This is part 2 of the response by Ahmed Alhasan to one of the Sunni Scholars about evolution. This excerpt is taken from the book Atheism Delusion.
Ashqar ¹ continues:
This theory is not supported by reality:
a) If this theory were true, we would see many animals and people coming into existence through evolution, not only through reproduction. Even if evolution needs a long time, this does not mean that we would not see monkeys changing into men, one group after another.
b) Even if we accept that natural circumstances and natural selection turned a monkey into a man for example, we cannot accept that these circumstances would also dictate that there would be a woman to accompany this man, so that they could reproduce and there would be a balance between men and women.
c) The ability to adapt which we see in creatures such as the chameleon, which changes colour according to where it is, is an ability which is inherent in the formation of that creature. It is born with that ability which exists in some and is barely present in others. All creatures have limits beyond which they cannot pass. The ability to adapt is the matter of inborn potential, not a developed characteristic that has been formed by the environment as the proponents of this theory say. Otherwise, the environment would have forced rocks, soil, and other inanimate objects to adapt.
d) Frogs are distinguished from man in their ability to live on the land and in water. Birds are distinguished from man by their ability to fly and move rapidly without the aid of a machine. A dog’s nose is far more sensitive than that of a human—so is a dog’s nose more advanced than a human’s nose? Are frogs and birds more advanced than humans in some ways? Camels’, horses’ and donkeys’ eyes see equally well by day and night, whereas human eyes are unable to see in the dark. An eagle’s vision is far more acute than that of a human. So are eagles and donkeys more advanced than man? If we take self-sufficiency as the basis of superiority, then plants are superior to man and all animals, because they manufacture their own food and food for others, with no need for nourishment from elsewhere. If we take size as the basis of superiority, then camels, elephants, and prehistoric animals (dinosaurs for example) would be superior to man (Ashqar 2005, 139-41).
Response:
Ashqar believes that present-day man, Homo sapiens, has evolved from the present-day ape, which isn’t the case. The truth of the matter is that humans and present-day great apes share a common ancestor. Due to his ignorance or misunderstanding of evolution, he demands that present-day apes evolve into humans because he imagines it happened in the past, whereas humans and modern apes diverged millions of years ago. This means that present-day great apes and humans have a common ancestor, but they split into two different lineages. That’s why it’s scientifically impossible for a present-day ape to evolve into a human, since apes took a different evolutionary path than humans millions of years ago. It’s also nearly impossible to imagine apes going backwards on the evolutionary path to the original point of divergence from humans, and then taking the same evolutionary path that humans have taken.
As for the lineage from which chimpanzees split and humans evolved, the only remaining member is the present-day human—Homo sapiens, so no one can ask why all members of the human lineage didn’t evolve into humans. The truth is that all members of this lineage evolved into distinct species, one of them being the present-day human. As for the question of whether evolution continues today or not, the answer is yes, it still continues in nature, even though the evolution of most organisms isn’t something we can observe because our lives are short, and their life cycle is long. However, it is possible for us to observe evolution in some insects since they do have a short life cycle. Through observations of certain insect species in their natural habitat, we can see clear indications of evolution and dramatic changes in their traits. These are established facts that anyone can verify.
Regarding his demand for a female to evolve, it is truly the most extreme form of ignorance, because evolution occurs within an entire species. One of the pillars of evolution is reproduction, or the transfer of genes to the next generation. For example, when a mutation that alters leg straightness occurs in a female, she passes it to her offspring, whether they are male or female. The same is true for a male. When a mutation occurs, he passes it to his offspring, whether male or female. These mutations are small and don’t remove an individual from its species, so a mate doesn’t need to have the same mutation for them to be able to reproduce. The individual can still breed with others of the same species who don’t have that mutation. If the mutation leads to a favored trait, it becomes firmly established through natural selection. Eventually, those individuals possessing this trait will entirely dominate the species.
Furthermore, evolution does not occur without reproduction. So how could anyone imagine that males and females would evolve separately to the point of becoming two different species, so that Ashqar would demand that the female evolve after the male? By God! It’s tragic that these people respond to the theory of evolution with such worthless and ignorant remarks!
Ashqar’s third point clearly shows his extreme ignorance of evolution. The man barely understands a thing about the theory he set out to refute.As for his comparison of the senses, I don’t know why he finds it so strange that certain sensory mechanisms are more advanced in animals than humans. This is beyond dispute, and everyone agrees on it. For example, humans lack the sonar of bats, as well as the sight possessed by hawks. Does he disagree with these scientific, empirical, and anatomical facts?!
Ashqar:
Thus the colonialist education system, after destroying the people’s religion, imposed the study of this theory in the curriculum, introducing it in scientific garb so that students would believe it to be true, thus instilling in students’ minds the difference between this falsified science and religion, so that people would reject religion.
It is sufficient for the reader to know that because of this theory, many Muslims deviated from their religion. For this reason the colonialists were keen to teach this theory to Muslim children in their schools at the time when American law forbade teaching this theory in schools from 1935 CE.
But in Europe, after they had dealt the final blow to their deviated religion, they announced that Darwin’s theory, which they had used in the battle to support science against religion, was not a scientific fact; it was no more than a theory, and the more science advanced, the more the falsehood of this theory became apparent (Ashqar 2005,143).
Response:
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It is currently the only one recognized by all well-established universities and research centers around the world to explain life on Earth. European and American universities are still teaching the theory of evolution, and neither they nor any other academically respected university has ever stopped doing so. Therefore, I don’t know where Ashqar got this fabrication:
“the more science advanced, the more the falsehood of this theory became apparent.”
As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. Advancements in genetics have proven the theory of evolution with irrefutable scientific evidence, and it can’t even be the topic of any substantial opposing argument. Two examples of genetic evidence are retroviruses and the fusion of Chromosome 2 in humans.
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Sulaiman_Al-Ashqar
The excerpt is taken from Atheism Delusion by Ahmed Alhasan احمد الحسن
Click here to read similar glaring delusions of men of religion.
