Channel: Mohammed Hijab
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuhu Welcome to an very important show on evolution. I'm here with Seville Rahman, how you doing? You have a good, a good, one of the researchers at IRA, and we're going to be discussing Darwinian evolution, how certain let's get started straightaway. So how certain are we, of Darwinian evolution? And more specifically, I want to ask you, how certain are we that we have the same ancestors as present day? Let's say chimps. Okay, brilliant question. All I'm going to do in this show, inshallah, God willing to show the popular narrative, which is, it is as certain as planetary motion as certain as the planets going round the round the sun, that we are
certain this has happened, because this is the sort of certainty that Darwin is speak with. Okay. And I'm going to show in the challenging that certain time not, okay, I'm going to show the academics Not me, right, say it is based on a probabilistic framework, which has multiple assumptions, which are being challenged and his core concepts are disputed. So are you saying that what's happening on a popular level is completely different from what's going on in the academic world? Absolutely. And this is not just something which I'm pointing out. This is something that even the British government understands that the academia is what's known in academia hasn't
filtered down to the general masses, which is why they run projects to narrow the gap. Right. But why would say when it comes to Darwin's particular theory, yeah. Richard Dawkins, in the blind watchmaker, says, Darwin allowed us to be intellectually satisfied atheists before Darwin, it could have been tenable to be an atheist, right? But he allowed us to be intellectually satisfied atheists. So because of that, we've got a deliberate campaign by humanists, by atheists by Darwinists to miss educate the public on this particular issue. sounds quite conspiratorial support. I mean, it does mean, is it just what you're saying? Or is there some people from like an academic
perspective, they've also made the same kind of claim? Well, what you'll find and this is very, very interesting is that mainstream secular academics who are themselves like atheists, for example, James Shapiro, he is a Cambridge educated evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. And he basically says that it's a religion. Lynn Margulis she's again, an atheist, evolutionary biologist, her and Savior in symbiotic theory is to win every single prize of some sorts. She did. She won the National Medal of Science, while Clinton gave that to her. So again, she's an atheist. She called an Anglo Saxon sect, right. Masatoshi Nye, who is a dawn in population genetics and
subfield of evolutionary biology again, another guest.
Yeah, yeah. So he's got these formulas, which are taught at an academic level in libraries across the world. He has said Darwin, and he doesn't believe in Darwin's mechanism. He believes in his own mutation driven evolution. He says, Darwin in our field is God. So you can't challenge him. Right? So these are atheist evolutionary academics saying, This is way more than science, right. And one other thing, which is very, very important, just a few months ago, there's a book published by Oxford University by an atheist evolutionary biologist, called Darwinism as religion. So he wasn't a biologist to philosophy of science. Michael ruse right away, he argues in that book, is that
Darwin's theory is a valid scientific theory. Yes, but it has morphed into a full out religion. No religion believes in God by religion, nonetheless. Okay, let's get straight into the question I posed to you. In the beginning of this session, we talked about certainty in terms of evolutionary theory, you're saying it's not a certain as evolutionists, or let's say even popular atheists are making out to be So what is your evidence of that? Okay. All of the people I'm going to reference in this video are people that you can go check out learn, and you can actually find out that what I'm saying is based on what they're saying, yeah. So first off, if we pick up any book on the philosophy
of biology, philosophy of biology is a subfield in which if you imagine a biologist is studying organisms, right? And a philosopher of biology studying biologists, how do they come to a conclusion? So basic book on this is evidence in evolution by Cambridge University, by the philosopher of biology, Eliot soba, who's an atheist, right? And what he says in this book is this. The Darwinian evolution is based on a probabilistic framework, okay. And he talks about the multiple assumptions which are there. Likewise, we have Peter Godfrey Smith, another philosopher biology printed he published a book with Princeton University called philosophy of biology. Yeah, he's does
he speaks about Bollinger moving away from the tree of life, which we've been told is a fact Okay, to a web of life. So mainstream secular. These two individuals are atheist, mainstream, secular universities and individuals and academics. Yeah, admit to three facts, probabilistic framework, multiple assumptions which are being challenged and
His core concepts are disputed, disputable. Let's stick with two and three because one might be claimed to be not a problem. Everything in it says in a sense is probabilistic, right? Yeah, sure. But what we need to be careful about is this. Yeah, remember the narrative, they're telling us, they're telling us it's as clear it's no brainer. It's as clear as planetary motion. That's not probabilistic. That's an observation. Right? So it's a very big claim. Okay. So probabilistic framework is something which automatically lowers that certainty that we're talking about. Okay. Some would say, though, I mean, we're talking about probabilistic framework we don't have we don't
have a problem with that.
Two and Three, you mentioned some of the main major assumptions, like, we're gonna probably go into homology or something like this. So before we move on to homology, what we need to realize is this. Yeah, number one, Darwin, and the way that he framed hysteria, and the way that he propagated it, yeah, he did it in, I believe, a very honest way. Yeah. And I believe he is a very hardworking scientist, and many of his works have been misrepresented. Okay. For example, right? If you pick up a book on evolutionary biology today, a book about Darwinian evolution, like the greatest show on earth, or Jerry coins, evolution is true, you're just gonna get this theory is true. Here's why it's
true. Here's why it's true. XYZ, okay. When you pick up the origin of species, you find that Darwin, Brian, the beginning, he says something very, very important. Okay. He says, you can use the facts that I have in my book to come up with conclusions which are opposite to mine, because he understands the philosophy of science, the philosophy of science teaches us. One, you can have a conclusion, you can have observations in the future, which can challenge your previous conclusion, right, the Black Swan problem problem induction, too, you can always have the same data giving rise to multiple theories. later on. In chapter six of his book, he speaks about the problems with his
own theory. Now look at the honesty of the man, he puts together a theory. And he puts together a chapter about the problems with this theory, and he tries to iron them out. And he admits, some of these problems are unsolvable. Some of these problems are more apparent than real. But I still think my theory is correct. But one thing that he says in his book, if this fails, his theory fails, according to him, which is gradualism, that there are variations that take place and evolution works at a gradualist pace. He said, if this fails, then my theory will absolutely break down. And evolutionary biologists today understand that gradualism has largely failed. And is this link to
things like punctuated equilibrium? Absolutely. But moreover, I just want to kind of
put a case forward, let's pretend that I'm an evolutionary biologist, and I say, listen, we have a, we have a range of different data. We have, for example, the fossil record archaeological data, we have RNA and DNA, we have the baby genome development, animals and things like that all of these things, triangulate with each other to give you the same conclusion, which is that every living thing, and the magical words, is in congruence, but also goes back to one life form. So in other words, we will go back to one, we're all descended from the same kind of singular life form. Sure. So this is the kind of primary theory or kind of primary presupposition of evolution. How would you
go around you're saying it's not as as clear as planetary motion. But the question is, isn't that enough evidence you Why is that not enough evidence for you? Okay. It's a very good question. Yeah. The only way I'm going to change your analogy is, if we were to have a conversation like this, yeah, it wouldn't be an evolutionary biologist sitting on the other side, because an evolutionary biologist would know better than that. It's most likely to be a Darwinist, because remember, and he will not every single evolutionary biologist alone is a Darwinist. Darwin is evolutionary biologists, right? And evolution is different to Darwinism, okay, pollution simply means biological
change over time, Darwinian evolution is tree of life and the mechanism, okay? First thing, which he says is very, very important. Let's flesh it out. Okay. So you're claiming as a Darwinist, right? biochemistry? Yeah. Genetics. Yes. And that to me? Yeah. psychology, sociology, linguistics, biogeography, the fossil record Bioinformatics, and every other sphere of bylo. The subfields of biology. can I explain I in congruence, leading up to one conclusion is the very first thing I'll point out without even knowing any science, okay? That is impossible, because science doesn't proceed like that. The same data can give rise to multiple conclusions. Okay. So that's the first
point but secondly, if we delve into the data, we realize there's lots of black swans, lots of recalcitrant facts, facts which have existed theory Yeah, I was just going to ask you to define this will cause you to in fact, okay, recalcitrant factors, right? I've been accused of murdering Adi Tao say, Okay, I happen to be accused of murdering on the dollar Thursday at 630.
On the 20th of September, wherever, right now the recalcitrant fact is your an eyewitness, and the person filming is an eyewitness that you're here down here. That's a recalcitrant fact. Right? So recalcitrant fact is a factory resists a theory, now within evolutionary biology
We have recalcitrant facts. in genetics, for example, orphan genes. We have recalcitrant facts when it comes to the fossil record in terms of punctuated equilibrium civilizational evolution, we have recalcitrant facts when it comes to random mutations in terms of natural genetic engineering. Now, these may sound like technical terms, but all I want you to understand is, is basically it's not in congruence. No, in a way, which is only theory, that's in congruence, you can come up with other theories besides that, right? Because remember, I'm not saying those fields don't lead to Darwinism. They can, right. But they can also lead to other theories, right. So what you're saying just to kind
of simplify, is, you're saying that the data that we have in front of us can be interpreted in a range of different ways. And moreover, you're saying that if we want to stick to the fine kind of structure of Darwinian evolution, and we want to try and create what you would think is like a line of best fit, you'd see a lot of anomalous sort of dots on the scatter graph, it wouldn't be just one line of best fit every theory, every dose. And the other thing is, look, I believe Darwin's theory to be a valid scientific model theory.
But I but I think the reason why people get confused is because they conflate science with truth, right? Science gives you workable models of our reality, which are falsified. It doesn't give you truth with a capital T. That's the beauty of science. They keep changing, keeps evolving, keeps changing. As we get new data, I've got some questions for you. One of them is that you've mentioned in the things that you are mentioning as a subfield of biological change over time.
You mentioned a few things like civilizational, or you call it basically how animals act together. sociological, sociological behavior, yeah, sociological behavior of animals. So is it the case that here, for example, chimps and human beings have the same sociological, other behaviors more similar from a sociological perspective, according to, again, mainstream evolutionary biologists, this is where we have homoplasy homo, please, these are similarities are not due to common descent. So we have Okay, hold on a little bit, once again, to simplify. Sure. So you've got two key terms here. Yep. Right. One of them is homology. Yeah. And the opposite of that are more places. So can we
quickly just show mine right? homology is an assumption. Yes, similarities are due to common descent. Common descent. So I have all the similarities that we see in the animal kingdom, is due to is a result of the fact that we are from the same, let's say, it's assumed the way this common answer common answers. And this is the assumption of homology goes back to the Padma Purana, 3000 years ago, the ancient Indians, now Hindus, because they're philosophers, they will not notice. So when it comes to homology, if someone uses it as an assumption, there's nothing wrong per se, if someone says this, and I want you to really argue this contest, you know, they use this argument all
the time. similarities are due to common descent, right? Hey, look, similarities exist. Therefore, similarities are due to common descent. Right? What's wrong with that argument? A circular circular? Sadly, we will find even documentaries using this sort of circular reasoning. Is this something which is fleshed out in the academic world? what you're saying? Because what you're saying here is actually quite profound. Let's be honest here. You're saying that the foundation of evolutionary Darwinian evolutionary models was the one that we kind of acquainted with, which is homology, one of the main assumptions, everything that it goes back to kind of common descent or the differences or
the some sort of similarities that we see. That is, that is due to common descent.
You're saying that actually, this itself, this foundational thing cannot be proven in and of itself? Yeah. Is that your is that your claim? I'm not claiming this. I am going to give you an example of someone who points this out. Now, evolution, this is not your claim. No, not my claim. And I'm gonna give you an example. evolutionary biologists, they don't use this circular reasoning. This is used by people who are popularizes. Okay. All they say is we assume it and they carry on. There's nothing wrong with it. Okay. Ronald Brady. He's a philosopher of biology. Yes, in mainstream secular academic, he published a paper in a journal called cladistics. called on the, on the independence of
systematics. And what he goes on to say is this, this line of reasoning is circular. Right? If you want to, if you want to say that homology is true, you have to come up with an independent argument and use this because it certainly is something which doesn't seem like you can put under a microscope on you can't. So how can you prove it? You can't you can't use an assertion. Okay, you move on. So if it's an assumption, and it can't be proven, what you're effectively saying is that that which holds the house of the foundations which holds the house of Darwinian evolution, itself are unsound or not ensemble unprovable? Of course, that's what you're saying? Well, that's not what
I'm saying. This is what that's what's being said. And that's why being said an academic well, because no one tries to prove assumptions. So that's very profound. What it is, it is if we understand that the popular understanding is different to the academic understanding, but it's not profound for an academic for it. See, so they find how do basically, evolutionary biologists or Darwinists reconcile this because how can they How can they be
Certain about something which hasn't got, which has, you could even say axiomatic type presuppositions. Okay. Now this is where it gets really interesting. I find the language of people like Richard Dawkins, very interesting because he is, after all, somebody who is seen as an authority in this field, although he is not he is referred to as a science journalist. But what he does say in public is different to what he sometimes writes in books, right. lesser known works. So, for example, when he met Hamza in Ireland during the 2011 world atheist convention, you know, he was talking about, you don't believe in evolution is just as clear as planetary motion, right? Yeah.
Yeah. In his book, a devil's Chaplin, right. He goes on to say in this book that future facts, and I'm quoting him verbatim, future facts may come to light, which will force our successors of the 21st century to abandon Darwinism, or modify beyond recognize, wow, wow, right. Now what what's basically going on here is this. He knows what he's talking about. He's an intelligent guy, right? But there's two terms that need to be divorced, evolution and Darwinian evolution. This is what's causing the so if I, if I say to you this thing, right? I say is there a doctor in the house, we need a doctor. And there's a brother who has a PhD in philosophy. It's not the same thing. This is a
medical doctor. That's a fallacy of equivocation. This is what the Darwinists have been doing. They've been saying evolution is true. Look, the cells dividing, they're doing this, you know, you're back microbiology, microbiology, antibiotic medicine. And they use that to extrapolate to huge amounts of history. Right, not the same thing at all. It's a fallacy of equivocation. Let me ask you a question straight up. We've got some archaeological evidence of Lucy of all of these
things. Isn't this an evidence? Could this not be put into our database of evidences of the truthfulness of human chimp ancestry? Good question. All I would do and I've said this previously, and there's no paleontologist in the world who would disagree if somebody disagrees, please let us know you've and you've debated Aaron raw, and he's a paleontologist, isn't he? Well, he studied paleontology, right? But this is a mainstream thing, which is understood in evolutionary biology. Okay. There are four assumptions when they look at Lucio look at anything, okay. Number one is the assumption of naturalism. naturalism is everything has to be explained naturalistically. Hence why
Darwin said if there was no fossils, it still be true. Right? Because it does. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Because the assumption is that this is really axiomatic. Yeah, of course. It's incorrect. So now becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Well, actually, the the analogy that I think is good is, you know, have you ever been to a circus where they have a tightrope, and they think they're doing a cross? Yeah, I've seen that. Yeah. beneath it, they have a safety net. Right. Okay. So above, if you like, that's the science, if they fall down, the naturalism is a safety net. Right, right. All right, Henry D. In his book, The Accidental species, misunderstanding the human
evolution. He's an atheist evolutionary biologist. He's the senior editor of nature, which is the most prestigious journal in the world. It's like premier way about people like Dawkins, he says in his book, The same thing, he says, if there's no fossils, human, chimp ancestry still be true. And he says that because of homology, no, naturalism, the assumption of naturalism. And wouldn't that be coupled with the with the but there's four assumptions that are separate, right? second assumption is homology, right? third assumption is there's only one origin, right? Which is why humans, chimps have to be put together, you me a blade of grass and elephant, an octopus or family will find me
because of the assumption of one origin. Yeah, that's an assumption. Fourthly, this is extremely important, right? Even if these assumptions didn't exist, this is the most fundamental assumption. Okay, go ahead. And this is the one that's most challenged gone from to get from A to Zed, we need a mechanism, right? And that's natural selection, right? If the mechanism fails, and history fails, imagine there's a bridge, you got two structures on either side, then you've got a beam, these structures are the mechanism of natural selection, the Tree of Life is the trajectory, right? If these structures break, the tree breaks, so you're saying this challenge was a challenge? Well,
anybody who knows the basics of evolutionary biology knows the mechanism is being challenged by mainstream academics by a host of alternatives. Evolution by self organization, new mutation ism, Yamaha neo lamarckism, that's become very popular as he had dead theory which came back to life now. Right, right. There's also attended. Yes, that's a good point. And there's also evolution by natural genetic engineering all these fringe. Of course, they're, they're very fringe, they are fringe, but what we have to understand is epistemically. Something may be fringe, but it's epistemic, Lee equal. Right. Okay. So what you're saying here,
tell me what you're saying. So if someone comes in a nutshell, let's try and say this. To summarize something to kind of summarize. Yeah.
Assume I'm someone who's absolutely convinced as a matter of certainty that a Darwinian evolution is true and be okay that humans
chimp ancestry is certainly the case. Okay. I'm going to come up to you and say listen, I believe a and b, what would be in a in a kind of summarized nutshell? Your response? to show them that it's not certain. Okay, good question. Yeah. I would. Firstly, if I literally had no time, I would ignore the science. Yeah. Simply go to the philosophy of science, a philosophy of science is based upon limited set of data generalizations, future data, which can challenge the previous theory, the same data can give rise to multiple theories. Yeah. Just based on those two things. You shouldn't be searching about anything in science, because pick up any book on the philosophy of science, such as
philosophy of science, a new introduction by Oxford University, yeah. In it, it says, No, no scientific theory, no scientific conclusion can be concrete proof, you can always change. Right? Okay. And the second thing about human chimp ancestry, what why would simply do human chimp ancestry is based upon four assumptions, homology, naturalism, the mechanism and a single origin. Yes. Secondly, all of Darwinian evolution is based on a probabilistic framework, which has assumptions, and which is disputable. And somebody may turn around and say to me, you have a smooth, who cares? 99% of biologists believe in Darwinian evolution. I would say to them, Well, guess what, so do I.
But what does believe me, they believe it to be a valid theory. It doesn't mean they believe it to be absolutely true. The same thing with me, as a Muslim, I believe it to be a valid theory. plausible theory. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not absolutely true. And obviously, for Islamic reasons, you would opt out of believing that human beings have a common ancestor with a chimp. No, I would, but I wouldn't even have to be a Muslim to do that. Right? Because, for example, someone like David stove, he's that mainstream atheist, philosopher of Darwinian fairytales. Darwin fairytales his popular book, also, yeah, people like Jerry Fodor, his book, what Darwin got wrong.
And interestingly, and I think we didn't actually mention this point. They understand it's not absolute. But interestingly, this point we didn't actually mentioned, Darwin's theory is unique for five reasons. Going. There's nothing, no other theory in the history of science, which has these things. Number one, according to mainstream secular academics, is turned into a secular religion, according to even dominance themselves to
influence politics, and it became into its own political system within itself. Starling read the origin of species that led him to atheism. When he killed people. He said he thought he was doing natural selection, third, and ethical system people get a meaning of it. You know, they they could drive morality for me. Fourthly, we have Spencer, social, of course, absolutely. Full. We have mass propaganda, we have the popular perception and we have academia. And five, this is extremely important is that apart from it being a religion apart from it, the the sociological aspect of it, so the religion, the political aspect, the ethical aspect, the
propaganda. sociologically, if you go up to somebody and say, Do you believe in this theory that Yeah, believe it to be true masses of people believe it to be true? If you ask them for a whiff of evidence, it's just scratching the surface. They don't know. And I've experienced this myself, and I just want to end upon this. Yes. in Stanford, they did an experiment about social conformity. And they put three lines on the board. And there was a group group of people. One of them was a test subject, the rest of them were actors. And they have lines ABC, so they went off to everyone. Which line is the shortest, the shortest was c? This guy lied and said, ay, ay, ay, ay, ay, ay came to the
test subject, all the rest of them are fake. He denied his own perception. And he said, he, even though he knew see was the smallest, which goes to show that human beings are social creatures. We go with the flow, and we accept things because of authority without actually questioning them. And Darwin's theory is unique in the sense that you have millions of people who believe in it, it's a it's a materialistic story for capitalism. And it is something which is accepted without any evidence. Tell us tell us so you want to say Lhasa? Yeah, that's it. There's five things about Darwin's theory, which is unique. Okay. Tell us about this. What's this? This is a project called
Darwinian delusions. And the only purpose is to ship all over the ship. Well, the HMS Beagle 1859 to Thailand, right. So what it basically is this, I want to make it clear what delusions is. I'm not saying somebody who believes that to be a valid scientific theory is diluted, I say, YouTube channels, the YouTube channel.
This is to show that if you believe is certain, and if you want to bring your if you want to bring meaning of life on if you bring morality of it, you know, from Darwin to Hitler, you should read this book, right? How he led the Nazis to do what they were actually doing in terms of their social Darwinism, then I would say you're pretty diluted because this is a valid scientific theory, but it's not the gospel truth. Interesting Interesting. Interesting. People are gonna be going on that and Charla and subscribing to it and listening to more of support
His research is really truly eye opening. And I'm sure even if you're not a Muslim or let's say even if you are a Darwinian evolutionist, you should be challenging, challenging yourself and not really kind of relying on like the social narrative. I mean, at the end of the day, social narratives change. And the way they do change is by critical inquiry, and I do invite everyone to critically examine under the microscope of objectivity, the truthfulness of Darwinian evolution based on the information and obviously this is going to be a good YouTube channel for you to subscribe to. Anyways, for until next time. Assalamu alaikum warahmatullah over again, Sonali.