-
Theory Of Evolution: Criticism Of Ghamidi Sahab's Viewpoint
السلام علیکم
نیچے دیے گئے ویڈیو لنک میں ایک شخص غامدی صاحب کی ارتقاء پر کی گئی باتوں کا جواب دے رہا ہے
اپ سے کیسے جوابا بیان کریں گے
-
18 Replies
-
Theory Of Evolution: Criticism Of Ghamidi Sahab's Viewpoint
updated 3 months, 1 week ago
6 Members
·
18
Replies
-
No serious information or credible sources cited so its difficult to assess his arguments.
-
Normally I do not have the time to watch videos and comment on them. However, Neo-Darwinism is something that I have spent a lot of time in researching in the past so I wanted to see if this video might have presented any new aspect that might be useful to me. I was disappointed.
Please find my point by point comments about some of the claims presented in this video:
A scientific theory is a collection of facts which makes repeatable and testable predictions
This is not accurate. There is nothing factual about the String Theory. Similarly the Big Bang Theory is neither repeatable nor testable and has no predictive power. Same goes for many other theories in science.
Evolution is true because no one in the last 150 years has been able to prove it wrong
Many concerns are raised against the theory of evolution within the scientific community itself. In the light of evidence against Neo Darwinism certain scientists are even arguing for a completely new theory. Hopefully this recent article will be great overview of how the theory of evolution has progressed through time and some of the current concerns:
The Guardian | Do we need a new theory of evolution?
Please also watch:
Evolution is falsifiable because all species that exist today have transitional forms
This is also an invalid claim. There is certainly strong evidence for micro-evolution (inter species), however, there is no conclusive evidence for macro-evolution (intra species) at all. In fact there exists very strong evidence against macro-evolution. For example, majority of animal phyla first appeared in a very short timeframe in a period called the Cambrian Explosion without any prior ancestral links. This was known to Darwin himself and something that is yet to be satisfactorily answered by anyone. Also Michael Behe (Lehigh University) has presented strong criticism of Neo Darwinism on the basis of irreducible complexity which is yet to be satisfactorily refuted. Please see this video. Additionally, functionally specified information is found in the DNA which can’t be explained without an intelligent agent. This is such a big question for science that there is a $10 million award for anyone who can explain it. Please see Evolution 2.0 award details.
Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans would not have produced a healthy offspring
In light of evidence this is not correct either. Please see:
Wikipedia | Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans
Evolution is against God and the creation of Adam is in contradiction with the theory of evolution
I believe that this is not correct. In addition to Ghamidi sahab there are many other Muslim and Christian scholars who do not consider the theory of evolution to be against anything in the scripture. For Ghamidi sahab’s viewpoint in this regard please watch the following video from 00:00:00 to 00:10:40:
Revelation as a source of knowledge is an absurdity
I’m not sure how someone can claim this when revelation itself is established as a source of knowledge on the very basis that all of our other sources of knowledge are established upon. For details please see this playlist.
Myth of Adam being created from dust originated in ancient Mesopotamia, the Bible stole it from there and then the Quran stole it from the Bible
The correct narrative according to the Quran is that God has sent down only one religion since the beginning of time but people kept on corrupting the message of God. It’s neither stealing nor a coincidence that many religious concepts have remained the same throughout the history of mankind.
Guided evolution is an insult of God because God talks about kun fa yakun
Please see the following for the correct understanding:
Correct Translation of the Expression Kun Fayakoon
Sadly, not only that the presenter of the video in discussion is ignorant about religion but is also ignorant about science – the very basis upon which he is criticizing Ghamidi sahab.
—
-
Thnx a lot sr🥰
-
@faisalharoon sb if you get time, i will request you to write a complete critical review on this topic with all references. I think it will be great for general audience and me.
-
Asalamualaikum Mr. Faisal Haroon,
Are there any videos or forum answers on the topic of archaic humans in the light of Islam that you can share with me?
JazakAllah
-
Sorry I don’t recall any discussions on Ask Ghamidi regarding archaic humans.
-
No problem, JazakAllah.
-
Please see:
-
JazakAllah Mr. Umer Qureshi!
-
Asalamualaikum Mr. Faisal Haroon,
I have not read your answer in detail yet, but I intend on doing that soon. I was wondering whether you can shed light on a point that was made in the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAlLh56Jc0E
At the 21:30 point, the point is made that in a community of 300, 000 scientists, only 400 disagree with theory of evolution? From your knowledge, is this true?
JazakAllah
-
I have not watched your video either, but this is a very unacademic stance which I can comment on without having to watch the video.
The theory of evolution encompasses many different fields of science, such as Evolutionary biology, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Paleontology, and many more. Each of the 300,000 scientists are only an expert in their own respective fields. Their opinions in other fields of science are inconsequential.
Secondly, there is no good way to count how many scientists agree with a certain theory. Just because there is no public statement by a scientist regarding a theory does not automatically mean that they agree with it.
Lastly, the number of scientists believing in a theory is no measure of the theory being correct, especially when it has open concerns such as the one that I have listed above.
Please be advised that I did not comment on the theory being right or wrong. I only wanted to point out that the theory of evolution is still a work in progress.
-
Makes a lot of sense. JazakAllah for the prompt answer!
-
-
Ahsan sahab @codename.AJK I have tried to concisely pinpoint the key issues regarding Neo Darwinism (evolution through random mutation and natural selection) in my write up above along with references (underlined words are external links).
At a personal level I have been working on certain related topics which I will share once I have something worthy of sharing. Dr. Junaid Hassan is also working on these topics very diligently and I am hopeful that his works should be published soon as well Insha’Allah.
For now, you may want to read Darwin’s Blackbox by Michael Behe. His main idea is discussed in the video link that I also shared above.
Additionally, one of the biggest challenges in the academia regarding evolution is known as Abiogenesis which deals with the origins of first life on earth from non-living matter. While there are several hypothetical ideas for each phase of this process, serious challenges face many such ideas. Overall, the life from non-life is still a big question mark for the scientists. Dr. James Tour, a Christian organic chemist and nanotechnologist at the Rice University has also discredited certain research / experiments in this area based upon his areas of expertise. You can lookup his informative videos on Youtube.
Next, even if we are successfully able to show how life started to exist through chemical reactions in the prebiotic soup (a hypothetical set of conditions present on the earth at the beginning of life), we still don’t know how RNA would have turned into DNA and proteins that are necessary for life. The most commonly accepted idea in this regard is called the RNA world, which again is just a hypothesis at this time.
Moreover, a cell contains functionally specified information which at present we can’t trace back to any blind biochemical processes. In fact, at present we have not even been able to completely map out the enormous complexity of just a single cell. The more we learn the more complexity we find.
Also there are many unknowns and hypothetical ideas regarding how a single cell would have eventually transformed into multicellular life. Once we are able to understand that, we still don’t know how life would have become conscious. Again there are many hypothetical ideas and on-going debates regarding consciousness but nothing can be claimed with any level of certainty.
As you can see, there are many levels of complexity in science related to life and each level has many assumptions or hypotheses at this time. While pop-science tends to make us think that pretty much everything is proven, once we start to dig deeper we learn that science is in fact far from making any valid assertions in many areas of research related to life.
-
thanx i ill chk it out
-
-
Found the following on chat GPT regarding this topic just wondering the accuracy of this info 🤔:-
-
Ghamidi sahab has provided his viewpoint in the following video as well as several others that you can lookup on Ask Ghamidi.
-
Thanks a lot sr
-
-
How should Muslims view fossil discoveries of hominid species. From the article below, it states that this species of extinct hominids who were not human had rituals such as burying their dead and drawing cave pictures:-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
