the first pair of near-humans - i.e. Adam and Eve - who went through the three stages explained above. That is Adam's (and Eve's) creation was initiated from clay - that is they were produced through the life-generation potential inculcated in the earth. Later on, the potential of reproduction through sexual contact was inculcated in Adam (and Eve). In the third stage, Adam (as well as Eve) was physically fashioned into due proportion and God breathed into them of His spirit and thereby developed the higher sapiential abilities in them.
However, contrary to the above interpretation, another theory that may be developed on the basis of the information given in the referred verses may be as follows[3]:
1.
Man's creation, in the first stage, was initiated by the production of a like species from the earth. In this stage, a number of near-human pairs - male and female - were produced directly from the earth.
2.
In the second stage, the near-human pairs were inculcated with the ability of reproducing life through sexual interaction between the male and the female gender of the species.
3.
In the third stage, one of the directly produced pairs (as in the first stage)[4] - i.e. Adam and Eve - were physically fashioned into due proportion and were inculcated with the advanced human abilities. It was at this stage that Adam and Eve became complete humans.
4.
Over subsequent centuries, the other directly produced pairs (in the first stage) and their offspring became extinct. The only pair that survived, through its offspring was that of Adam and Eve.
5.
The whole human race that populates the planet is the offspring of the one directly produced pair, which was physically fashioned into due proportion and inculcated with the advanced human faculties.
In view of the information provided by the Qur'an and the human knowledge that has developed over time, one may ascribe to any explanation that seems correct to him. However, if the latter theory is accepted to be correct, it also helps explain the existence of the slightly different fossil bones. It seems that these bones are of the near-humans that, in contrast to Adam and Eve and their subsequent generations, were not physically fashioned into proportion or inculcated with the advanced human faculties and which became extinct over time.
It should be stressed here that the above is a development of a somewhat detailed scenario, on the basis of some vague indications of the Qur'an and the general knowledge that has become available to man. The scenario may or may not be completely accurate.
26th March 2000
[1] The last part of the referred verses clearly informs us that it was at a later stage that the species was physically fashioned into proportion and inculcated with advanced human abilities.
[2] It may be noted that it was not merely the faculties of 'hearing' and 'sight', which, like other living things, the species seems to have possessed before this stage as well. On the contrary, at this stage the abilities inculcated in man were that of 'listening', 'vision' and 'feelings', which is a stage ahead of mere 'hearing' and 'sight' and is probably possessed, at such an advanced level, only by man.
[3] The theory is primarily developed by my teacher Javed Ahmed Ghamidi.
[4] As the Qur'an at another place (Aal Imraan 3: 59) tells us that Adam was directly produced from clay (earth) and was not born to a father and a mother.
Islam and Evolution
Is evolution becoming Islamic or is Islam evolving?
Preface
The attitudes of people towards evolution
When does the Muslim society become exposed to danger
The slaves of evolution have no limit
Nobody disagrees with the fact that man's life upon this planet changes and evolves from one state to another. This evolution takes a wide range in some areas and takes a narrower range in others. The largest scale of evolution covers areas that man uses, such as food, clothing,transportation, lodging, arms, machines and so forth. We may take the area of transportation and communications as a clear illustration: Man used to walk to run his errands. After that he started to use such animals as camels, mules, and donkeys to ride and to carry goods on them. Then he started to manufacture ships that could run through the oceans by means of wind. He also made a cart that could be pulled by horses. Then he waited for thousands of years before he could manufacture a car that could run on steam and other kinds of energy. Then he invented the plane, which made parts of the world much closer to each other as if it all constituted one single village. Then the spaceship and the spacecraft, which allowed him to go all the way to the Moon.
The Qur'an has pointed to these means albeit briefly, but meaningfully and inspiredly, in the following verse: "And horses and mules and asses (hash he created) that ye may ride them, and for ornament. And He createth that which ye know not''(Surah 16, Verse 8.).
Beside this, there is evolution in the area of meanings and ideas, in habits and traditions, and in ideals and morality. Evolution in these areas may be praised as it may be condemned, as it is not always in the best interest of man. It may raise him to the point of approaching the horizon of angels, as it may lower him to the level of animals. The question that we would like to raise here is: "What is the stand of Islam towards evolution? Does it accept it and welcome it, or does it refuse it and fight against it?
Top
The attitudes of people towards evolution
In order to clarify the stand of Islam towards evolution, it is our duty to show that there are three attitudes that people have taken towards it.
The attitude of total refusal
The first attitude resides in the total refusal of any change or innovation in any aspect of life - be it scientific or practical, material or moral. It also means keeping all old things in their state, and resisting anything that is new, wherever it comes from, and under whatever aspect it is presented.
This is the attitude of the Catholic church in Europe in the Middle Ages. It adopted views and theories in the sciences of geography, astronomy, medicine, biology and so forth. It wrapped these views in enough sacredness which made them part of religion itself. This was also the case of the ideas and traditions it adopted and gave them a religious character. So, it no longer allowed anybody to oppose it or reach an opposing view through independent research. And damned was anyone who dared to oppose it.
In his book " Islam, Christianity, science and civilisation" Professor and Imam Mohammad Abdu mentioned attitudes of the church and its clergy which arouse one's surprise and perplexity.
De Romnes said: the rainbow is not a war bow that is in the hand of God which He uses to take revenge on His subjects whenever He wills. It is the reflection of sunlight in water drops' Then he was brought to Rome and was imprisoned until he died. Then his corpse and his books were judged and thrown in fire.
Plage has argued that death existed before Adam. That is, that animals were affected by death before Adam erred and ate from the tree. As a result of this statement of opinion a heated and loud discussion arose. The discussion lead to Iynching and that lead to the promulgation of an imperial order to execute anybody who held that kind of belief.
The notion of the earth being round led to a big disturbance in the world of Catholicism, at a time when Muslims were aware of this fact since the beginning of the Abbassid dynasty, and that did not cause the slightest disturbance. It was even quoted in the books of Interpretation and all others without any restriction.
Some Americans discovered that the use of anaesthesia on women during birth allowed them not to feel any pain. All the clergy arose and was all upset, because that amounted to freeing women from the eternal curse and punishment that was cast upon her by the Old Testament during the formative years. Therein it is said: 'and he said, that is God, to the woman, in order to punish you, I will increase the hardships of pregnancy, and with pain will you give birth to children.'
In Constantinople Muslims discovered a medical method of transfusion from under the skin, and a woman named Mary Monajo took it to Europe in . 1721. The clergy revolted and opposed its use. This kind of opposition increased at the time of the discovery of vaccination against smallpox.
An inspection court was created in Europe in order to oppose science and free thinking, when its emergence was feared, especially at the instigation of the disciples of Averroes and their disciples, and especially in the south of France and Italy. The man who ordered the creation of such a court is Tour Kamanda.
This strange court undertook its task in the best of ways. In 18 years (1481-1499), it sentenced 10,220 (ten thousand two hundred and twenty) people to be burnt alive, and so they were burnt. It also sentenced 61,860 people to be hanged after reviling them publicly, and so they were publicised and then they were hanged. It also sentenced 97,023 people to different sentences, which were executed and all Old Testaments written in Hebrew were burned.
This was the attitude of the church, but the movement of evolution was stronger, so that the spark which went from the Muslim East to the Christian r West, kept widening and heightening, until it became an enormous flame under which nothing could stand. So it is no surprise that the wild crowds revolted against the church which lined up with ignorance against knowledge, and with folklore against thought and with kings and nobles against the people, until the people spoke their minds and said: "Hang the last of the kings with the intestines of the last priest"
The attitude of total obedience to evolution
The second attitude, in opposition to the first, is that of total obedience and blind adaptation to all change and innovation. This obedience does not distinguish between what is allowed and what is not, and what should be and what should not. This is based on a western idea the gist of which is that what follows is better than what precedes, and that anything new is better than anything old, and that today's new born is better than yesterday's new born. They go much further than this and call for the reform of everything, and the change of all values, qualities, traditions and regulations. In other words, life must be turned upside down.
This attitude is represented in our societies by two groups of people. The first group is made up of people who tag and imitate the western camp, and are
in awe of the advance of western civilisation. They motivate everything that it brought, and are enthusiastic about it. They advocate it in the name of evolution and innovation, even if that leads to nakedness and decadence and atheism and permissiveness. This is at a time when westerners themselves have started to revise their attitudes, to criticise their civilisation and review their concepts in many matters.
These are the ones about whom the Arab and Muslim men of letters, the late Mustapha Sadiq Al Raafi'i commented sarcastically: they want to innovate the religion, the language, the Sun and the Moon! Shawqii, also, wrote the following lines about them:
Do not follow the steps of the restless gang
For whom everything old is indecent
If they have a chance they would publicly deny
Those of their parents who have died and those who lived to be very old
And the steps of all those who look for what ; old and destroy it
And when they are given a chance to build, they fail
The second group is constituted by the Marxists who believe in the necessity of evoluti, and who adthat whatever results from evolution is necessarily better than whused to be. They always talk about the evolutionary aspect of the life of man, and ignore its stable side.
No one can argue with the fact that human life is subject to much change and evolution, but most of this evolution revolves around the environment of the human being rather than the human being himself. The essence of man remains the same. For example, Adam was persuaded by Satan, through the instinct of the love of immortality and eternity, to eat from the tree. This instinct is still present in his children and still makes them commit other contraventions.
Another example would be that of the son of Adam who out of jealousy killed his brother with some such object as a stone. Then, he did not know what to do with the body, until a crow, which was searching in the ground, showed him what to do with the corpse of his brother. Thus remains man today, at a time when the instruments of death have varied and developed and become available to him. He still envies and kills his brother man, to the point that he can melt a corpse with all kinds of acid and chemical mixes and leave no sign of it whatsoever!!
The moral obstacle which made Adam regret and repent after his sin, saying: "Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If Thou forgive us not and have not mercy on us, surely we are of the lost!"(Surah 7, Verse 23) is the same one as that which is more clearly stated in what the nobler son of Adam said to his brother: "Even if thou stretched out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee, io! If earAllah, the Lord of the Worlds"(. Surah 5, Verse 28.). In some sense, this obstacle is represented in the regret of the killer after the burial of his brother. It is still present in the instinct of the humans in spite of the fact, that they have stepped on the surface of the moon, and in spite of the differences between them.
Instinctive motives have not changed in man, although the ways of satisfying them may have changed. Man used to eat his food raw, like animals and birds. Then he learned how to cook it on a fire that is fed by twigs, wood or coal. Afterwards he invented stoves that used oil and then electricity. But he still remains as human as he used to be, eating and drinking, he gets hungry and then gets full, he gets thirsty and then quenches his thirst. He still gets nervous or emotional when he gets hungry or thirsty, and feels rested and satisfied when he is no longer hungry or thirsty.
Authentic religious and moral values relating to the deeply-felt need for Allah, and the recourse to Him at times of distress and regret after committing a sin, love of truth, trust and virtue, dislike of vice, and Iying and betrayal, still have their weight and value in the life of human beings and their behaviour, even if they had sometimes been overcome by unconsciousness, or contaminated by rust.
So we should not exaggerate the level of evolution that man has reached, it is an evolution of the environment of man, not of his essence. It is an evolution of what man uses, not of his reality. It is true that man's knowledge of the universe and what it includes has changed and widened, but this has not changed the essence of man.
The moderate attitude is the attitude of Islam
The third attitude is the moderate attitude, it is the attitude of weighing, and moderation between the fanatics and the laxist, between those who want to freeze life and stand in the way of its progress and evolution and those who want to turn it into chaos. This attitude is neither governed by values or beliefs, and nor is it ruled by qualities or regulations. It is an attitude which faces evolution with wisdom, and guides it with truth. Then it leads towards useful evolution, invents it and feeds it.
Thus is the attitude of true Islam, which joins firmness and leniency in its judgements and recommendations. Firmness in its aims and goals and leniency in its ways and instruments; firmness in its foundations and general conceptions and leniency in its branches and details, firmness in behaviour and religious values and leniency in its materialistic and worldly matters.
We find this firmness in the authentic texts, whose authenticity is certain and based on evidence as we find leniency in the texts that are based on hypotheses in their authenticity and evidence. We also find leniency in the areas that the texts left open to the research of the scholars in compassion and ease for us.
This firmness is also found in the main beliefs, the basic obligations, and the virtues, the reasons of the forbidden acts and the general conceptions of the Islamic Law and so forth for all aspects of Islam which do not change with the change of time, contexts or states. We find leniency in the details of the branch judgements which do not allow more than one view, or more than one innovation, and where Allah has not made it difficult for his subjects. Whoever innovates in these areas and succeeds earns double reward, and whoever innovates and errs then he earns a single reward. This is the context in which our scholars have said: it is here that the formal legal opinion changes according to place, time, custom and state.
And we find greater leniency in worldly matters: the technical and artistic matters concerning ways and means. It is in this context that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "You are in a better position to know about worldly matters'"(. Quoted by Muslimin Sahlih Al Jaami', no. 1482, second edition, Al Maktab Al Is]aamii.)
Muslims have to master these matters and they need to excel in them, and there is no harm for them to adopt them from other people if they do not have them.
The Prophet (PBUH) used to lecture at the foot of a palm tree in Al Madina, when the number of Muslims grew and they settled, he called a nonMuslim carpenter, and asked him to manufacture a three step mimbar for him. He used it for his preaching and never said that it was manufactured by a nonMuslim and therefore he was not going to use it.
In the Ahzaab expedition, Salman suggested to the Prophet to dig a trench around Al Madina to protect it from infidel conquerors. He liked the suggestion and applied it, and never said that that was brought by a Magi so he was not going to listen to it.
The same can be said about his companions who governed after him. They established systems and actions that did not exist during His time, such as establishing the books, listing the estates, collecting the Qur'an in books and distributing them over the provinces. They also established the specialisation of judges in the justice area only, and the introduction of a postal system, along with other matters whose benefits are doubtless. These are also innovations which did not disturb Islam in the least, especially that they were established by the Rightly Guided caliphs whose tradition is considered as part of the religion, and is followed and clung to by all.
God Willed it that His last words to humanity be comprised in this religion, after it reached its maturity and deserved that He Sends to it the Whole and Eternal Message. It comes as no surprise that He Included within it ease and leniency that help to face evolution and fit every context, nation and generation. He also included within it values, ideas, moral, intellectual and legal foundations which lead to growth, action and progress. He also included within it what is sufficient to create a civilisation that is divine and human at the same time, where both religious and worldly matters are in harmony, and where science and faith, or civilisation and morality are also harmonious.
Islam neither reffises evolution which includes knowledge, wisdom, truth and goodness, nor does it accept evolution which includes in its process deviance, delinquency and failure. It confronts everything with the Book which Allah has Revealed with truth and justice. Allah has not neglected His subjects nor has He made them aimless, He Gave them a standard with which they can evaluate everything in life.
Islam advisagainst inertia adaction, a continuous and indefatigable action, which is meant to be wise and purposeful, not an excited and destructive action. Islam intends this action to be like that of the river that is flowing smoothly and safely in its bed, not that of the flow that has no bed, rules nor limits. The river and the torrential stream both flow with drinking water. But the river spreads life, greenness, and wealth wherever it flows, whereas the stream brings destruction and kills plants and crops.
Islam means for man to be active and to work, under the condition that his action be towards a goal fitting the humanism that is noble in the eyes of Allah, and that it be in a peaceful context that can neither destroy nor be destroyed. The martyr Sayyid Qotb said rightly: "Action must be within a framework that is steady and around a firm focus".
Islam accepts an evolution that is wise and sound, which is governed by the values of truth, goodness and virtue and is controlled by the requirements of the justice that Allah has included in His book and that He included in the message of His Prophet. But chaotic action is like stupid inertia. Both of them are unacceptable to Islam.
Top
When does the Muslim society become exposed to danger
Muslim society becomes exposed to danger and damage as a result of two situations:
First: When we freeze what would naturally be inclined to change, evolution and action, then life is contaminated by sterility, and becomes like stagnant and brackish water, whose stagnancy turns into a hotbed for germs and microbes. This is what happened in the times of decadence and deviance from the right path of true Islam. Then we saw how the avenue of research and innovation in religion was closed and, creativity in science stopped. The same affected authenticity in literature, discovery in industry and progress in war and so forth. Thus life was affected by stagnancy and imitation in everything to the point that the following adage became familiar: "The first one did not leave anything for the last one, and it is not possible to be more creative than what there was!" In the meantime the other stagnant nations - which for a long time were the students of the Islamic society - started to awaken, rise and evolve, grow and progress, conquer and colonise while the Muslims became forgetful and indifferent.
Second: When what is inclined to firmness, eternity and stability is subjected to change and evolution. An example of this is when in our modern era we see and hear that some of the sons of Muslims want to bare the nation of its religion, and separate it totally from its heritage in the name of evolution.
They want to open the door to atheism in our faith, and separation from legislation and virtue. All of that in the name of this new statue: evolution.
They want to change the religion in its essence, so that it fits the beliefs, ideas, values, standards, systems, traditions, ideals and codes of behaviour that they want to import from the east or the west. Allah has made the religion just so that it prevents humanity from decadence and collapse. That is why it was made obligatory that the religion be the firm standard that people use as a reference when they disagree, and consult it when they deviate. If religion submits to the disturbance of life and its conditions, and thus becomes straight if life is straight and wavering when life becomes wavering. That is exactly when religion loses its function in the life of man: i.e. Iife starts to guide and govern religion, instead of religion guiding and governing life, and submitting it to its ideals and guidance, instead of it submitting religion to its reality and decadence.
This is why we tell those who demand from Islam to evolve, why don't they demand from evolution to be Islamic. Islam governs and evolution is governed.
Top
The slaves of evolution have no limit
The slaves of evolution have no limit, they never make a concession without asking us for a second and a third and an endless series of concessions. Even when they accept Islam, they want one that is of the make of their own hands and ideas! They say: we do not accept the sayings of the imams, or scholars, or interpreters, because they are the opinions of people like us, we only accept the sacrosanct revelation.
If, supposedly, you agree with what they say: we accept some revelations, but not all of them. We accept the Qur'an, but we do not accept the tradition! In this tradition, there is what is weak, or invented, or unacceptable; or we accept the successive traditions and not accept the single traditions
And if you allow them that, they say in audacity and impudence: The Qur'an itself only addressed the limited conditions of the Arab context, and the affairs of the small rural society, thus it is necessary to take only what is appropriate to our evolution and leave what is otherwise.
When the Qur'an says: "He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swine flesh" (. Surah 2, Verse 173 or surah 16, Verse 115), and when swine flesh is called an infamy, they say: the Qur'an was referring to swine that were badly nourished, but today's swine are not so.
When the Qur'an is dealing with inheritance and says: "to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females' (Surah 4, Verse 11), they say: that that was before the woman started to work and assert herself in different domains of life. Whereas today, she has developed her personality and economic independence, so she must inherit like the man does, and there is no motivation any longer to distinguish between the sexes.
When the Qur'an says "Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside ...'(Surah 5, Verse 90.), they say: the Qur'an has forbidden that in the context of a hot climate. Had the Qur'an been revealed in a cold weather, it would have had a different attitude.
The meaning of all this, is that they impute to Allah Almighty ignorance of the situation of His subjects, and knowledge of what is real. They also consider that whatever the morrow conceals, and what the future hides, He does not know about and does not take it into account. Allah transcends by far what they say.
True reform is to understand clearly what aspects of life need to evolve and change, thus we would make our utmost to change it and improve it, with the logic of the courageous wise men, not the gullible imitators. Islam supports us in such undertaking with all the powers of intellect and action that it provided us with, and the innovation and militancy that it allowed us to undertake. The support of Islam also resides in the fact that it has made it an obligation upon us to seek wisdom wherever it can be found. So we must understand what must remain firm and stable in terms of the values, beliefs, concepts, morality, literature and laws, which remain even when high mountains may collapse.
It is thanks to this wise attitude that we can face and guide evolution: we live our time, we please our Lord, so that we earn the happy endings, and we gain the world without losing our religion, and we attain the blessings of Allah, and the amazement of the wise people.
Did God Use Evolution to Create the Universe?
By Harun Yahya
Posted: 18 Shawwal 1422, 2 January 2002
The basic tenet of Darwinism holds that living beings came into being spontaneously, as a result of coincidences. This view is completely contrary to the faith of Creation.
In our day, some circles hold the view that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution does not contradict with religion, and that those who renounce the theory of evolution unnecessarily promote it. This view, however, includes many misconceptions. It is the result of a failure to grasp the main tenet of Darwinism and the extremely dangerous outlook it mandates. That is why, for those who have faith in the existence of God, the mere Creator of all living-beings, yet carry the conviction that "God created living beings through evolution", it would be quite useful to primarily review the fundamental tenets of the theory. In this essay, in an endeavor to warn believers who have this misconception, some essential scientific and logical explanations regarding why the theory of evolution is not compatible with Islam and the fact of Creation it introduces to mankind, are provided.
The basic tenet of Darwinism holds that living beings came into being spontaneously, as a result of coincidences. This view is completely contrary to the faith of Creation.
The most important misconception of those who think that the theory of evolution does not contradict with creation is their assumption that the basic assertion of the theory of evolution is that living beings came into existence through evolving from one another. Accordingly, they comment: "There is no reason why God did not create all living beings by making them evolve from one another; so what is the rationale to raise objection to it?" However, there is a very important point here which is ignored: the essential difference between the advocates of evolution and creation is not based on the question of whether "living beings appeared individually or through evolving from each other." The main question is "whether living beings came into existence by chance and as a result of natural events, or were they consciously created?"
That life is an arbitrary by-product of the compound formed by time, matter and coincidence is nonsense.
The theory of evolution, as known, claims that inorganic chemical compounds came together by chance and as a result of randomly occurring natural phenomena, they formed first the building blocks of life and ultimately life. Consequently, in its core, this claim accepts time, inorganic matter and chance to be creative powers. Even the layman, who is somewhat acquainted with the literature of evolution, is aware that this is the basis of the claims of evolutionists. Not surprisingly, despite being an evolutionist scientist, Pierre Paul Grassé, acknowledges the implausibility of the theory and summarizes what the concept of "coincidence" means for evolutionists:
"…Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped." (Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York, Academic Press, 1977, p.107)
That life is an arbitrary by-product of the compound formed by time, matter and coincidence, on the other hand, is a nonsense unacceptable by those who have faith in the existence of God as the sole Creator of all living beings. Believers should assume the responsibility to save societies from such perverted and unreal beliefs and warn them.
The claim of "coincidence" put forward by the theory of evolution is denied by science.
Another significant fact that deserves a special consideration about this subject is that scientific discoveries also definitely refute the evolutionist claims that "life emerged as a result of pure coincidences and natural phenomena." This is because there are extraordinarily complex examples of design in life. Even the cell of a living being is a great wonder of design that totally annuls the concept of "coincidence".
This superior design and plan in life are certainly indications of God's unique and matchless creation, of His eternal knowledge and might.
The efforts of evolutionists to explain the origins of life with chance are rejected by science in the 20th century and today, in the 21st century, they met a total defeat. (See Harun Yahya, Blunders of Evolutionists, Vural Publishing) Indeed, the reason why they deny Creation although they see this fact is their blind adherence to irreligiousness.
God did not create living beings through an evolutionary process.
Since the existence of creation, in other words, a conscious design, is obvious, the only question that remains is "through what kind of a process the living beings were created." The misconception of some faithful people emerges right at this point: The wrong reasoning that "Living being could have been created by evolving from one another" is actually related to how the process of creation occurred.
Indeed, had God willed, He could have created living beings through an evolutionary process from nothingness, as the abovementioned individuals propose. And had science proved that living beings evolved from each other, we could say, "God created life through evolution." For instance, if there were any evidence available that reptiles evolved to form birds, then we would say, "God transformed reptiles into birds with His command 'Be'!". Ultimately, both these living beings individually possess bodies overflowing with examples of perfect design, which cannot be explained away by chance. Transformation of these designs into one another -had such a thing really happened- would surely be another evidence for creation.
The main question is "whether living beings came into existence by chance and as a result of natural events, or were they consciously created?"
However, the situation is not so. Scientific evidence (especially the fossil record and comparative anatomy) point to the contrary; there is not a single evidence on earth that an evolutionary process took place on it. The fossil record clearly indicate that different living species did not appear on earth through evolving from one another by fine gradations, but that on the contrary, distinct living species appeared on earth suddenly fully formed and without any preceding ancestors similar to them. Neither birds sprung from reptiles, nor fish transformed into land-dwelling animals. Each living phylum is created individually with its traits particular to its kind. Even the most renowned evolutionists had to accept this fact and confess that this provides an evidence for Creation. For instance, evolutionist palaeontologist Mark Czarnecki confesses as follows:
"A major problem in proving the theory (evolution theory) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. (Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, 19 January 1981, p. 56)
Especially during the last fifty years, developments in various scientific fields such as palaeontology, microbiology, genetics and comparative anatomy, and new discoveries show that the theory of evolution is untrue and living beings appeared on earth all of a sudden in their distinct and perfect forms. Therefore, there is no reason to suggest that God employed the process of evolution in Creation. God created every species individually and at one moment, with His command of "Be!" This is a certain and explicit fact.
Conclusion
It is of vital importance for people of faith to be alert and cautious against the ideological systems committed to struggle against God and religion. For 150 years, Darwinism provided a so-called scientific ground for all anti-religionist ideologies that caused misery to mankind, such as fascism, communism, and imperialism and legitimized the merciless practices of those who adopted these philosophies. Hence, it would not be right to ignore the inner truth and the real purpose of such a theory. For every Muslim of conscience, it is a major responsibility to disprove every anti-religious ideology rejecting the existence of God with a thought struggle and to demolish falsehood with truth.
Further Reading: The Evolution Deceit