My friend said:
You are in a tight corner today; for you have to prove that
the creation of man really occurred in the magical manner by religion: the
Creator moulding a piece of clay in hand and breathing into it and, abracadabra,
there is Adam! If you insist on adopting this view you will be sternly
contradicted by the science of evolution which says your Adam came into being by
a series of evolutions occurring to some animal forms. He is not, in fact,
completely separated from his animal ancestry. He is, to be exact, a cousin of
the apes sharing with them his seventh grandfather'. The unmistakable similarity
in the details of the anatomical of all these life-forms is evidence that they
are all of one family.
I started to argue with him warming up for a heated
scientific controversy:
Let me first of all correct your knowledge of the religious
(Islamic) view of creation. God, according to that view, did not create Adam in
a 'hocus-pocus' manner: here is a lump of clay, breathe in it and, voila, there
is the first man. The Quran presents a radically different account of Adam's
creation. In that account, creation occurs in stages, phases, and over an
extended time span measured in God's own scales. The Quran did not say that man
came directly out of clay but that he emerged from a 'race' or 'breed' (solala)
that came from clay:
"We created man from a
breed (solala) of clay." [Holy Quran 23:12]
At the beginning man was nothing worthy of mention:
"Didn't there pass on man
a space of time when his life was a blank (insignificant thing)?" [Holy
Quran 76:1]
Man's creation, then, came in stages:
"Why do you deny the
dignity of God who has created you in gradual stages?" [Holy Quran 71:13-4]
"We created you and gave
you form. Then We said to the angels: 'Fall prostrate before Adam.' They all
fell prostrate except Iblis (Satan) who was not among the prostrate." [Holy
Quran 70:11]
"Your Lord said to
the angels: 'I am creating man from clay. When I have fashioned him and breathed
of my Spirit into him, kneel down and prostrate yourselves before him."
[Holy Quran 38:71-2]
These verses indicate that there were stages starting with
the creation out of clay which was followed by formation, then fashioning, and,
finally, breathing of God's Spirit into the creature: man. The word 'then' used
in this context, or the temporal dimension of the entire process, should be
understood in relation to 'divine time'; it could mean millions of years:
"Each day of
His is like a thousand years of your reckoning." [Holy Quran 22:47]
God, exalted He be, defines the temporal phases of
man's creation in the 32nd chapter:
"He first
created man from clay, then bred his offspring from a drop of despised fluid. He
fashioned him and breathed into him of His Spirit. He gave you eyes and ears and
hearts;" [Holy Quran 32:7-9]
At the beginning, it is clear, there was clay. Then
came a race (solala) bred from semen or 'the despised fluid'. These were the
early, humble origins of man or the 'blank' insignificant thing spoken of by the
Quran. Man was then moulded and fashioned. After that the 'spirit' was breathed
into him and he was, thus, endowed with hearing, sight, and 'heart' becoming
Adam. The first man, therefore, emerged at the end of a of series of evolutions
and was not made instantaneously in the hocus-pocus style you imagine.
We read in the
Quran: 'God
brought you from the earth like a plant' [Holy Quran 71:17]. This
is a clear indication that creation like the growing of a plant with all the
evolutionary phases, time, and gradation that this process passes through. The
real puzzle, however, concerns the exact nature of such phases or stages. Did
the tree of life originate in its entirety from one source or 'parent'? This
tree is basically of clay by virtue of chemical structure, and it is a fact that
all its forms revert after death to their clayey origin. But by 'parent' we mean
something more than the clayey origin. The question we want to pose is whether a
primeval cell emanated from that primitive clay and multiplied to yield all
those genuses and species of plants and animals including man; or whether there
were various beginnings: one origin evolving into plants, another developing
into such animal branch as the sponge for instance, a third from which fishes
evolved, a fourth whose development yielded reptiles, a fifth from which birds
emerged, a sixth forming the matrix for the evolution of mammals, and a separate
beginning from which man evolved thus having an ancestor of his own like the
other genuses?.
The anatomic similarity among the branches,
genuses, and species of the tree of life does not exclude the evolution of each
genus from a distinct origin. Such anatomical similarity in all life forms,
however, is evidence to the unity of their Maker because they are all fashioned
out of one material, in one method, and according to one plan. This is the only
necessary consequence of the similarity. But it does not inevitably follow from
this fact that all life forms evolved from one origin.
Consider, in this regard, the similarity we
observe in the means of transportation. The car, the train, the tram, and the
diesel locomotive are all built round similar mechanical and structural
principles indicating thereby that they are all inventions of the human mind.
This, nevertheless, does not exclude the possibility that each one of them
derived from an independent origin or from a separate engineering concept.
Moreover, it would be erroneous to say, for
example, that the hand-cart spontaneously evolved by dint of laws inherent in it
to become a horse-drawn carriage, an automobile, a steam locomotive, and a
diesel locomotive in succession. The truth is that each of these inventions was
realized as a result of a mental mutation in the inventor's mind and a creative
leap in the engineer's. No one invention emerged from another though the
temporal succession in which they appeared may lend credence to such view. What
really happened was something else. every invention of the above started
independently as a creative mutation in the inventor's mind.
This illustration throws light on Darwin's
errors and the pitfalls and lacunae he fell victim to when formulating his
theory.
Let us review what Darwin wrote in his Origin
of Species. The first thing he discovered during his voyage on The Beagle
was the identical anatomical plan on which all animal species were moulded. The
skeleton, for example, is the same in most vertebrates. The arm in the ape
corresponds to the bird's wing and that of the bat. Every piece of bone in it is
matched by another in those wings with slight modifications to suit the function
of the member. The bones in birds are thin, tender, light, hollow, and covered
with feathers.
The long neck of the giraffe contains seven
vertebrae: the same as in man's and as in the hedgehog's which is too short be
called a neck. Man's hand has five fingers and we find same quinary formation in
apes, rabbits, frogs, and Pregnancy lasts nine months in whales, apes, and human
females, while suckling takes two years in the three species. The tail vertebrae
in apes are found merged and telescoped in man's caudal bone or the coccyx. The
tail muscles have changed in man into a solid bottom for the pelvis. The heart
with its four chambers and the layout of the boy's arteries and veins are
identical in horses, donkeys, rabbits, pigeons, and men. The same similarity of
structure is observed with regard to the digestive apparatus: the pharynx, the
stomach, the duodenum, the small and the large intestines, and the anus, in that
order. The genital apparatus is similar in all: the testicles, the ovary, and
their ducts. The urinary apparatus is also common to all: the kidney, the
uriter,
and the bladder. The breathing system consists of the same components: the
trachea or windpipe and the two lungs. The lung in amphibians is the floating
bag in fish.
In the light of all such correspondences it was
natural for Darwin to conclude that all animals are members of one family
scattered in and differentiated by various environments. Each species, according
to his conception, adapted to its own environment. The whale in arctic zones
developed a coat of fat while the bear put on one of fur. The skin of jungle man
living under equatorial sun became black like a protective umbrella against the
scorching rays. The eyes of cave lizards atrophied because useless in the dark
and they became blind, while their prairie brethren still retain their sight.
Those animals that took to the water developed their limbs into fins and those
that took to the air evolved theirs into wings. Those destined to walk the earth
transformed their 1imbs into legs.
Doesn't the embryo in fact, give the process
away? At a certain stage of its development we find it breathing through gills.
These, then, wither away and the lungs appear. At another stage it develops a
tail which, in turn, disappears. At one time it is covered with hair which later
on recedes.
Rock layers tell us, through the fossils they
preserve, a concatenated story about the emergence and disappearance of one
genus after the other. From simple mono-cell animals, to myriad-celled ones, to
molluscae, to crustaceans, to fishes, to amphibians, to reptiles, to birds, to
mammals, to man.
Darwin was right, in fact he was a genius, when
he laid down that invaluable premise of anatomical similarity among animals. He
was equally on the right track when he posited the hypothesis of evolution.
He fell into error, however, when he hazarded
an explanation of the process of evolution and his conception of the phases and
details of such process was mistaken.
For Darwin believed that evolution is solely
motivated by latent materialistic factors. Animals fight with tooth and claw in
a bloody and terrible struggle for survival. The weak are eliminated and
survival is always for the fittest. Such war raging in nature is the power that
picks out the strong and well-adapted creatures fostering them, preserving their
offspring, and opening up before them the vistas of life.
This theory may explain the survival of the
stronger but it does not account for that of the beautiful. A pied wing has no
more physical advantages or survival value than a plain, white one. It is
certainly no more efficient in flight. If we grant that a male seeking for mate
prefers one with a pied wing, a question will immediately arise as to the reason
for this since the variegated colours do not represent any increment in
efficiency. If we include preference for the more beautiful in our estimation,
as we bound to do in the light of the previous question, the materialistic
interpretation collapses completely.
In the latter case the theory remains incapable
of explaining why something like the horse should branch out of the donkey
family, or why a beautiful, delicate and sensitive animal like the gazelle
should evolve out of the ibex, although it is less strong and tough than members
of that species. One wonders about the way in which that theory can account for
the hoopoe's wing, the peacock's feathers, and the amazingly spotted and
wonderfully coloured types of butterflies. In such phenomena we discern the hand
of a master artist inventing and creating. We are no longer in the realm of a
crude and rough business like the war of survival and the struggle of tooth and
claw.
The second error in the theory of evolution
came at the hands of the advocates of 'mutation'. Mutations are new
characteristics that unexpectedly appear in the offspring on account of
incalculable changes occurring when the male and female cells join in mating and
the chromosomes responsible for determining hereditary characteristics cross
with each other.
Sometimes the new characteristics may be detrimental
in the case of deformities and disfigurements. At other times, however, the
mutations may be useful and appropriate for the animal's new environment. An
animal that takes to the water, for example, may develop flat feet. This new
characteristic is certainly beneficial; for such type of feet is more suitable
for swimming. Nature, then, fosters this characteristic. It transmits it to the
new generations and, at the same time, weeds out the older feature because of
its inappropriateness. In this way, evolution from ordinary to membranous legs
takes place.
This theory erred when it established evolution
on the basis of haphazard mutations and mistakes. It totally overlooked any
element of planning or creativity. Chance mutations can never be valid bases for
an explanation of the inventiveness, accuracy, and precision we observe in
everything around us.
A mosquito, for instance, lays its eggs in a
swamp. Miraculously, it seems, every egg comes into being equipped with two bags
to help it to float. From what quarter, one wonders, did the mosquito learn
Archimedes' laws so that it equipped its eggs with those floating bags? Consider
also those desert trees that produce 'winged' seeds which fly for miles with the
wind and are spread over vast areas. In what school did these trees know enough
about aerial lift laws to enable them to make such winged seeds that fly
hundreds of miles in search of suitable grounds for growth?
There are, again, those 'carnivorous' plants
that equip themselves with snares and remarkable 'booby traps' to catch and
swallow up insects. With what mind were they able to devise these tricks?
In such examples we are, in fact, before a
Comprehensive Mind that thinks and invents for His creatures all sorts of ways
and means. Evolution is unthinkable without that Creative Mind:
"He that gave all
creatures their distinctive form and then rightly guided them." [Holy Quran
20:50]
The third difficulty facing Darwin's theory is the
recently discovered chromosome or gene chart. It is now known that every animal
species has a chromosome chart peculiar to it alone. It is impossible that any
species did or could evolve from another because of the difference in chromosome
charts.
We conclude from the previous review that
Darwin's theory is shaken. Although anatomical similarity among animals and
evolution itself are widely accepted facts, the stages and the nature of the
latter process are still a mystery. Were there separate beginnings for the
various genuses or do they all go back to identical origins?
Evolution is clearly mentioned in the Quran
just as the stages of creation, formation, fashioning, and breathing of spirit
are. Science, however, has not yet been able to formulate a valid theory that
can explain these stages.
If we go back to the, 32nd chapter we will find
the following account of creation:
"He first
created man from clay then bred his offspring from a drop of despised fluid. He
fashioned him and breathed into him of His Spirit. He gave you eyes and ears and
hearts;" [Holy Quran 32:7-9]
The meaning is quite clear. Those early origins of
man from which Adam later evolved and which procreated by means of a 'despised
fluid' had no hearing or sight or 'heart' (in the sense of mind or reason~.
These faculties evolved later on when the spirit was breathed into Adam in the
last stage of his 'moulding'. Such origins, then, could have been some forms of
undeveloped animal life. We remember again in this context the verse:
"Didn't there
pass on man a space of time when his life was a blank (insignificant
thing)." [Holy Quran 76:1]
The truth, in spite of all, still remains an
unsolved riddle. No one can claim that he has attained it. What really occurred
in creation may have been totally different from our own views and those of
scientists . The entire subject continues to be open for investigation. All that
science has ventured so far are guesses.
Reference:
Taken from “Dialogue
with an Atheist”, by Dr Mostafa Mahmoud.
e-mail: prince_zedz@hotmail.com
© 2001 (Zed).
All rights reserved.
|
