The destination of the creation and life is as important as where they came from originally.
Who embarked us on this dominical ship of earth? What is the reason behind it? What does He demand from us? Where are we headed? Without finding convincing answers to these questions, we cannot reach any real conclusion in any other thing. Knowing the extent of the universe, measuring the diameter of the Earth, extracting mines from it are useless in this matter.
The theory of evolution has two main parts; natural selection and development of species through evolution. First of all, we will explain what these two concepts are. (The following sentences are not mine. They describe aforementioned concepts according to Darwinian discourse.)
Every organism from unicellular bacteria and plants to animals adopts itself into the conditions of its surrounding environment. They defend themselves against factors threatening their own and their progeny’s existence. The ones who lost this struggle are doomed to die out. The ones to survive and able to adapt themselves into the new conditions will reproduce more successfully and constitute a variant who no longer carries weak traits.
Generally the following classical examples are given: Since the skin of the people living in African deserts darkened by the sun and only dark skinned people could live there, light skinned people could not survive and reproduce successfully. Therefore, only dark skinned people live at the equator. Here is another example; variants of the same plant species growing in warm zones are prone to cold and growing in cold zones are prone to warm weather. This is the situation for most plant species. That is to say, the ones prone to cold weather could not survive and die out and the stronger ones successfully reproduce and are naturally selected.
Darwin claimed that these adapted traits could always be inherited by the next generation, but after finding out that these traits are not always inheritable, neo-Darwinists leave the door open by their assertion that even though not always inheritable, the ability of the animals to adapt is an example of natural selection. One of the most frequently cited examples for this is the case of someone who developed his muscles through exercise but has an offspring with normal, undeveloped muscles.
Before explaining development of species, we should define mutation. Because, according to Darwin, the main cause of variation is mutation. Organisms pass on their genetic traits to the subsequent generations through genes which are made up of protein. Sometimes these genes are exposed to changes. These changes may be caused by chemical factors such as medicine or poison or by physical factors such as heat and radiation. For example, exposure to radiation can lead to malformation of the embryo and taking some sort of pill may damage an unborn child. An example for the artificial mutation is manipulation of E. coli (the microbe causing illness in contaminated water) in modern biological engineering. The main characteristic of this microorganism is the ability to grow fast and produce protein. It is possible to produce human insulin in great numbers and inexpensively, by inserting the insulin gene into the E. coli bacterial cell, to produce insulin that is chemically identical to its naturally produced counterpart. Today, the insulin given to the diabetic patient is supplied in this way. The species of the bacteria does not change, but parts of its inner structure change and the next generations can also synthesize human insulin. This is an artificial mutation. Mutations almost always have destructive effects except the ones created by genetic engineering for special purposes. For example, there is no instance where a newborn became stronger because of exposure to radiation.
Development of Species
There are no important mistakes in the Darwinian discourse till now. Even though there may be some difference of interpretation, they are generally true. Indeed the real debate begins from here.
According to Darwinism all the organisms on Earth from bacteria to animals (it puts animals and humans in the same category) are constituted of the same atoms and very similar molecules. All the organisms are composed of cells. Cells display essentially identical activities. Such a condition gives rise to the idea that there is a connection among them. Mutations change genetic structure and are inherited by future generations. Mutations (except induced by humans) are coincidental changes. They are not necessarily destructive. Accidentally, it may occur to bring better traits. This is possible in its very nature. Such advantageous mutations occurring successively may have set ground for the evolution of a species into a new one. Indeed, natural selection allows only perpetuation of beneficial mutations. Species may have evolved into each other through this process.
Here is a favorite example: “Some fish living in lakes feed on animals on nearby trees. These fish jump from the water almost flying to catch its prey on the branch and return to the water. While in the air, they use their fins like wings. Through mutations their fins changed into wings and the ones who have more developed wings could reproduce more successfully because of natural selection and they evolved into birds.
The theory of evolution is briefly a series of assumptions and coincidences. However, the world of modern science found this theory so logical and perfect that they clung to it by assuming that the existence and variety of organisms cannot be described better by any other means. A scale of evolution is designed according to it, and each organism is placed in a certain evolutionary position and named accordingly. Organisms are graded according to this theory. There is no distinct class for human beings. Humans (homo sapiens) are placed at the end of animal class. Homininae a subfamily includes the species of hominini and gorillini. Gorillini tribe includes gorillas. Hominini tribe comprises humans and chimpanzees. This is the source of the saying “Humans came from monkeys.” Some of the fossils discovered are also placed in this scale as transitional forms and decorated with phrases like “lived around so and so years ago”. Although it is accepted that some of the fossils are fake and just assumptions, this is the only biological taxonomy accepted worldwide. The situation is so dreadful that there is no other system for scientific and technical classification of organisms.
Indeed there are also a great number of anti-Darwinists in the world of modern science. They have lots of well-founded rejections. Basically, the possibility of a mutation to be beneficial is very low. The successive repetition of it is so low that it is accepted impossible according to the figures of probability theory and it is out of the limitations of the logic to develop a theory based on such a tiny possibility. Some even defend reverse evolution by asserting that if we assume that species developed through mutations then evolution goes backwards. Some claim that there is no such thing as development of species; each organism emerged distinctively, they are what they were a million years ago. In short, like Darwinists, there are different types of anti-Darwinists.
There is also a “perfection” debate with people defending different opinions. Anti-Darwinists claim that each organism comes into existence perfectly. And each organism is equipped according to its needs. If a species had developed through evolution, the organisms upper in the evolution scale would have always had better traits than the lower ones. But the real situation is not always so. For instance, eagles have much more developed and sharp eyes than humans. According to Darwinists there is no such thing as perfection. Every organism only has enough traits to lead its life and reproduce. And this has a tendency for deteriorating. They claim that if there was perfection, there would not be any illnesses and deaths.
Islamic Point of View and Treatise on Nature (Tabiat Risalesi)
The booklet on nature by Bediuzzaman Said Nursi sets forth clearly the right approach towards this subject which is technically impossible to defy. It offers four possibilities behind the existence of the universe, especially living organisms: “1- “Causes create this. 2- It forms itself; it comes into existence and later ceases to exist. 3- It is natural; Nature necessitates and creates it. 4- It is created through the power of One All-Powerful and All-Glorious. Reason can find no way apart from these four. If the first three are definitely proven to be impossible, invalid and absurd, the way of Divine Unity, which is the fourth way, will necessarily and self-evidently and without doubt or suspicion, be proved true.” Islamic scholars previous to this approach have generally tried to prove the existence of Allah as the Creator of everything. But such an approach could not persuade the modern scientists who generally have an attitude of not accepting any proof.
The three possibilities here are concepts that modern science employs interchangeably. Most people do not know the difference between them and use them interchangeably. Even though they are ridiculous and impossible, lots of big-headed scientists use these hollow concepts under various guises. Because the denomination of a situation is sufficient in modern science and there is no further need to explain it. Such an approach is nonsensical but it is commonly applied today. The following example is a really funny application of it in medical science: Idiopathic is a medical adjective used for cases where a recognized cause has not yet been established. Such a classification contributes nothing to solve the mystery, but at least it has a name and this suffices for the physicians!
Another point is that modern science descends to details too much. Ignoring the philosophical perspective, it only deals with the technical side. When you emphasize the philosophical side, they defend themselves as: “Modern science only seeks the answer for “how”, not “why”. The question of “why” concerns philosophy, not science.” In fact, under any circumstances the answer to the question “why” is always much more important than answering “how”. Indeed without answering the question of why we cannot truly understand anything, but no one cares about this. A good and common example describing this fallacy is this: What would a person do upon finding himself on a ship unconscious? He would of course get up and look around. Here are the first questions that will pop up in his mind: 1- Who took me here? 2- What is the reason behind it? 3- Where is this ship headed to? Anyone with an average level of intelligence cannot rest easy until finding answers to these three questions. Now think of another man who right after regaining consciousness goes down to the boiler room, and starts investigating how the ship operates, what sort of fuel it burns, what is the length, width and height of the ship, from what and when it was built, etc. If he tries to answer these questions and devotes all his life to them, it would be quite fair to declare him a fool.
To conclude, the destination place of creation and life is as important as where they came from originally. Who embarked us on this dominical ship of earth? What is the reason behind it? What does He demands from us? Where are we headed? Without finding convincing answers to these questions, we cannot reach any real conclusion in any other things. Knowing the extent of the universe, measuring the diameter of the Earth, extracting mines from it are useless in this matter.
An incorrect thing does not necessarily have to be incorrect in every aspect and a true thing vice versa. To judge its incorrectness or reality we have to rely on the results. There are certainly some true observations and explanations within the theory of evolution. But the results it deduced are most of the time wrong and fallacious.
Modern science has a lot of incorrect and insufficient approaches. Lost in details, it lacks an overarching view. It cannot lead and guide humanity in its current form. How can it have a guiding characteristic without concerning itself about where we are headed? Science without religion doubts everything, religion without science leads to superstitions. Religion and science go hand in hand, they do not contradict one another. This is the only way it can satisfy the task of being a real guide.
If none of the possibilities of a situation can be proven, the one with the easiest explanation, and the most logical should be accepted, not the most complicated and problematic one. It is quite illogical to develop a theory based on an imaginary, groundless possibility of coincidences, even on the possibility of succession of such coincidences which has not even occurred yet.
It is true that nothing is perfect in this world. But, this does not indicate that everything happens by chance but that this world is transitory. Illness and death are not deficiencies of life but a part of its natural flow. If such things were really accidental there should be immortal people without any illnesses. Because this is also a possibility in its nature but has never occurred. Furthermore, illnesses occur with the corruption of just one mechanism in the human body. If these corruptions are accidental then half of the system should always be corrupted. Indeed, the conditions leading to illnesses are many times more than the ones maintaining its normal, healthy functioning. Therefore, the condition of illness should be the norm, being healthy should be the coincidental condition. However the current situation is quite the contrary. Being healthy is normal, illnesses are coincidental. Only 10 % of the total human population gets sick. The other 90% lead their life healthily. It shows that illnesses do not occur coincidentally, there is a power taking them under control.
Every organism is born with the necessary traits and knowledge to lead its life and reproduce. They bestow everything to the next generations except knowledge. Humans constitute the only exception for this. Humans learn throughout their lives and without taking some precautions they could neither survive nor reproduce. But they are able to transmit their knowledge to the next generations. The scale of organisms in the theory of evolution is full of mistakes and peculiarities. Even though having wings and being able to fly is a higher trait and ability, birds are lower than mammals on it. Fish are lower than birds, but dolphins are higher than birds just because of different reproduction system and being a mammal. The only reason behind the common usage of this ridiculous system is the lack of any other alternatives. Except our partial appearance, we do not have any common traits with chimpanzees, our closest relatives. For example, calf and pig insulin are the closest to human insulin. There is no similarity to the chimpanzees’. Among animal liver transplant attempts to humans, chimpanzee liver transplants have been quite unsuccessful; but sheep liver has given better results. Except humans, no organism has the muscle adductor pollicis brevis which enables humans to write, to obtain knowledge. Believing that it accidentally developed is only possible by abdicating reason.
To conclude, not only the theory of evolution but also modern science itself relies on very weak foundations, it dedicates itself to details. Because it would cause the overall criticism of the entire system of modern science, no one wants the collapse of the theory of evolution. To show that faith and science are characterized by harmony not by conflict, to shape the 21st century world of science, to turn science into a real guide are the responsibilities of every religious scientist and the foremost task to carry out. It’s better to light a candle than curse the darkness.