Question 1: Islam states that humans were created from a male and a female. However, the scientist Charles Darwin demonstrated that humans evolved from apes. A friend of mine from another faith asks how Islam’s stance contradicts this.
– M.S. Muhammad Habibullah, Sendangudi.
 |
| Apes |
Question 2: A friend of mine from another faith claims that the world came into existence naturally; initially, insects and worms appeared, followed by the emergence of certain types of apes through evolution, which eventually evolved further into humans. Is this correct?
– P.S. Ibrahim, Sirkazhi.
Answer: Darwin’s theory posits that humans originated through the process of evolution.
Some people champion Darwin’s theory because it supports the denial of God; however, it is not a scientifically proven fact—it is merely a hypothesis.
Darwin’s theory suggests that certain organisms evolved into different species over time. It proposes that, over tens of millions of years, a species of ape emerged, and subsequently, after another vast period, that ape evolved into the human being.
Did Darwin reach this conclusion after witnessing an ape actually transform into a human? Certainly not.
It can be said that the significant physical resemblance between apes and humans was the basis for Darwin’s hypothesis.
It is not surprising that people living in an era of limited scientific knowledge believed this; however, in today’s scientific world, believing it would be sheer folly.
Apes may indeed share a physical form that closely resembles that of humans. After all, we live in an age where blood can be transfused from one human to another. Researchers investigated whether the blood of other species could be transfused into humans in situations where human blood was unavailable.
The blood of no animal—including monkeys—is closely compatible with human blood.
It is pig blood that is most compatible with human blood. Regardless of whether scientists eventually conclude that pig blood can or cannot be transfused into humans in the future, it is a proven fact that pig blood is closer to human blood than that of any other species.
If humans had evolved from monkeys, monkey blood should logically be the closest match to human blood. However, monkey blood differs from human blood to the same extent that the blood of animals like goats and cattle does.
This discovery serves as irrefutable evidence that humans could not have originated from monkeys.
Determining origins based on this scientific factor is far more accurate than drawing conclusions based merely on physical appearance.
Even today, when a son does not resemble his father, we use DNA testing to confirm paternity; we do not rely on physical appearance.
One might forgive Darwin for his speculative claims made at a time when knowledge regarding blood molecular classification did not exist. However, is it right to cling to those ideas in this era of scientific advancement?
Humans are also making strides in heart transplant surgery. We have advanced to the point where an artificial heart can be implanted if a natural heart fails.
Research has been conducted to see if the hearts of other animals could be compatible with humans. Such compatibility would offer a new lease on life to countless heart patients.
When the hearts of various animals were studied, it was found that none—including that of the monkey—were compatible with the human body. Surprisingly, however, the pig's heart was found to bear a striking resemblance to the human heart. While transplanting a pig's heart into a human may not be feasible, it is a proven fact that the pig's heart is closer to the human heart than that of any other animal.
If one were to argue that humans evolved from another animal, it would be far more logical to claim they evolved from the pig.
From a scientific perspective, basing evolutionary theories on the structure of internal organs is more sound than basing them merely on external body structure, as Darwin did.
Modern humans have made significant strides in genetic testing and have unlocked the secrets of the genome.
Darwin's theory might hold some credibility if genetic testing had proven that monkey and human genes were nearly identical, or if it had been confirmed that no other animal's genes matched those of humans. Yet, no such evidence exists.
Furthermore, the discovery of the genome revealed that the entire human race originated from a single African mother.
Darwin's theory posited that a specific number of monkeys transformed into humans during a particular period.
The discovery that all of humanity shares a single mother has effectively consigned Darwin's theory to the grave.
The concept that all humans are born of one mother and one father fosters global brotherhood and prevents the imposition of inequalities based on lineage, race, or skin color. Conversely, upholding Darwin's theory is detrimental to humanity. One could justify the differences that exist today by claiming, "My original ancestor and yours were different."
Therefore, Darwin's theory is nothing but nonsensical babble that causes harm to the world.
More importantly, man does not derive the distinction of being "human" from his physical structure; rather, he attains that status through his faculty of reason.
Darwin explains the causes and mechanisms behind physical growth and structural changes in the body. However, he never addresses the circumstances or compulsions that would cause a creature lacking reason to evolve into a rational being.
They claim that the giraffe originally possessed a neck just like that of a goat or a cow! Because its food source was located high up, it supposedly kept stretching its neck repeatedly. They argue that, as a result, the neck gradually lengthened over tens of millions of years to become the long neck we see today—Darwinists are spouting nonsense.
Let us, for the sake of argument, accept the premise that the giraffe's neck elongated due to the necessity of having a long neck for survival.
According to this argument, the giraffe's neck grew longer because a long neck was essential for survival.
However, was there ever a compulsion stating that a creature lacking rationality could not survive? There has never been a requirement for rationality to sustain life; rationality is not at all necessary for survival. Consequently, at no point in time was there any pressure for a non-rational creature to transform into a rational one. Since rationality is not essential for survival, it could not have emerged through the process of evolution. Darwin lacked even this basic understanding.
We cannot accept the reason Darwin offers for the elongation of the giraffe's neck, either.
Why did the elephant's trunk become so long?
Why did the kangaroo develop a pouch on its belly?
Would anyone claim that the elephant's nose turned into a trunk simply because it kept stretching it?
Is it truly a sign of wisdom to champion any sort of incoherent nonsense just to deny the existence of God? If monkeys evolved into humans over millions of years, why did that process of evolution halt?
Every day, monkeys in some part of the world ought to be transforming into humans, or mother monkeys ought to be giving birth to human infants. Why did this not continue?
Darwinists have no answer for this, either.
One receives only incoherent ramblings as an answer to why humans have not evolved further to reach a higher state of existence.
Human internal systems—such as blood, the heart, the liver, and the kidneys—as well as our genes, indicate that humans are a distinct species. Those who continue to champion Darwin's incoherent ramblings—even after it has been proven beyond doubt that he could not have evolved from any species—cannot be considered thinkers.