Truly, anyone who has a basic background in evolution and how it occurs scientiﬁcally, or has read a book by any scientist of evolution and examined their responses to arguments, or has simply read the book that Darwin wrote in the nineteenth century where he included and responded to numerous arguments, and then proceeds to examine the words that those who call themselves religious authorities and religious scholars have written, will ﬁnd that they address issues that they know nothing about. They don’t even understand evolution, or how it occurs according to scientists. Instead, they have understood evolution in a backward way, and then proceeded to argue in an extremely superﬁcial and simplistic manner based on that backward understanding. We also ﬁnd them repeating Darwin’s original arguments—that Darwin had already presented and refuted in his book—similar to how they present superﬁcial arguments in an attempt to refute the accuracy of the principles and methods of historical geology used to determine the age of the older rock layers, even though the accuracy of these methods is undeniable.
They argue against the theory of evolution, asking why the circumcision of children isn’t inherited, and why an ape that is trained to walk doesn’t pass the walking trait down to its offspring, When average people read these arguments, people who don’t know what evolution is—they might fall for them. But they are simplistic arguments to those who understand the theory of evolution and how it works. The traits that are inherited by the next generation are those written in the genetic plan of the organism. They are not acquired traits, like the walking of a trained ape or the circumcision of a child. This is self-evident to evolutionary biologists.
On the other hand, some of the people who challenge the theory of evolution assume that evolutionary biology states that compound and complex organs such as the eye came into existence through a single mutation. Not even Darwin says that, let alone modern scientists. They are supposed to be refuting what is taught in well-established universities around the world. These universities don’t teach that com pound and complex organs such as the eye came into existence through a single mutation, or even tens or hundreds of mutations. In fact, they are ignorant of the basics of the theory of evolution. So these people present a distorted version of the theory, and respond based on their erroneous understanding of it. This is nauseating for whoever reads their books, and it makes them conclude that they are completely defeated in the face of evolution, as well as the atheist movement, the movement that they are trying to confront using single-burst creationism that excludes evolution. This theory contradicts not only biology, historical geology and archeology, but also the literal meaning of religious scriptures as well. This will be clariﬁed when we discuss religious scriptures, like the Quran, which clearly indicate that creation occurred in many stages and through evolution.
A single question is enough to topple single-burst creationism that excludes evolution. It has deﬁnitely, and undoubtedly, already been proven through historical geology, that when the rock layer is older, it contains organisms of lower rank, and when the layer is newer, it contains organisms more developed than the ones in the layers that preceded it. The issue is one of development: moving from bacteria to eukaryotes to multicellular organisms, reaching the ﬁsh of the ancient world, passing through the vertebrates and ﬁsh, then amphibians and land animals, then mammals, then the diversity of mammals and increasing size, and so on. So the question is: why did God create living things in multiple bursts in different time periods, while in each period creating a group more developed than their predecessors, so that whoever sees them believes that they have evolved from the earlier ones? Do those who deny evolution think that God wants to deceive us?! God is far above that.
Do they have a logical, scientiﬁc explanation—other than evolution—for these bursts that succeed each other in time, development, and complexity? For example, if we were to take the whales and dolphins that now live in water, that are considered to have evolved from mammals that lived on land, we would ﬁnd—in the fossils discovered so far—a chain of intermediate organisms appearing consecutively over time, each one separated from the other by millions of years.
They started as land mammals, then gradually developed so as to descend into and live in the water. We ﬁnd that each group evolves progressively toward living easily in water, until we eventually reach the whale. Is there a reasonable explanation or answer as to why God created these creatures over consecutive time periods, so that whoever sees them determines that the whale is an inevitable result of this chain of organisms that appeared consecutively over time, and progressively evolved towards life in water?!
I believe there is no logical answer except evolution. Otherwise, the alternative answer, which contradicts science, would be to accuse God Almighty of doing all of this in order to deceive the people, but He is far above that.
We look at whales and dolphins and we ﬁnd that they swim by bending their bodies up and down in a manner identical to land mammals when they run. They don’t swim like ﬁsh that, in most cases, bend from side to side. When we observe whales, we ﬁnd that they give birth and feed milk produced by mammary glands to their young in exactly the same way as mammals.
Sometimes the opponents of evolution also resort to books by biologists and geneticists who are resistant to, or critical of, the theory of evolution, without recognizing that some of them don’t deny evolution, but instead simply regard it as a controlled process, or present it in a novel way. For example, scientists disagree -about how mutation works (its speed, pausing, etc.) to affect biological diversity. There is a tremendous difference between those who say that the theory of evolution is true, with a god directing it, and those who say it is false,
Their shared belief is that a god exists, not that the theory of evolution is false. Furthermore, not every statement by a biologist has scientiﬁc value. One should not just present an opinion, especially when it is the opinion he has adopted. Supporting evidence should also be presented in order for people to see whether it has scientiﬁc value, or if it has already been scientiﬁcally refuted, and then the issue will be settled. There are universities and research centers around the world that adopt precise scientiﬁc standards and have people who evaluate research papers, books, and critiques of scientiﬁc theories. If there was a valuable scientiﬁc critique by an expert, these universities and scientific centers would have quickly embraced it, and it would be published and promoted, and scientiﬁc seminars would be held to discuss it.
However, what we see is the exact opposite. Today, in all the well-known universities around the world, the theory of evolution is the only explanation for the existence of life on the earth. Whoever wants ‘to search for the truth themselves by conducting scientiﬁc research should at least acquire sufficient knowledge in historical geology, evolutionary biology, genetics, anthropology and archeology, They should then read the scientiﬁc critiques of the theory of evolution, as well as the responses to them, so as to make their position scientiﬁcally solid and valuable, However, if someone says that some biologist has responded to the theory of evolution in some book, or some scientist said something about the theory of evolution so it is false, or if one refers to someone who is not even a specialist when evaluating the theory, then these are truly contrived and unscientiﬁc stances. When you read their scientiﬁc reviews, you sometimes find they lack any credibility, since some of them present the theory of evolution in a twisted, backward way, and then respond to it. It is as if the responses are intended for the average person who doesn’t know anything about the theory of evolution, and are meant to be a marketing tool for their insigniﬁcant research. There is no scientiﬁc basis for these responses. Rather, they are based on the fact that their authors have advanced degrees in biology, or in a ﬁeld that is not even relevant to the topic, such as cosmology.
In summary, whoever says that they want to refute the theory of evolution shouldn’t distort or twist it. He must refute the theory as it is presented in well-established universities around the world today, not as he imagines it, or as the opponents of the theory have incorrectly presented it.
A note of caution: I have noticed that those who reject the theory of evolution repeat the same arguments that evolution scientists have already presented and responded to themselves. This is inappropriate for whoever claims to have knowledge and claims to be scientiﬁcally refuting the theory. They should read and recognize that evolution scientists have already responded to their arguments, some of which were presented by Darwin himself in the nineteenth century. Therefore, whoever repeats the same arguments is either incapable of discussing and refuting the responses of the evolution scientists to these arguments, or he hasn’t read what evolution scientists have written and doesn’t know that they were the first to present and respond to these argument as well as dozens of other arguments. In either case, it was inappropriate for them to put anything down in writing without knowledge.