Evolution: a Muslim Perspective
As the title suggests, this post delves into my limited understanding of the Biologic hot-topic of evolution as a muslim. With my background in biomedical science and cancer biology, I have done a thorough Islamic literature review and will try to translate my thoughts as well as possible. However, my knowledge is limited, and I claim to be no scholar. Ever since I started my degree, I have been asking questions about the Islamic views on evolution, but never received a fully satisfactory response. Hence, I have done my own research, and reached a couple of points that I want to share with my fellow followers. Here goes...
Science is an ever-changing field of study, full of paradigm-shifts. What is known to be true today may be completely disregarded by novel research in as little as 10 years time. Having started writing my thesis in tumour-immunology, I know not to bother reading scientific papers published before 2010 (with a few exceptions), as what is known and accepted to be the truth is constantly updated and polished. A classic example of a paradigm shift is that between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Newton's model of the universe in basic terms had a fixed time and space and gravity was thought to be a pulling force. His precise predictions were tested, confirmed and re-confirmed by many others, and were accepted as fact for 200 years- until Einstein came along and shifted the truth. Einstein proved that gravity is a pushing force due to a flexible space-time curvature, a natural outcome of the existence of mass in space. In his memoirs, he even apologised: 'Newton forgive me, you found the only way, which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thought and creative power'. Thus, concepts which were believed to be fundamentally true were proved to be untrue by Einstein, showing that theories can work, be accepted as truth, until someone else comes to prove otherwise. Hence, theories are not necessarily true and are always open to adaptation.
The highest level of certainty one can reach in science is a theory. You have a hypothesis which is tested, proved, and elevated to a theory which is generally accepted by everyone. What is more, alternative theories can arise based on the same observations, meaning that science and research lead not to absolutes but to working models which are then falsified or proved. However, there are direct observations which are simply fact. It is fact that the Earth is round, that water consists of 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen, that DNA is the genetic code of living cells. These observations do not change, so are certain.
Evolution as a general idea of biological change over time has been known and documented to be true- this is an observation. Bacteria have the ability to undergo mutations and gain antibiotic resistance to protect themselves from the lethal mechanisms of antibiotics. It is predicted that by 2050 this phenomenon will be the biggest cause of death, killing more people than cancer. It is true that these microorganisms have been given the ability to undergo intrinsic mutations which can spread clonally from mother to daughter, and also spread to other species via plasmids and transposons. This is a protective mechanism that bacteria have been given by God, just like all other living things. This mutational change, however, is simply a means for bacteria to strengthen their defence system. These changes do not give rise to a new species; they are merely adaptations to the dangers in their environment. Staphylococcus aureus which gains resistance to methicillin does not mutate and evolve into Escherichia coli, but becomes a methicillin-resistant strain of staph. aureus (MRSA).
Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, is the notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. His theory generally presumes the idea that complex organisms evolve from more simplistic ancestors through the preservation of beneficial mutations which are passed on to aid the 'survival of the fittest' organisms in a process known as natural selection. This is based on homogeny, in other words, the similarity between species. According to this theory, the fact that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees is 99% the same means that we must have the same ancestor. This is an assumption, no one has seen the supposed split between human/chimpanzee ancestry 20 million years ago. It is true that similarities exist between many living things on Earth. Considering the fact that we are all in essence made up of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, and eat many common foods, homogeny is completely normal. However, similarities in the phenotype or actions between species- whether that is between chimpanzees and humans or snakes and fish- does not mean that we evolved from the same ancestor.
Lamarck, another evolutionary biologist who published his theories before Darwin (who later disproved his version of the theory), claims that giraffes evolved their long neck due to their need to reach tree tops. Was the giraffe the only animal with the desire to reach the highest branch on trees for nutrition? Why did no other animal develop a long neck? Why do goats still have to bother climbing trees to graze? Surely, their inability to adapt a longer neck should have caused them to fail the survival competition and 'better adapted' species should have arose? Darwin also claims that snakes lost their legs over time due to disuse, while birds evolved wings in order to fly as an adaptation. If animals lost their unused organs as a method of adaptation, surely birds should have lost their wings if they did not originally have the instinct to use them to fly? The contradictions in the proposed arguments are clearly exposed for speculation.
There is not a single biologic event that occurs by chance. From DNA replication to protein synthesis, there is perfect order in the way molecular systems operate in a cell. When one fully comprehends the complexity of these events which work together in perfect harmony in each living cell, and the fact that the human body consists of 60 trillion cells, it becomes impossible to deny the work of the Creator. Every living being has its own unique plan, its unique phenotype, and its own molecular system. If we simply were an adaptation of chimpanzees, then why do we have the privilege of language and civilization and they do not? There is no biologic reason to explain why homo-sapiens are the only species on Earth who have language, free will, and knowledge over other animals. The Qur'an describes the way our actual ancestor prophet Adam was created: 'When your Lord said to the angels, " I am creating a mortal from dried, sounding clay, from molded dark mud. When I have fashioned him in due proportions and breathed into him out of My Spirit, then fall down prostrating before him "(as a token of respect for him and his superiority).' (15/28-29). Just as God mentions earth, clay, and mud as being the material origin of humankind, He also draws attention to our spiritual potential. The 'spirit' that God breathes into each human before he or she is born is attributed to Himself, giving us spiritual potential above all other living beings. This is the only reason why, unlike other animals, humans have consciousness, will-power, the ability to learn, complex feelings, intellect, and the power of reasoning.
Unlike Christianity and Judaism, Islam is still a literalist religion- we believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of Allah. For me, the overlap between science and the Qur'an has always increased my belief in God. The Holy Book does not contradict scientific facts, it only confirms them. If anything, it has always increased my curiosity to do research, both in the way of literature-reviews and lab-based research to find what is not known for certain. In fact, science as a practice itself comes from Islam. The first scientist in history was Hassan Ibn al-Haytham who lived approximately a thousand years ago in the Islamic Golden Age. He was not only a scientist but also an Islamic Scholar and the aim of becoming closer to God was what drove him to do science. Sadly, nowadays, science is associated with atheism. The theory of evolution has been used as a weapon by atheists who highlight it as an ideology whenever they have the chance. In my humble opinion, the Darwinian evolution theory is nothing more than a working scientific model- one which has many flaws.
'Truth is sought for its own sake... Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough. For the truths are plunged in obscurity... God, however, has not preserved the scientist from error and has not safeguarded science from shortcomings and faults. If this had been the case, scientists would not have disagreed upon any point of science..' Hassan Ibn al-Haytham.
