Thursday, August 27, 2009

Surah Ale Imran (3:59) – Quran rejects Darwinism


 


 


 

إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَى عِندَ اللّهِ كَمَثَلِ آدَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِن تُرَابٍ ثِمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ

Surely, the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.

M Shakir's Quran Translation

Introduction to Darwinism

The person, who originally put forward the theory of evolution, was an amateur English biologist by the name of Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin first published his ideas in a book entitled The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859. Darwin claimed in his book that all living beings had a common ancestor and that they evolved from one another by means of natural selection. Those that best adapted to the habitat transferred their traits to subsequent generations, and by accumulating over great epochs, these advantageous qualities transformed individuals into very different species from their ancestors. The human being was thus the most developed product of the mechanism of natural selection. In short, the origin of one species was another species.

Darwinism incompatible with Quran

Hazrat Adam Peace be upon him was the first person on the face of the earth. This is the concept of Quran as well as the concept of Bible. A vast Majority of the people on the earth believe that Hazrat Adam was the first man on the surface of the earth and this verse gives a little description of the creation of Hazrat Adam. Allah created him from dust and said to him be and it was. Hazrat Adam's creation is a more superior miracle. Hazrat Adam was created without mother or father. Allah created him directly and made his spirit with a mere command, Be, and it was. This verse of Quran goes against Darwinism.

Darwinism incompatible with Bible

As mentioned earlier Darwinism is not compatible with Islam. Darwinism is also against Christianity. Christian Fundamentalists and others who believe in the biblical story of creation choose to reject evolutionary theory because it contradicts the book of Genesis, which describes how God created the world and all its plant and animal life in six days. The creation from dust is also mentioned in the bible. "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Book of Genesis Chapter no 2 Verse no 7)

Charles Darwin admits himself

Darwinism has lost its significance when we compare it with the modern science. Darwinism is based on mere hypothesis and has no proof from established science. Darwinism goes against logic, religion and established science. Charles Darwin wrote a letter to his friend Thomas Thomtan, in 1861 saying 'I do not believe in 'Natural Selection'. I do not believe in 'Theory of Evolution' because I do not have any proof. I only believe in it because it helps me in classification of Embryology, in Morphology, in rudimentary organs'.

Why is Darwinism illogical

According to the unscientific and irrational claim of the theory of evolution, the nothingness in the infinite universe gradually gave rise to humankind because of chance developments. According to this utterly unbelievable theory, first dust, then soil, stones, waters, mountains and oceans came spontaneously into being in this nothingness devoid of anything of the sort. Later, certain atoms in the mixtures of these came together by chance and brought into being such elements as calcium, phosphorus and carbon. Over millions of years these lifeless elements, completely lacking in intellect, memory, knowledge and consciousness, turned into human beings able to breathe, speak, think, rejoice and mourn, possessed of a soul and memory, with the intelligence, knowledge and consciousness necessary to invent things, and capable of writing libraries full of books. In other words, under the effects of coincidence over billions of years, accumulations of dust, soil and mud turned into human beings of flesh, blood and soul, capable of building extraordinary factories and producing the latest model of cars in them, of establishing space stations, of constructing palaces, and making marvels of art. To believe that stone and soil could one day turn into human beings as the result of chance is even more irrational and illogical than believing in fairy tales.

Just for a moment, look at the things around you. Is it possible to think that may be the wristwatch you are wearing came to existence by itself? Is it possible that the room you are sitting in came into existence on its own? If even a single pencil, a needle cannot come into existence by itself. How can the billions of types of creatures on the surface of the earth come into existence on their own? There are almost 200 million known species and surely, there are many more still awaiting to be identified. There are almost 25,000 recognized types of fishes and about 200-300 new are identified each year. The small insects we see everywhere; 1 million different species of insects have been identified so far. Did all those species come to existence own their own? Is not there a divine design behind it? Five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis

Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In a lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said; "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." 

An Impossible Event

The theory of evolution claims that the complex systems of the cell came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house.

The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle(1915-2001) made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981.Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein ( "Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105). This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."

Other mathematical calculations show that the probability of what Darwinism claims comes out to be 'one' out of 10 to the power of 950. In mathematics an event which has a chance of 'one' out of 10 to the power of 50 is an impossible event so an event which is 10 to the power of 950 is totally out of question. Imagine tossing a coin 10 to the power 950 (i.e. 950 zeros after 1) times and amazingly every time head comes.

10 950 =

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


 

One more thing to be clarified here is that the above-mentioned probability is just for a average protein molecule coming by itself. There are many other complexities in a human body and all other species. When all those probabilities are multiplied, the numbers would be unimaginable. (Note: Probabilities are multiplied, not added)

For more details: Evolution Deceit, Darwinism refuted by Harun Yahya

(Books of Harun Yahya have answered all questions on Darwinism. These books are a masterpiece in this regard)

Why is Darwinism unscientific

When Charles Darwin presented the theory of Darwinism in 1859, it had no scientific proof on its back. Darwinism can never explain scientific discoveries in genetics and the immense amount of information stored in DNA. The complex structure of a human cell formed by a mere chance is something unscientific too. Scientists have tried to prove Darwinism from the fossil evidences but the truth is that no evidence is in favour of Darwinism. There are so many missing links and no transitional form has been discovered. If the species evolved like Darwinism claims then there should be much many transitional forms. Charles Darwin himself wrote in his book origin of species.

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me."

Many renowned scientists spoke against Darwinism.

Fact of Creation

When we look closely into what Darwinism propagates, it all looks like an attempt to 'exclude' the hand of God from creation. Many scientists have been trying to bring some other theory instead of big bang that could explain the beginning of the earth because the only way to perceive big bang is that there is a divine hand behind it. Many theories were presented as a substitute for big bang but they lost their significance because there are so many solid proofs for big bang. In the similar fashion, Darwinism is an attempt to deny the 'fact of creation'.

These words can summarize what I wanted to say on Darwinism:

"The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell – to investigate life at the molecular level – is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats.

But, no bottles have been uncorked, no hands clapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go like that. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side must be labeled God."

These are the words of renowned scientist Michael J. Behe. (Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press, 1996, pp. 232-233)

In short, theory of special creation is supported by logic, religion and modern science. Hence, it should be replaced instead
of Darwinism and Darwinism should be buried forever.

Further Reading on Darwinism

Many scientists and atheists have been working hard in the past years to find proofs for Darwinism. For this very purpose they have tried all methods in the book and out of the book too. Many fake "fossils" were presented. Many books have been written to unveil the evolution deceit. It is not possible to cover all the aspects here. For further reading, you are advised to read the following books:

1-Darwinism Refuted – Harun Yahya (also available in PDF form on the net)

2-Why Darwinism is incompatible with the Quran – Harun Yahya

3-How fossils overturned evolution – Harun Yahya


 

Creation from Dust

We have reached to a conclusion that First man on earth Hazrat Adam was created from Mud by Allah. Same thing we excerpted from bible and Quran both. Quran mentions two stages (or types) of creation. One of it is the creation of Adam and other is the creation of children of Adam. Adam was created from dust as this verse clearly states. He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.
At other places in the Quran mentions creation from

Water (21:30), (24:45), (25:54)

Semen (16:4) , (75:37)

These verses are actually referring to the second stage of creation or second type of creation; creation of off springs of Adam. If the two stages or two types are not taken into account, it can lead to great mistakes. Regarding water one thing to be clarified is that it has its part in both stages of creation. Detailed discussion on creation from water under
(SurahAl Anbiya 21:30). Allah created a very beautiful system. Allah laid the foundation of the creation himself 'at once' (not what Darwinism claims). Furthermore Allah gave humans a system by which they can reproduce themselves.

The two stages are clearly mentioned in the Quran in Surah Sajdah

الَّذِي أَحْسَنَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقَهُ وَبَدَأَ خَلْقَ الْإِنسَانِ مِن طِينٍ
ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِن سُلَالَةٍ مِّن مَّاءٍ مَّهِين

Who made good everything that He has created, and He began the creation of man from dust. Then He made his progeny of an extract, of water held in light estimation. (Surah Sajdah 32:7-8)

Further more it is mentioned in Surah Hajj

"O people! if you are in doubt about the raising, then surely We created you from dust, then from a small seed, then from a clot, then from a lump of flesh, complete in make and incomplete, that We may make clear to you; and We cause what We please to stay in the wombs till an appointed time, then We bring you forth as babies……" (Surah Hajj 22:5)

Same thing is mentioned in Surah Ghafir

He it is Who created you from dust, then from a small life germ, then from a clot, then He brings you forth as a child, then that you may attain your maturity, then that you may be old-- and of you there are some who are caused to die before-- and that you may reach an appointed term, and that you may understand. (Surah Ghafir 40:67)


 

Regarding creation from soil one more thing is to be clarified that at some places Quran addresses the children of Adam and mentions the creation from water for them.

And one of His signs is that He created you from dust (30:20). It is but natural that the real source of creation of all of us is dust. If Adam wasn't there we wouldn't have been present too. Hence we owe our existence to Adam and we owe our existence to the 'dust'.

Quran mentions the creation from dust, mud in several places


Surah Ale Imran (3:59), Surah Ar Rum(30:20),Surah Taha (20:55),Surah Al Faatir (35:11), Surah Al Hajj (22:5), (38:71), Surah Al Ghaafir(40:67)


 


 

See the complete list of Scientific Miracles in Surah Ale Imran here


 

Comments, Queries and Suggestion at

Muhammad.Awais.Tahir@gmail.com

Get Updates for New Post:

Get Updates for New Comment:

14 comments:

costa200 said...

What does the quran say about bearing false witness and lying?

"Charles Darwin wrote a letter to his friend Thomas Thomtan, in 1861 saying 'I do not believe in 'Natural Selection'. I do not believe in 'Theory of Evolution' because I do not have any proof. I only believe in it because it helps me in classification of Embryology, in Morphology, in rudimentary organs'."

This never happened. You are just outright LYING... Not only there is no such letter, i presume even that there is no such person Thomas Thomtan (Thomtan isn't even an english name). There was a Thomas Thomson that had correspondence with Darwin. The thing is, it was Thomas Thomson that wrote to darwin saying he did not support the theory of evolution!! Not the other way around.

And you know what? Even if tomorrow someone discovered a diary of darwin in which he basically denied the theory of evolution IT WOULD NOT MATTER a single bit. Darwin started it all but he is not relevant anymore.

Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

Islam does ask us to verify information before spreading it, when it comes from a Faasiq (roughly Unreliable) source. I heard that information from a Dr (whom I felt to be reliable) so I quoted it without reconfirming which I should have done.

Even then, the two points mentioned here stand :

[1] There is no real scientific backing for Evolution, and all the stuff brought in its proof is something that doesn't consitute a proof, or it can never answer some questions. So, its just a theory, which many people of knowledge in that field critcize.

[2] Qur'an is against Darwinism, and that's enough proof from me that Darwinism is fake. Qur'an and all other religious scriptures speak of creationism, and major portion of Darwinism is to be rejected in its light, and only little bits and pieces of it, can still fit in with it.

I am yet to be sure whether such a letter exists or not, when I'd find the reference I'll quote it here. And yes it matters if the one who proposed the theory was himself doubtful about it, and had no real proof for it.

costa200 said...

"And yes it matters if the one who proposed the theory was himself doubtful about it, and had no real proof for it."

So, if a man that teaches islam to others changes his mind and denies islam that castes doubts on whether islam is valid?

Why should the opinions of Darwin matter if his scientific contribution was done in 19th century?

"So, its just a theory, which many people of knowledge in that field critcize."

Someone in a scientific debate that uses the expression "its just a theory" has no place in such debate. In science the word theory is used to mean a body of knowledge that has a great deal of positive evidence and is, as of yet, not disproven, being the single best explanation for a given phenomena.

And about people with knowledge in that field, where are their peer reviewed articles demonstrating the theory of evolution as false?

"Qur'an is against Darwinism"

So am i... Darwinism, as understood as what darwin himself wrote, is dated and obsolete. Modern science has moved on, using Darwin's brilliant idea and as created a solid case for the evolution of beings, including us.

"I am yet to be sure whether such a letter exists or not, when I'd find the reference I'll quote it here."

Thank you, and may i take it that if you find no such reference you'll edit that part out of your otherwise well constructed website? I ask because this particular reference has become increasingly popular, as in a way a vicious slander tends to, in islamic websites. And by the text used, they seem to be copy pasting it from each other. Which is rather unfortunate and goes to show the power of the internet for spreading false information.

Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

[1] If the main who himself brought a religion and changed his views later on, even if he earned millions of followers, that would become doubtful. Any preacher, follower changing his mind isn't that meaningful.

[2] Its important to emphasize that its not an established Scientific fact, that can be proved by the scientific process, because few people have forcefully tried to make Darwinism compatible with Qur'an and few others have tried to critcize Qur'an because its against Darwinism. So, its important to emphasize this. There are thousands of theories (un proved) out there, and they do take turns with the development of science.

[3] Well, I didn't copy/paste, I rather heard and noted it down, and typed myself, there's a typo in the statement as well. I'd remove it for the time being, but it does seem to be a statement without any proof. If I do find some reference for it later on I'd re-post it.

costa200 said...

"If the main who himself brought a religion and changed his views later on, even if he earned millions of followers, that would become doubtful. Any preacher, follower changing his mind isn't that meaningful."

But this isn't a religion. Darwin is not respected as a prophet. He was wrong in many things. He is actually totally irrelevant today, other than the historical interest. Yet people keep attacking a dead man!

"Its important to emphasize that its not an established Scientific fact, "

Only, it is. The scientific community uses the theory of evolution all the time. From paleontologists to biologists to geologists. You don't see a reputed magazine on these fields without mention to the Theory of Evolution. And again, your use of the word theory as in " There are thousands of theories (un proved) out there", is not consistent to the use scientists give it.

"Well, I didn't copy/paste, I rather heard and noted it down, and typed myself, there's a typo in the statement as well."

Yes, then it's the other guys copying from you!! Now that you mentioned it, with typo and all!!

Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

Something that becomes 'famous' is not the proof for its truth. Just like it was famous centuries ago that Sun revolves around the earth, doesn't make it a 'fact'. So, even if all scientific journals of the world start mentioning it, it doesn't have enough backing to convince me.

Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

And there is and can never be any proof for how the 'story begins' in Darwinism. I hope no one believes in those weird stories today, of everything happening on its own, and higher forms of living beings evolving from the lower forms.

And there is a list of 'reputed' scientists who actually don't believe in this stuff, or have themselves made statements who point to its 'impossibility' of beginning on its own.

costa200 said...

"Something that becomes 'famous' is not the proof for its truth. "

Totally agree with you there. There are billions out there with conflicting views on religion, for example, and most, if not all, are wrong.

"So, even if all scientific journals of the world start mentioning it, it doesn't have enough backing to convince me."

Sure, but it does go to the expression you used of "established Scientific fact". You can choose not believe in whatever you want. The thing is, that when professionals use it daily and haven't come up with something better, then it does get that status of "established Scientific fact". It is used as such until something better comes along, and fixist creationism of the divine nature or otherwise clearly isn't it.

Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

To me the saying of Qur'an is above all. Even if the whole world starts saying that evolution is true, and the life in this world started on its own, I won't believe it. Of-course, the creator knows how he created all this.

costa200 said...

And what if certain passages of the quran appear to support that living beings evolve?

Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

There is none. I know the Ayaat, which are brought up by people, and how they twist their meaning to fit it with Darwinism, as if darwinism is a 'fact' (I know you'd mind the usage of the word fact again). And, furthermore, there are other Ayaat which clearly bury the roots of Darwinism 'explicitly', so there is no need to twist Ayaat to fit in the current-world (or 'reputed world's') understanding of the beginning of life on earth.

Zaheer said...

Amazing

Anonymous said...

"Of-course, the creator knows how he created all this."

Who or what created the "creator"...?

Serious answers please. Not that silly "he was always there". By that logic you just shift the problem of the first cause by one step.

Anonymous said...

A theory is not the highest thing in science. There is actually no such thing as "absolute truth" in science. When a theory reaches a higher level, it is called a "law". For example "Charles Law", "Boyles Law", "Archimedes Principal". It is not Charles Theory, Boyles Theory, Theory of Gravity, it is rather Charles Law, Boyles Law, Law of Gravity. So by definition, Theory of Evolution is still a theory. When a theory becomes a law, it may reach a higher level. And Theory of Evolution doesn't have any observable evidence, how come it even be recognised as science? A scientific experiment should be observable and repeatable, but there is no single observable evidence of Darwinian evolution where there was a change of kind, let alone repeatable. A bacteria changing it's immunity to cope with modern day antibiotics isn't an example of a change of kind, no new creature is formed, it is still a bacteria. So by definition, theory of evolution is still a theory. There is no scientific proof as to how life formed on Earth, so we better do more research rather than putting false information in people's mind with this theory. Perhaps after a hundred years we will come to know how life formed on earth, and then we can debate about life on earth. And regarding that letter, Charles Darwin actually wrote it, please read his book "Origin of Species" for more information, and please get your facts right before you say something, because you must be knowing that there is only a very, very few negligible amount of people who still believe in Darwin's theory, Darwin's theory has been proved wrong long ago. Most of the scientists today disagree with Darwin's theory. I am a student of science, you cannot disagree to this, you may argue about this with a layman, but not accepting this in a scientific community doesn't make sense. The only reason it is being taught is because there is no alternative, if it was true, it has to come in the "Textbooks of Medicine", as Medicine is the highest and most important subject in Biology. There is no medical book in this world, nor any medical college which teaches you Evolution. Hence it is crystal clear that this is just a theory, not a fact.

Post a Comment