As a Muslim, you should be educated enough to at least be able to answer some simple questions when you are in a discussion with a non-Muslim.
The Atheists claim to have found the "solution" to God when the Theory of Evolution was introduced, but we all know it is nonsense. It is a silly theory, full of holes and inconsistencies. Atheists claim they do not believe in anything, and yet they choose to believe in the "Theory of Evolution" when it does not make any sense. They call it "science".
This is a short introduction to evolution. I am not an expert, but I know enough to disprove their "theories" and claims. And at the end of the discussion, I present the one argument that no evolutionist can disagree with. The one question that remains without a "theory". There is no "theory" for it. We know the answer to that question. Allaah gave us the answer to it.
There are two types of evolution: micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution
This refers to animal and human adaptation to their surroundings. Allaah SWT created humans and other animals with this amazing capability. We can adapt to our environment, and so can animals. There are so many examples, I am sure we can come up with lots easily.
This type of "evolution", is detectable and in fact we have witnessed it. No one can deny it, and we know that Allaah made it so. Can you imagine if animals couldn't adapt to their surroundings? They would be all wiped out by now! So we say, Subhana-Allaah, Alhamdulilaah, Allaahu Akbar.
Macro-evolution
Here is the part of "evolution" that is flawed, doesn't make sense, and disagrees with what Allaah SWT tells us. This is where they say that all life on this planet came about by "chance", and that animals and humans started out as a single celled organism. That single cell evolved into a simple creature which then some how gave birth to more creatures who then started mating and had offspring that roamed the earth and developed strange little mutations that eventually turned them into lions, dogs, birds, and humans.
It doesn't make a lot of sense, but that is what they choose to believe. They say: it is possible! Well I say it is impossible. Here is why:
1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.
2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us.
3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.
6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.
7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.
8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures.
Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.
9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.
10. Why non-believers need evolution
Universities, schools, colleges, governments all need evolution. Governments of the past used to be controlled by the Church, because there was such a large population of Christians, they all believed in the laws of God. This gave the Church a lot of power, leaving politicians out of the equation. Now you introduce another concept, alongside the concept of "creation" and call it evolution. You destroy the faith of the people through lies and deception and you hand power back to the politicians, leaving Churches empty and the laws of God meaningless.
Educational institutions need evolution. How many papers can you write on "creation"? How many lectures, books, and discussions with the message "God created everything?" Evolution brings students, funding, media coverage and so on.
11. The final masterpiece: Water
The one thing no evolutionist can explain: Water. Allaah SWT says:
Allah has created every [living] creature from water. And of them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are those that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent. {24:45}
Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? {21:30}
Every living thing needs water. One of the ingredients in every living thing is water. The one thing bothering all these evolutionists is: how did so much water come to earth? What far-fetched theory can they come up with to explain how all this water ended up here?
One laughable and weak theory claims that all these billions of gallons of water came from passing comets. Comets carry small chunks of ice, and they claim that some of that ice evaporated in the atmosphere when passing over earth, and that somehow collected on earth. How much sense does that make? Absolutely none which is why evolutionists are on the lookout for another theory.
As a Muslim, I don't need any theories. I know Allaah created this water, and this earth, and these creatures, and every other living thing. Why? So that those who are intelligent will look and say look at the amazing things God has created. Look at the perfection He has given everything He has created.
And look at how Allaah has left signs in His creation. Things for us to look at and admire, and thank Allaah for what He has given us and bestowed upon us from His mercy.
You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency {67:3}
said:
