Islam and evolution with Professor Shoaib Ahmed Malik (2021-12-09) ​

0:00:02 hello everyone and welcome to blogging
0:00:05 theology and today i have a very
0:00:07 distinguished uh guest dr
0:00:10 ahmed malik welcome to blogging theology
0:00:12 sir
0:00:14 thank you very much paul i appreciate
0:00:15 you inviting me to vlogging theology
0:00:18 well and uh this is a this is a very
0:00:21 special um video i think uh in this
0:00:23 video um dr schaefer is going to be
0:00:26 discussing his recent work uh a book
0:00:28 entitled islam and evolution
0:00:31 al ghazali and the modern evolutionary
0:00:34 paradigms published by rootlegged
0:00:36 science and religion series
0:00:38 by the way and uh dr shelby very
0:00:40 generously agreed to put a link to
0:00:43 his book which is available free of
0:00:45 charge quite legally in the description
0:00:48 below so you can download it and read it
0:00:50 the uh the rootledge publishers are okay
0:00:52 with that um so um dr shobe is
0:00:57 a professor and he is assistant
0:00:59 professor of the natural sciences at
0:01:02 zayed university in dubai
0:01:04 and he researches exclusively on the
0:01:07 topics of science and religion atheism
0:01:10 and islamic theology and he's a
0:01:13 specialist uh clearly a specialist on
0:01:16 islam and evolution and this is an
0:01:18 incredibly controversial subject amongst
0:01:20 muslims and also amongst christians and
0:01:22 many jews as well and this book is i've
0:01:26 read the endorsements on the back and
0:01:28 i'll let you have a look some of the
0:01:30 leading scholars in the world have read
0:01:31 this book and endorse it muslim scholars
0:01:34 and top academics and specialists at
0:01:36 oxford university and other universities
0:01:38 have read this and give it glowing
0:01:40 commendations so this really is a very
0:01:42 mainstream academic work uh tackling
0:01:45 head-on the whole issue of islam and
0:01:47 evolution
0:01:48 so without any more ado i'll hand over
0:01:51 um the show to dr shope who will take us
0:01:54 through islam and evolution with a
0:01:56 series of slides
0:01:58 and and a talk about it so over to you
0:02:01 sir
0:02:02 thank you very much paul i appreciate it
0:02:04 so um
0:02:05 as paul kindly mentioned his
0:02:08 introduction i mostly focus on the
0:02:10 interaction of science and religion and
0:02:12 what i'm about to present is just a a
0:02:15 summary of my own book
0:02:17 that was released this year with
0:02:19 rutledge
0:02:20 back in may um so this is the overview
0:02:23 uh of the presentation as you can see on
0:02:26 the right hand side that's the front
0:02:28 cover of my book it's open access that
0:02:30 means you can download it for free and
0:02:31 legally somebody paid for it
0:02:34 for to be available anywhere in the
0:02:36 world um so no matter where you are it
0:02:39 is an accessible item that has no
0:02:42 paywalls behind it it's absolutely free
0:02:44 you can now as a pdf so um
0:02:46 for today's conversation what i'd like
0:02:48 to do is just go over
0:02:50 six main areas uh just to kind of clear
0:02:53 the air and then you know hopefully
0:02:55 build up my uh case for what i think
0:02:59 can be made sense of when it comes to
0:03:00 the topic of islamic evolution so first
0:03:02 and foremost i'd like to just provide a
0:03:04 very basic overview of the science
0:03:06 evolution so what do we mean by
0:03:08 evolution when we're talking about in
0:03:09 this context because whenever i say the
0:03:11 word evolution people automatically
0:03:13 think naturalism atheism fascism
0:03:16 whatever have you so i just want to kind
0:03:17 of provide a baseline that we can all
0:03:19 work with
0:03:20 following that i then want to move on to
0:03:23 um
0:03:26 a social media controversy where people
0:03:29 are referring to a certain group of
0:03:31 scientists to say hang on there's a
0:03:32 bunch of scientists here
0:03:34 behind this movement that are
0:03:36 questioning neo-darwinism therefore
0:03:38 evolution is a theory in crisis so i
0:03:41 want to address that and knit that in
0:03:42 the bud before we go any further because
0:03:44 there is a huge misconception in that in
0:03:47 in that articulation that i want to
0:03:49 clarify here i'll then um highlight the
0:03:52 approach that i've taken in this piece
0:03:54 of work um and it's by no means
0:03:56 definitive i welcome other approaches
0:03:59 but i'm just clarifying how i have
0:04:01 entertained the discussion
0:04:02 and then um i'd introduce
0:04:05 four positions which i created when i
0:04:08 was going through the literature so if
0:04:09 you if you read about the various um
0:04:12 opinions you know the people have
0:04:13 written on the topic of psalm resolution
0:04:15 i went through that and i said okay
0:04:16 these are four positions that we can
0:04:18 identify and then yeah through which we
0:04:20 can make uh you know which we can
0:04:22 navigate the conversation of islam and
0:04:23 illusion i then move on to what i
0:04:26 believe are theologically valid
0:04:28 positions out of these four and finally
0:04:30 because paul stressed that he would like
0:04:31 to go through intelligent design um i've
0:04:34 introduced that there as well so we can
0:04:35 go over um how i think intelligent
0:04:38 design works in this
0:04:40 conversation and also you said to me
0:04:42 before we started there's a difference
0:04:44 in your view between intelligent design
0:04:46 as a theory as an approach and
0:04:48 creationism which is something distinct
0:04:51 uh and uh you're going to clarify the
0:04:52 difference between creationism and
0:04:53 intelligent design perhaps sure so just
0:04:56 to be clear that the distinction between
0:04:58 creationism and intelligent design is
0:05:00 not something that i have carved out it
0:05:02 is the id proponents themselves have
0:05:04 covered up they make it very clear that
0:05:06 they are not creationists they make it
0:05:08 very clear in their own works and
0:05:11 creationists themselves have tried to
0:05:13 move away from intelligent design so
0:05:15 it's not a it's not that they're
0:05:16 synonymous it's that there are very
0:05:18 clear stipulations of what is
0:05:19 intelligent design and what is um uh
0:05:22 creationism though they're not they're
0:05:23 not necessarily opposing one another but
0:05:26 members are very clear in drawing the
0:05:28 boundaries between the two but we'll get
0:05:29 to that uh we're beating the punchline
0:05:31 yeah yeah cool all right okay so um
0:05:34 let's start off with a basic outline of
0:05:37 what we mean by evolution so the way i
0:05:40 try to simplify this for for the wider
0:05:42 audience is through three propositions
0:05:45 deep time common ancestry and then the
0:05:48 mechanisms or the mechanics of evolution
0:05:50 for me if these are enough to kind of
0:05:53 get the conversation starting
0:05:55 i don't go into any further detail about
0:05:57 the the the android and you know the
0:06:00 viruses the dna for me that that's
0:06:02 irrelevant i just want to explain enough
0:06:04 of the science so that we can start
0:06:06 engaging with the theological
0:06:08 conversation so i'm not interested in
0:06:10 going into science further than these
0:06:12 three propositions so with that said let
0:06:15 me explain what these three propositions
0:06:16 are
0:06:17 evolution requires that the earth is
0:06:20 really old a concept known as deep time
0:06:22 previously i mean if you go back a
0:06:24 couple hundred years ago people thought
0:06:26 that the earth was around six to ten
0:06:28 thousand years right mostly because of
0:06:30 uh
0:06:31 archbishop james usher who kind of you
0:06:33 know went through the patriarchs uh in
0:06:35 the bible and kind of guesstimated that
0:06:38 the bible indicates that the earth is
0:06:40 around six to ten thousand years old and
0:06:43 and even in quranic translations even
0:06:45 even a modern one that i read you know
0:06:47 seven years ago i still see in brackets
0:06:49 six thousand years ago so you do see
0:06:52 these this you do see these um
0:06:54 in contemporary works within quranic
0:06:57 translations um so the idea that the
0:07:00 time that time is much much older than
0:07:02 we anticipated is the concept known as
0:07:05 deep time so that's the first
0:07:06 proposition of evolution
0:07:08 the second proposition of evolution is
0:07:09 what makes this a distinctive theory in
0:07:12 comparison to anything that we've
0:07:14 entertained in the past in the past
0:07:16 there was this general understanding
0:07:18 at least
0:07:19 across the three abrahamic faiths that
0:07:21 god created each species separately and
0:07:24 instantaneously so humans boom
0:07:26 instantaneous creation lions boom
0:07:28 instantaneous creation cats boom
0:07:29 instantaneous creation right
0:07:32 in chapter one don't you where god
0:07:34 creates in in six or seven days rests on
0:07:36 the last day he creates this this he
0:07:38 creates that and the next day he cares
0:07:40 in 24 hour periods quite distinctively
0:07:42 uh in that time frame so yeah sorry
0:07:45 that's right yeah that's right yeah so
0:07:47 um now that is what is challenged by the
0:07:50 thea revolution um charles darwin was
0:07:53 not the first person who kind of came up
0:07:54 with the idea but he gave it a very
0:07:55 clear explanation but in a nutshell
0:07:57 common ancestry says that just like all
0:08:00 of us have a mother and father our
0:08:01 mothers our parents they have a mother
0:08:03 and father our grandparents our mother
0:08:04 and father and if we keep going back
0:08:06 with this family tree network evolution
0:08:08 just takes it to the next step they just
0:08:10 say that just like you have a family
0:08:12 tree network within your family there's
0:08:14 also a family network when it comes to
0:08:16 all biological life
0:08:18 which means that humans bugs
0:08:20 leopards cheetahs trees whatever have
0:08:23 you anything that's biologically
0:08:24 existing or has existed in the past is
0:08:27 connected in this biohistorical lineage
0:08:30 since the beginning of life three and a
0:08:32 half billion years ago so common
0:08:33 ancestry in a nutshell is
0:08:35 every biological entity is somehow
0:08:38 connected in this family-like network
0:08:41 that's what common ancestry means and
0:08:43 and this is where you get the concept of
0:08:44 mac revolution species evolving into
0:08:47 other things over time right
0:08:49 so um did you want to say anything or
0:08:50 anything to that point that's great so
0:08:52 far thank you great okay and then the
0:08:54 final thing and this is the this is the
0:08:56 part of evolution which gives it a
0:08:58 darwinistic rendition
0:09:01 the mechanisms of evolution so what what
0:09:03 is it that makes evolution tick what is
0:09:05 the engine of evolution um in charles
0:09:09 darwin's time when he when he proposed
0:09:11 this theory we have to make it very
0:09:13 clear that the concept of genes did not
0:09:15 exist in his time it simply did not
0:09:18 exist so when he first proposed the
0:09:20 theory of evolution all he proposed was
0:09:23 this idea of natural selection that when
0:09:25 you have you know a given number of
0:09:27 species in a particular climate
0:09:29 the the species that can acclimatize or
0:09:32 adapt to that environment will survive
0:09:34 and species that cannot adapt to that
0:09:36 environment will eventually die off so
0:09:38 the the natural settings are like a
0:09:41 filter and whatever is able to get
0:09:43 through lives on what doesn't get
0:09:45 through dies out that's natural
0:09:47 selection in a nutshell
0:09:48 now eventually after darwin's death in
0:09:51 the 20th century um the idea of genetics
0:09:54 came to
0:09:56 the scientific surface
0:09:57 and they eventually found out that
0:09:59 actually this concept of genes and
0:10:01 random mutations in your in your
0:10:04 explaining inheritance and variation
0:10:06 this can be plugged into the theory of
0:10:08 evolution and when natural selection and
0:10:11 random mutation
0:10:12 uh were merged along with a few other
0:10:14 things
0:10:15 this is what came to be known as
0:10:18 neo-darwinism or the modern synthesis so
0:10:21 darwinism is just natural selection
0:10:23 neo-darwinism is natural selection plus
0:10:26 random mutation and this is the
0:10:28 definition of evolution that i will be
0:10:31 using whenever i talk about it for the
0:10:33 rest of the presentation okay good very
0:10:36 clear very clear so far yeah so
0:10:38 always keep in mind that whenever we now
0:10:40 talk about evolution these three
0:10:42 propositions must constantly spring in
0:10:44 your mind deep time common ancestry and
0:10:46 then the mechanics are natural selection
0:10:48 plus random mutation okay
0:10:51 so with evolution cleared out in terms
0:10:53 of how i've defined it and how most
0:10:55 people define it right
0:10:57 there is now a social media controversy
0:11:00 uh that i've experienced in many
0:11:02 different facebook groups i know that
0:11:03 there's twitter there's this new thing
0:11:05 called clubhouse i'm not in any of those
0:11:07 right i just prefer to stick to facebook
0:11:09 call me old-fashioned but that's just me
0:11:11 right i just don't have the time old
0:11:13 fashioned but it might be the sanest
0:11:14 thing to do i've been on clubhouse
0:11:16 it could be it could be dangerous
0:11:19 all right okay no i mean like um
0:11:21 apparently there's more there's like
0:11:22 what is it instagram there's snapchat
0:11:24 there's all these other social medias
0:11:26 right
0:11:27 yeah and my mind is already so invested
0:11:30 into just university work and academic
0:11:32 life i don't have the time to invest in
0:11:34 my time in anything else
0:11:36 yeah yeah it just sucks your time up
0:11:38 anyways from what i'm sure that this is
0:11:41 going to be replicated in other social
0:11:42 media platforms but on facebook i have
0:11:45 come to see that many people refer to a
0:11:48 group of scientists um known as the
0:11:51 third way right or uh they embody a
0:11:54 movement known as the extended
0:11:56 evolutionary synthesis and they refer to
0:11:58 these scientists to say hang on all of
0:12:00 these are you know famous phd you know
0:12:04 professors they are top of their field
0:12:06 they have all the credentials that you
0:12:08 would expect from you know leading
0:12:10 scientists yet they are against
0:12:12 darwinism they are against neo-darwinism
0:12:15 therefore evolution is a theory in
0:12:18 crisis and we don't need to
0:12:20 turn this into a worry anymore and as a
0:12:23 result of that
0:12:24 people you know um get fictitious on on
0:12:27 social media now what i would like to do
0:12:30 is clarify this misconception from the
0:12:32 very beginning because i've actually
0:12:34 contacted these people personally i've
0:12:37 sent them emails and asked them what
0:12:39 exactly is your position because people
0:12:41 are saying that you don't believe in
0:12:43 evolution anymore so this is the um the
0:12:46 website the third way and this is what
0:12:48 i'm referring to here so if you click on
0:12:50 the third way if you search for third
0:12:51 one on google you'll find their website
0:12:54 okay now
0:12:56 here is an email this is a you know a
0:12:58 sample email but i sent the same thing
0:12:59 by just changing the name to all the
0:13:01 professors i just listed out earlier
0:13:03 hello dear professor shapiro i hope
0:13:05 you're well my name is shuiv and i
0:13:06 research in the intersection of science
0:13:08 religion i recently published on islam
0:13:10 revolution
0:13:11 i recently came across
0:13:13 videos by creations in which your name
0:13:15 along with others was mentioned a lot
0:13:17 creationists use your name and works to
0:13:19 promote the idea that neo-darwinism
0:13:22 which they create evolution is a theory
0:13:24 in crisis and therefore is false however
0:13:27 when i went through your work it seems
0:13:29 you're questioning the mechanics of
0:13:30 neutralism not common ancestry so are
0:13:33 you still an evolutionist just not a new
0:13:35 darwinist am i correct in understanding
0:13:37 your position regards shuev and i sent
0:13:40 this email
0:13:41 to all five people well to all four
0:13:44 people i'll explain why four not five
0:13:46 it's because uh the fifth person um
0:13:51 she passed them in 2011.
0:13:53 so this is the response that i got
0:13:56 you are correct
0:13:57 my position is that evolution by descent
0:13:59 with modification is true but the
0:14:02 modifications do not occur randomly and
0:14:05 gradually as proposed by the modern
0:14:06 synthesis i.e neo-darwinism
0:14:09 creationism intelligent design are not
0:14:10 scientific because they invoke
0:14:12 supernatural interventions to explain
0:14:15 the origins of biological complexity
0:14:17 while science is limited to natural
0:14:19 explanations attaches of paper and press
0:14:21 that lays the position on detail please
0:14:23 confirm receipt best wishes james
0:14:26 shapiro and he's written a book on the
0:14:28 subject matter and that's the book there
0:14:30 on the bottom right corner
0:14:32 so you can clearly see that james
0:14:34 shapiro is not denying that evolution
0:14:36 occur
0:14:37 what he is simply intending is that the
0:14:39 mechanics of neo-darwinism
0:14:41 he doesn't agree with
0:14:43 that's all he's saying
0:14:44 and the same and you will see the same
0:14:46 line of responses with others this is
0:14:48 professor dennis noble
0:14:50 right he says dear schweb yes you have
0:14:52 understood correctly i am questioning
0:14:54 the biological processes that neo-darwin
0:14:57 think near darwinis think are completely
0:14:58 sufficient to explain evolution
0:15:00 i am also saying that some of the bases
0:15:03 of neutrons are factually incorrect and
0:15:05 my word can be found here
0:15:07 so you see again the same response is
0:15:09 happening there they are evolutionists
0:15:11 they're just not agreeing with the
0:15:13 mechanisms
0:15:14 of neo-darwinism
0:15:17 certain truck can we just go back to
0:15:18 that i just want to note here professor
0:15:20 dennis noble says in my book dance to
0:15:22 the tune of life i also explain
0:15:24 why i don't go along with the militant
0:15:26 atheists like dawkins and coyne who use
0:15:29 neo-darwinist interpretations of
0:15:31 evolution to attack religion
0:15:33 i am agnostic
0:15:35 so
0:15:36 isn't this chap but wasn't he the
0:15:38 supervisor of richard dawkins at oxford
0:15:40 uh originally um so i'm not sure about
0:15:43 those details
0:15:44 anyway is it interesting that he
0:15:46 distances himself quite quite clearly
0:15:48 there from uh atheist scientists who use
0:15:51 their science so to speak to attack
0:15:52 religion yeah exactly yeah so
0:15:55 i mean very clearly put
0:15:57 this is professor eve jablanca eva
0:15:59 blanca she wrote evolution in four
0:16:01 dimensions um and this is what she says
0:16:05 just here's wave i'm an evolutionary
0:16:07 biologist and a great admirer of darwin
0:16:10 these creationists are shameless
0:16:11 manipulators and liars or idiots or both
0:16:15 you understand my position perfectly all
0:16:17 the best yeah
0:16:19 very nuanced response there
0:16:21 no no i asked her i i sent her email do
0:16:23 you want to mince your words a little
0:16:24 bit she's like nope because i'm
0:16:26 basically she she was frustrated that
0:16:29 her work is being used to to articulate
0:16:32 because i'm assuming this is not the
0:16:33 first time
0:16:34 she really
0:16:39 so and then uh now uh professor uh
0:16:42 masatoshi he's if i if my calculations
0:16:45 are correct he's around 80 to 90 years
0:16:47 old at the moment so i didn't expect him
0:16:49 to respond to me but i think if he's
0:16:51 japanese that probably he's still quite
0:16:53 a young man by japanese
0:16:54 yeah yeah yeah so i mean i of course i
0:16:57 mean like i whenever i mean when i when
0:16:59 i send these emails i was gambling i
0:17:01 never expected response but the fact
0:17:03 that three of them responded i mean i'm
0:17:04 more than happy with that but uh
0:17:06 professor
0:17:07 professor masatoshi he has written a
0:17:09 whole book on evolution explaining that
0:17:11 he just disagrees with the mechanisms of
0:17:14 neo-darwin and he actually articulates
0:17:16 his own position in this material
0:17:18 so again it is not that evolution has
0:17:21 not occurred it's that they're
0:17:22 disagreeing with the mechanisms of
0:17:24 neo-darwinism and finally professor um
0:17:28 lynn margulis this is a this is actually
0:17:31 a an article in which she was
0:17:33 interviewed uh recorded on discover
0:17:35 magazine and it was published i think
0:17:36 it's a couple months before she died
0:17:38 uh and there were a couple and this you
0:17:39 know this article has you know uh
0:17:41 several questions that was that was
0:17:43 asked of her and the black ones so the
0:17:46 bold ones are the questions and then the
0:17:48 non-bold are the other responses so um
0:17:51 if you can read the first one it says
0:17:52 most scientists say there is no
0:17:54 controversy over the evolution would you
0:17:56 disagree why do you disagree
0:17:58 she says all scientists agree that
0:18:00 evolution has occurred
0:18:02 so common ancestry is true
0:18:05 that all life comes from common ancestry
0:18:08 that there has been extension and that
0:18:09 new taxa new biological groups have
0:18:12 arisen the question is
0:18:15 is natural selection enough to explain
0:18:18 evolution is it the driver of evolution
0:18:21 and then if you follow the next one
0:18:22 so by natural selection
0:18:24 she means allah darwin is that right
0:18:28 yeah
0:18:29 these people are questioning the new
0:18:31 dominus
0:18:32 rendition of evolution
0:18:34 right
0:18:35 and you don't believe that natural sex
0:18:36 is the answer this is the issue i have
0:18:39 with neo-darwinists they teach that what
0:18:41 is generating novelty is the
0:18:42 accumulation of random mutations in dna
0:18:44 in a direction set by natural selection
0:18:46 if you want bigger abs you keep
0:18:48 selecting the hands that are laying the
0:18:49 biggest ends hence and you keep and you
0:18:52 get bigger and bigger eggs but you also
0:18:54 get hands with defective feathers and
0:18:55 wobbly legs natural selection eliminates
0:18:57 and maybe maintains but it doesn't
0:18:59 create
0:19:00 so
0:19:01 then it was asked of her that mendel
0:19:04 missed something was darwin wrong i'd
0:19:06 say both are incomplete
0:19:08 right so i don't want to go to the rest
0:19:10 of the answer i mean people can read
0:19:11 that around time but the idea here is
0:19:14 that all of these scholars you know who
0:19:16 were who are or were leaders in their
0:19:18 fields are pretty much articulating that
0:19:21 they don't have a problem with evolution
0:19:23 in terms of common ancestry what they
0:19:25 simply have a problem with is the
0:19:27 mechanisms of evolution and that is why
0:19:30 this paper is a very important paper
0:19:33 that appeared in nature
0:19:35 the the headlines say does evolutionary
0:19:38 theory need everything now people read
0:19:39 just the headlines and think whoa
0:19:41 evolution is a theory in crisis
0:19:43 but if you read the subtitle very
0:19:45 carefully researchers are divided over
0:19:48 what processes
0:19:50 should be considered fundamental
0:19:52 and this is where you see the split
0:19:54 between
0:19:54 this new movement called the extended
0:19:56 evolutionary synthesis or the third way
0:19:59 and then your traditional new dharmas
0:20:02 that's what this paper is about it
0:20:03 articulates both opinions but none of
0:20:05 them no matter which side you're on
0:20:07 neither of them reject common ancestry
0:20:12 so my take home message from all of this
0:20:15 is evolutionary balls agree that
0:20:17 evolution has occurred but they disagree
0:20:19 over the mechanics and that is fine
0:20:22 in science you have no
0:20:24 it's obvious that you're going to have
0:20:25 disagreements just like every human
0:20:28 activity we have difference of opinions
0:20:30 in religion we have different opinions
0:20:32 in science but the core features are
0:20:34 maintained
0:20:35 the core features are maker so that is
0:20:38 something i wanted to clarify before i
0:20:41 go to the next day so yeah did you want
0:20:42 to ask anything
0:20:44 all clear so far i'll hold my fire on
0:20:45 this until later okay okay all right
0:20:48 okay so now i'd like to articulate my
0:20:51 approach when it when it comes to now
0:20:54 addressing the interface of islam and
0:20:56 evolution so people can
0:20:58 you know go at it in multiple ways so
0:21:01 i've highlighted two there people some
0:21:03 people say let me first evaluate
0:21:05 evolution on its own merit so i will
0:21:07 evaluate the science evolution and the
0:21:10 moment i find holes in it i don't need
0:21:11 to worry about it because it has holes
0:21:13 and i don't believe it's a solid theory
0:21:15 therefore it's not an issue that i need
0:21:16 to worry about anymore and that's fine
0:21:18 if that's your methodology no problem
0:21:20 um the other another approach is you go
0:21:23 to the theological style right so what
0:21:26 extent can you
0:21:28 engage with income in terms of
0:21:30 theological nuances is there any space
0:21:32 for evolution in there now my approach
0:21:35 is more of the second kind what i simply
0:21:37 do is let me take evolution as a given
0:21:40 so i'm not gonna question evolution i'm
0:21:41 gonna say it's true as is all right
0:21:44 let's say it's true as is
0:21:46 if that's the case how far can we
0:21:49 theologically embrace evolution assuming
0:21:52 neo-darwin and evolution is true so i'm
0:21:53 not even going to the extended evolution
0:21:55 synthesis i'm saying if neo-darwinism is
0:21:56 true how much of it can i embrace as a
0:21:59 muslim
0:22:00 and so um
0:22:03 there are two questions that i need to
0:22:05 address
0:22:06 to be able to uh
0:22:08 satisfy my theological um uh
0:22:11 satisfaction right and those two are one
0:22:15 can god do a process like what what new
0:22:18 darwin says because people have a
0:22:20 problem with natural selection and
0:22:21 people have a problem they're an
0:22:22 imitation god can do things by
0:22:24 randomness that makes for a very
0:22:27 i mean
0:22:29 it's a vulgar to say this but they think
0:22:31 it's a stupid god
0:22:32 but that's that's not but that's what
0:22:34 how people think when they think of
0:22:35 randomness right the second question is
0:22:38 does this theory conflict anything in my
0:22:40 scripture
0:22:41 if both of these two filter tests are
0:22:44 passed this theory is fine
0:22:46 that's it
0:22:47 if these two
0:22:48 questions are not passed then something
0:22:50 has to change from the science but these
0:22:52 are the these are the two filters that i
0:22:55 need to engage to see whether it is
0:22:57 compatible with islam or not which is
0:22:59 why i personally believe
0:23:01 that this issue must be addressed from a
0:23:04 theological angle
0:23:06 not from a scientific it has to be a
0:23:08 theological
0:23:09 concern which is why i make my
0:23:12 presumptions very clear i come at this
0:23:15 conversation as a sunni muslim
0:23:18 that means i have certain presumptions
0:23:20 about the nature of god the nature of
0:23:22 creation and the uh the the nature of
0:23:24 that interaction between god and
0:23:26 creation
0:23:27 um and i
0:23:29 adopt scripture with a particular
0:23:31 mindset and i make those presumptions
0:23:33 crystal clear in my book i'm not hiding
0:23:35 behind anything i make it yeah you just
0:23:37 make it very very i notice that it's
0:23:39 very very clear your your assumptions be
0:23:41 some positions and so on in the book so
0:23:42 that's commendable but we're we're not
0:23:44 being covertly influenced by a set of
0:23:46 assumptions you're very open yeah
0:23:48 yeah so i make a crystal clear so
0:23:50 my first response is when i whenever i
0:23:53 speak to people when it comes to summon
0:23:54 revolution my first question to them is
0:23:56 which theological school are you coming
0:23:58 from because if i can understand that
0:24:00 then i can kind of guess how you're
0:24:01 going to interpret xyz theory
0:24:04 so if you're shiri and you adopt a
0:24:06 certain metaphysical baggage that's fine
0:24:07 that's that's your position there if
0:24:09 you're sunni which of the counts do you
0:24:11 follow now within sunni school there are
0:24:13 three schools that come under this
0:24:14 narrative ashadism maturitism and the
0:24:16 salafi or athari school whatever have
0:24:18 you they have their respective
0:24:20 differences some major some minor issues
0:24:23 i am not going into this conversation
0:24:25 with those polemical differences on
0:24:27 board i don't engage with those
0:24:28 differences i simply say the usher id
0:24:31 theology is what i'm adopting through
0:24:33 the lens of america's ali hence the
0:24:35 subtitle
0:24:36 and the modern revolution paradigm so
0:24:38 that is the approach that i'm taking and
0:24:40 i hope that people can see that if you
0:24:42 even if you disagree with the ashrae
0:24:44 approach as long as you understand this
0:24:46 is a valid sunni model this is the the
0:24:49 conclusion that i'm going to be arriving
0:24:51 at through this framework
0:24:53 yep okay we're good to go that's fine so
0:24:55 far
0:24:56 cool okay right so now now let me you
0:24:59 know um express the the four positions
0:25:02 that i carved out while i was um diving
0:25:05 through the literature
0:25:07 so
0:25:07 in my opinion uh this is the best way to
0:25:11 kind of differentiate the various
0:25:13 positions that are out there and it all
0:25:15 has to do with what people believe is or
0:25:18 isn't part of common ancestry okay so i
0:25:22 there are four positions here
0:25:23 creationism human exceptionalism adamic
0:25:25 exceptions and no exceptions so i'm
0:25:27 going to explain creationism and no
0:25:28 acceptance first because they're the
0:25:29 easiest then i'll get to the positions
0:25:31 in between
0:25:32 creationism is simply the antithesis of
0:25:36 evolution
0:25:37 it simply says
0:25:38 that god created everything
0:25:41 instantaneously so there is no like
0:25:43 biological connection with us and
0:25:45 monkeys or us and plants or whatever
0:25:48 have you everything is distinctively
0:25:51 created by god and directly created by
0:25:53 god no question end of that's it right
0:25:56 now i just want to make a point here
0:25:58 because i think people need to be aware
0:26:00 of this nuance creationism has a broad
0:26:03 meaning and it has a narrow meaning
0:26:06 broadly creationism means that god
0:26:08 created the world in that case i'm a
0:26:10 creationist in that case i'm a creator
0:26:11 and there's always a reason to find that
0:26:12 because uh this word croatia has bounded
0:26:14 around it always struck me that every
0:26:16 believer in god's by definition is a
0:26:18 creationist exactly exactly
0:26:20 you have this kind of remote deity who
0:26:22 just created the universe and let the
0:26:24 universe get on with it but if you're
0:26:25 from the abrahamic face you've got to be
0:26:27 a creationist because you believe god
0:26:29 not only created the universe but was
0:26:30 involved in uh creating everything
0:26:33 literally everything including ourselves
0:26:35 so we're all creationists
0:26:37 but that broader definition but the
0:26:39 narrow one you're positing says no no no
0:26:42 god created everything that we see
0:26:44 distinctively supernaturally
0:26:45 miraculously as it is without any macro
0:26:48 evolution which also could be a
0:26:50 god-guided process of course but but
0:26:52 that is not involved at all so exactly
0:26:55 you mean in this restricted narrowest
0:26:57 sense of a supernatural miraculous
0:26:59 creation of every insect every monkey
0:27:02 every dinosaur forever
0:27:04 yeah that's exactly it and ironically
0:27:08 the person who stresses on this
0:27:10 distinction is an atheist michael ruse
0:27:13 he makes it
0:27:14 he tries to make it clear for people to
0:27:17 make sure they understand this that
0:27:19 creationism the big creationism is
0:27:21 applicable to everyone anyone who
0:27:23 believes in god but the narrow
0:27:24 definition of creationism is not
0:27:26 necessarily applicable
0:27:27 so you have to be careful that when
0:27:29 we're talking about evolution we mean
0:27:31 specifically that god as you said
0:27:33 supernaturally created everything
0:27:35 distinctively without macro evolution
0:27:37 taking place
0:27:38 right so this is one position and there
0:27:40 are many people behind this uh position
0:27:43 so you can find people like zakir naik
0:27:45 harun yahya and a few others again these
0:27:47 people are are mentioned in my book i
0:27:49 don't need to go into the details but
0:27:51 just understand that this is a
0:27:52 fundamental rejection of manchester
0:27:54 united it's the anti-piece of communist
0:27:56 tree
0:27:57 on the opposing side we have the no
0:27:58 exceptions camp so these are a group of
0:28:01 muslims who believe that evolution in
0:28:03 its entirety can be accepted in islamic
0:28:05 framework in its entirety so whatever
0:28:08 evolution says yep we can embrace it we
0:28:09 can accept it and people in this camp
0:28:12 have no problem saying
0:28:14 at least most most people they have no
0:28:16 problem saying that adam and eve were
0:28:18 not miraculous creations and they had a
0:28:20 mother and father
0:28:21 they they they will go to that extent so
0:28:24 so we have creationism that everything
0:28:26 is you know directly created by god and
0:28:28 then we have the no exceptions cap that
0:28:29 everything can be plugged into the
0:28:31 process evolution including adam and eve
0:28:33 so far is that okay paul yeah yep so far
0:28:36 so clear
0:28:37 great so now let's move on to the
0:28:38 positions in between now the second
0:28:41 position here is human exceptionism and
0:28:43 the name is self-evident and it's very
0:28:45 clear to understand what it means but
0:28:47 it's this idea that every single entity
0:28:49 every single entity out there
0:28:52 is created by evolution no problem we
0:28:53 can accept that however
0:28:56 humans are excluded from the process and
0:28:58 this position maintains that adam and
0:29:00 eve are the first human beings and they
0:29:03 were miraculous creations and everything
0:29:05 that therefore that springs forth is
0:29:06 excluded from the process of evolution
0:29:09 so humanity is excluded from the
0:29:11 prosolution because adam and eve
0:29:13 themselves were miraculous creations and
0:29:15 this i show in a diagram here
0:29:18 so if you see this diagram this is just
0:29:20 you know you know the branching process
0:29:22 evolution and i just show three
0:29:23 different timelines so the left one is
0:29:25 over a span of 60 million years
0:29:28 in the past 60 million years that is the
0:29:30 middle one is over a span of seven
0:29:32 million years it shows all the hominids
0:29:34 uh in in the process and then finally
0:29:36 the third one is over the past two
0:29:39 million years and you can see very
0:29:40 clearly that you know i mean this is
0:29:42 just a reconstruction i'm not saying
0:29:44 these are absolute details but here we
0:29:46 see a bunch of you know hominins coming
0:29:48 up sprouting out neanderthals denisovans
0:29:50 whatever have you and adam is a
0:29:52 miraculous creation identified by a
0:29:55 white dot
0:29:56 and that indicates that he has no
0:29:58 preceding biological lineage he is a
0:30:01 miraculous creation and that's where
0:30:03 homo sapiens
0:30:06 so in the human exceptionalism uh field
0:30:08 there what age what time span are we
0:30:10 looking at then for the existence of
0:30:12 homo sapiens going back to adam is it a
0:30:14 hundred thousand years a million years
0:30:16 what's the time scale
0:30:18 so in in in in sunni islam there is no
0:30:21 scriptural indication that when adam was
0:30:23 created we have no we have no constraint
0:30:25 about seven thousand years anything that
0:30:26 indicates that is from biblical
0:30:28 literature and that is called israel
0:30:30 these
0:30:31 which are not considered valid or even
0:30:33 theologically binding hadith so um
0:30:36 there's no um indication of when he
0:30:39 existed according to some islam so
0:30:41 what's the best guess did you have a
0:30:42 best guess i mean you're talking about
0:30:43 hundreds of thousands of years or
0:30:46 i mean
0:30:47 uh
0:30:48 literally no guess we we don't have
0:30:50 anything concrete however that has not
0:30:52 stopped people from speculating so there
0:30:55 is a uh uh a professor uh yes a
0:30:58 professor from malaysia called say
0:30:59 nakabalapas he has written a book called
0:31:02 the justice of man um
0:31:04 and i forgot who the publisher is but in
0:31:06 that book in justice of man he kind of
0:31:09 does the you know the patriarchal thing
0:31:11 going through the patriarchs and trying
0:31:12 to establish languages and he estimates
0:31:15 if i remember correctly adam was created
0:31:16 around 7 600 years ago
0:31:19 this is his guess
0:31:20 okay now whether he says that that is a
0:31:22 theologically binding guess or not i i i
0:31:25 don't remember but he didn't speculate
0:31:27 about that he did come around the
0:31:29 conclusion so okay now so so this camp
0:31:32 makes it very clear now how do these
0:31:35 people reconcile islam with evolution
0:31:37 they'll just simply say well uh
0:31:40 this is his position for instance he'll
0:31:41 say that from a scientific angle from a
0:31:43 scientific rubric which does not permit
0:31:45 miracles under its you know umbrella
0:31:48 we can see a perfect seamless
0:31:49 continuation no problem
0:31:51 but from a theological angle we know
0:31:53 that adam was created so miraculously
0:31:55 now how do you how does he reconcile he
0:31:57 simply says when adam was created
0:31:59 whenever evolution was expecting to pop
0:32:01 forth a human-like entity adam came in
0:32:04 with all the right genetic physiological
0:32:06 data and therefore it seems like a
0:32:07 perfect continuation and there's no
0:32:09 problem with that and that's how he
0:32:10 comes to reconcile but i'll give you
0:32:12 there is a problem in terms of the
0:32:14 alleged divine deception because here
0:32:16 you have a being which has all the uh
0:32:18 appearances of having uh been
0:32:20 biologically connected with the
0:32:22 predecessors but in fact not so it's the
0:32:24 appearance is given but the reality is
0:32:26 the opposite in fact it's a new creation
0:32:28 adam
0:32:29 um yeah so so he he he actually tackles
0:32:32 that in his paper he says that if you if
0:32:35 you are bringing forth the the problem
0:32:36 of divine deception that is no longer a
0:32:38 scientific argument so that is outside
0:32:40 of the remit to begin beginning so it
0:32:41 will it can all be responded in the
0:32:43 theological plane whereas if you're
0:32:44 entertaining a theological plane then
0:32:46 that's a different story what the
0:32:47 science is saying but in his responses
0:32:49 yeah god can do that if you wanted to
0:32:51 there's no problem from our problems
0:32:53 yeah
0:32:55 right so
0:32:56 uh any questions about human accession
0:32:58 poll or can i want to i'm still holding
0:33:00 my fire
0:33:01 okay all right okay so the next the
0:33:04 third position and this is the i the
0:33:06 more recent position that has come to
0:33:08 the scene
0:33:09 is adamic exceptionism now this is a
0:33:12 term that i have given
0:33:14 uh to
0:33:15 uh
0:33:16 uh a position identified by david
0:33:19 solomon gelato now to explain this
0:33:21 position i just need to kind of go over
0:33:23 two basic principles once these are
0:33:25 understood then we can move on to the
0:33:26 position itself so the first thing is is
0:33:29 this idea of
0:33:30 which is suspending judgment
0:33:32 in very simple terms in when you are
0:33:35 making a claim about theology
0:33:37 particularly about things that god has
0:33:38 done or has not done in the past you
0:33:41 need very clear scriptural references
0:33:45 very clearly
0:33:46 if there's nothing in scripture you
0:33:48 cannot then turn it into a religious
0:33:50 matter let alone a theological matter
0:33:53 right so for this for for example um uh
0:33:56 paul let me ask you let me let me see if
0:33:58 if you know the question if you know the
0:33:59 answer to this question do are muslims
0:34:01 obligated to believe in the periodic
0:34:03 table
0:34:06 they're not obligated theologically no
0:34:08 yeah they're not are they obligated to
0:34:10 deny the periodic table
0:34:12 not theologically no yes yeah now if the
0:34:15 periodic table was mentioned in the
0:34:16 quran it would be an article of faith it
0:34:18 would absolutely
0:34:21 so if scripture mentions nothing then
0:34:24 you cannot make it into a point of
0:34:26 theology and you cannot make it a
0:34:27 religious contention so that's the work
0:34:29 of that's what we mean in the
0:34:30 theological sense
0:34:31 has a slightly different meaning in the
0:34:33 in the legal sense but this is what
0:34:35 means in the theological space
0:34:37 now the second position is the second
0:34:40 idea is that
0:34:42 the quran is highlighting a theological
0:34:44 conception of the human being but when
0:34:46 scientists are looking at human beings
0:34:49 they are looking at it through a
0:34:50 biological lens right and this these two
0:34:53 categories may not necessarily be the
0:34:56 same
0:34:57 they may or may not be the same that's
0:34:59 the thing now why is this important let
0:35:02 me explain
0:35:03 so
0:35:04 we know from the quran allah god refers
0:35:07 to uh human beings as in san as bashar
0:35:09 as benue adam right the kids of adam and
0:35:12 you know in uh the terms of insanity
0:35:14 that is crystal clear no one can deny
0:35:17 any of those categories
0:35:18 in scripture okay now there's also a
0:35:21 scientific definition which is um a
0:35:24 human is a bipedal hominin characterized
0:35:26 by whatever vertical height etc etc and
0:35:28 there's a bunch of biological properties
0:35:30 there
0:35:31 now the question is are these two the
0:35:33 same
0:35:34 and the
0:35:35 the i mean the honest answer here is we
0:35:38 don't know
0:35:39 we don't know
0:35:40 there might have been human beings that
0:35:43 are that can that just start off with
0:35:45 adam and eve but there might have been
0:35:46 human beings that were coexisting or
0:35:49 pre-existing uh than adam and eve so
0:35:51 this is the the point here now
0:35:55 from a theological angle
0:35:57 and his descendants are a theological
0:35:59 certainty
0:36:00 but there is nothing in the quran about
0:36:02 what co-existed with adam
0:36:05 could there have been other human beings
0:36:07 or human-like beings that were created
0:36:09 through evolutionary processes we don't
0:36:12 no
0:36:13 we have no clue
0:36:14 that is why we do tuwak of on these
0:36:17 other potentially human beings that
0:36:18 could have existed it is a reality that
0:36:20 could have been it is also reality that
0:36:22 could not have been we do not have a
0:36:24 scriptural basis to affirm either
0:36:27 position and that is why we maintain the
0:36:29 lock off
0:36:31 is that okay so far yeah i just want to
0:36:32 introduce uh just for the sake of
0:36:34 completeness a couple of quotes from the
0:36:36 quran um
0:36:37 uh for actually that you've cited in
0:36:39 your book page 96 uh islamic
0:36:41 perspectives on evolution um you say
0:36:44 there are verses in the quran which make
0:36:45 it apparent that huma humanity can be
0:36:47 traced down to a single couple by adam
0:36:50 and eve and you create a quote quran
0:36:52 chapter 4 verse 1 people be mindful of
0:36:55 your lord who created you from a single
0:36:58 soul
0:36:59 and from it created its mate and from
0:37:02 the pair of them but countless men and
0:37:04 women far and wide be mindful of god and
0:37:07 so on and then another
0:37:08 verse uh in chapter 49 verse 13 which
0:37:11 reads people we created you
0:37:14 all from a single man and a single woman
0:37:18 and made you into races and tribes so
0:37:20 that you should recognize one another
0:37:23 in god's eyes the most honoured of you
0:37:25 are the ones most mindful of him god is
0:37:27 all-knowing all aware
0:37:29 so that strikes me uh as
0:37:32 absolute
0:37:33 rock bottom certainty that god created a
0:37:37 single pair um historically that's a
0:37:40 theological statement about an actual
0:37:41 event in our space-time continuum and
0:37:44 that would appear to limit the the the
0:37:46 options in terms of you know can we
0:37:48 affirm a b c or d as as you're outlining
0:37:51 it yeah yeah yeah yeah so in light of
0:37:54 those positions that's why um
0:37:56 i would say this for both sunnis and
0:37:58 shiites i would say i can confidently
0:37:59 say for both camps
0:38:01 it's very hard to deny adam and eve as
0:38:04 historical figures it's very hard they
0:38:07 are historical realities they are
0:38:09 historical agents uh and that is why
0:38:12 they've i think both maintain that these
0:38:14 are real people that existed and all of
0:38:16 us can be traced back to them but just
0:38:18 also for the second completion you look
0:38:20 at other verses i won't quote uh in the
0:38:22 quran to do with animal species uh
0:38:24 plants and so on uh and um
0:38:28 you conclude and i won't go into this in
0:38:29 detail but these are not incompatible
0:38:32 with macro evolution uh the these verses
0:38:35 uh but the uh you they but you do talk
0:38:38 about adamic exceptionalism uh where it
0:38:41 is clear for various reasons in the
0:38:42 scriptures that adam and eve were
0:38:44 created um distinctly and it's actually
0:38:46 one of my favorite uh verses um in the
0:38:49 quran i'll just get it up here um where
0:38:52 you talk about uh jesus or isa piece of
0:38:55 your problem
0:38:56 um
0:38:57 and you say one key verse makes
0:38:59 interpreting adam having parents if you
0:39:01 were so inclined to think that difficult
0:39:05 is the following verse uh quran verse 3
0:39:07 59 in god's eyes jesus is just like adam
0:39:12 he created him from dust
0:39:14 said to him be
0:39:16 and he was and you say this verses
0:39:19 context is uh an apparent reading that
0:39:21 adam was created without any parents and
0:39:24 you put um a very interesting hadith
0:39:26 which i won't uh mention but um it's uh
0:39:29 to do with uh two monks uh coming to the
0:39:32 prophet uh and uh but the context seems
0:39:35 to make it quite clear um that jesus was
0:39:38 born miraculously without a father um
0:39:41 and adam though was born miraculously
0:39:42 without a father or a mother and that's
0:39:44 kind of the the context of all this so
0:39:47 it's kind of reinforcing the point
0:39:49 um that you're making
0:39:51 yeah yeah yeah so um
0:39:53 anything else paul or no no that's fine
0:39:55 that's all for now great okay so um just
0:39:58 again to make it clear um
0:40:00 in in sunni islam it's crystal clear
0:40:02 that adam and eve were created
0:40:03 miraculously and all of us can be traced
0:40:05 down to the two of them there's no
0:40:07 denying any of that however the quran is
0:40:11 silent it mentions nothing about what
0:40:12 coexisted at the time there could or
0:40:14 could not have been
0:40:15 similar human beings or hominins or
0:40:18 biologically identical
0:40:20 things that with which
0:40:22 humans could have you know reproduced or
0:40:25 recreated with so let me make this clear
0:40:28 in in in a visual format
0:40:30 from islamic scripture we have adam and
0:40:31 eve and this is not as an insult i'm
0:40:33 just representing a male and a female
0:40:35 figure and then we have you know a
0:40:37 representation of humanity coming forth
0:40:39 right so
0:40:41 now entities posted by evolutionary
0:40:43 biology now the reason why um it's
0:40:45 difficult uh for for there to be only
0:40:48 two people to come up with a whole
0:40:49 population is because of something
0:40:51 called genetic bottleneck uh genetic
0:40:53 bottlenecks suggest that if you have
0:40:55 only two people or two two members of a
0:40:57 species they because the genetic
0:40:59 diversity is so low that when they have
0:41:01 kids and you know through ancestral
0:41:02 relationships there will be so many
0:41:04 diseases that eventually they'll die out
0:41:06 so
0:41:07 that's why this is a scientific issue to
0:41:10 some degree now so let's just say
0:41:12 assuming that there were other human
0:41:14 beings with that existed co-exist the
0:41:16 time in addition let's say if
0:41:18 that's the case and let's just say they
0:41:20 intermarried now does the quran reject
0:41:23 that
0:41:24 no it doesn't
0:41:25 the quran is completely silent about
0:41:27 what coexists at the time in adam and
0:41:28 eve so it is very possible that there
0:41:31 were human-like entities through which
0:41:34 um adam's descendants may have
0:41:37 intermingled with it is a very it's
0:41:39 possible it's not we're not saying that
0:41:41 it occurred it's saying that it's
0:41:43 possible it is compatible with scripture
0:41:45 that option is compatible
0:41:47 so now uh somebody very nicely i forgot
0:41:50 the name of the individual but he very
0:41:52 nicely drew this diagram for me
0:41:55 he did a very good job so these are all
0:41:56 the other hominins that you saw in the
0:41:58 previous uh phylo genetic trees and so
0:42:01 you can see here adam and eve are at the
0:42:03 top right in the middle of the page and
0:42:05 then you you see them you know uh
0:42:06 springing out and then all this
0:42:08 suggesting that there could have been
0:42:09 some of these hominins that interact
0:42:11 with humans and therefore we have some
0:42:13 of those genes in us which is what we
0:42:14 see scientifically but some human beings
0:42:17 like neanderthals
0:42:19 yeah so if you go towards europe you see
0:42:22 a heavier presence of neanderthal genes
0:42:24 if you go towards um east asia like
0:42:27 literally east asia we're talking about
0:42:28 indonesia japan
0:42:30 those areas you see heavier presence of
0:42:32 denisovan genes um so we have genes that
0:42:35 are isolated from one another so which
0:42:37 which is this which is the you know that
0:42:39 they may have intermediate whatever have
0:42:41 you now
0:42:42 someone may say it's possible that those
0:42:44 themselves are still the kids of adam
0:42:46 that those are descendants of adam
0:42:47 that's fine none of that is being denied
0:42:49 me i don't know why the end of those are
0:42:51 seen as a separate species like you know
0:42:52 cats and dogs they always strike me as
0:42:54 very humanoid but i'm not a scientist so
0:42:56 i don't know but
0:43:08 a variant um
0:43:10 but anyway that's a different subject
0:43:12 yeah we we can entertain that later on
0:43:14 but now i wanted to clarify one
0:43:16 misconception because people have you
0:43:18 know uh brought this up so i just wanted
0:43:20 to make sure this is clear
0:43:21 some people think that adamic
0:43:23 exceptionalism permits this idea that
0:43:26 there are human beings today that do not
0:43:28 treat themselves back to adam and eve so
0:43:30 they think of an image like this
0:43:32 adamic exceptionism fundamentally denies
0:43:34 this whatever those co
0:43:37 you know adamic entities were or
0:43:38 pre-adamic entities were they must have
0:43:41 died off for this thesis to have been
0:43:43 true they must have died off okay so we
0:43:46 only got human beings descendants of
0:43:47 adam and eve on the planet today as far
0:43:49 as yes
0:43:51 yeah now some of them can trace their
0:43:52 lineage back to these other entities
0:43:54 there's no problem with that but they
0:43:56 are still kids of adam
0:43:57 now let's say for the sake of the
0:43:59 example let's say aliens existed and uh
0:44:01 it is now imagine a world where god
0:44:03 created aliens with which we can
0:44:05 reproduce with now if i reproduce with
0:44:08 an alien does that mean i'm no longer a
0:44:09 children of adam a child of adam of
0:44:11 course i am my lineage still goes back
0:44:13 to adam the same way here just because
0:44:15 if interbreeding did take place your
0:44:18 lineage is not lost to adam and that's
0:44:21 the key point here
0:44:22 so um so i wanted to make that clear now
0:44:25 to sum it up was adam created
0:44:27 miraculously yes
0:44:29 was eve created miraculously yes
0:44:32 do all of us uh have a lineage that
0:44:34 traced back to adam and eve yes
0:44:36 did adam's descendants intermingle with
0:44:38 other humans sorry humans hominins at
0:44:40 some point
0:44:43 he just finds out so you're saying that
0:44:44 this is a responsible theological um
0:44:48 response to this whole question of islam
0:44:50 and evolution taking seriously the
0:44:52 scriptural evidence
0:44:53 for um
0:44:55 adam and eve being a special creation
0:44:57 and this is this is your view as well i
0:44:59 take it is it yeah so i mean i'm i'm
0:45:01 happy uh considering it's a valid option
0:45:04 so as i mentioned to you if evolution is
0:45:06 false i have no problem calling myself a
0:45:08 creationist i believe that evolution
0:45:10 does have have weight behind it so
0:45:11 therefore i'm happy being a human
0:45:13 exceptionist or an adamic exception is
0:45:14 for me it's it's okay i mean like okay i
0:45:17 kept my powder dry uh
0:45:19 something so extent um i'm just going to
0:45:22 um uh bring up um some views uh
0:45:26 oh before you do can i just sum it up
0:45:28 with this visual summary because i want
0:45:30 you to uh
0:45:31 carry on yes so um previously when i
0:45:34 showed you the same image i showed you a
0:45:36 white dot where adam was disconnected
0:45:38 from the rest of the
0:45:39 from the proceeding yeah here because we
0:45:42 don't know when adam existed right he
0:45:44 could have been before haida began this
0:45:46 so he could have been the father of
0:45:48 denisovans he could have been the father
0:45:49 neanderthals you can see that here that
0:45:51 he could have been the father of those
0:45:52 right we don't know when he existed
0:45:57 yeah so so none of that is is denied by
0:45:59 by adamic exceptionism but because we
0:46:02 don't know how you load the word insane
0:46:04 and bashar with these biological
0:46:06 categories these posh these
0:46:08 possibilities are open they're up in the
0:46:09 air
0:46:10 and that's why we say god knows best
0:46:12 allah
0:46:18 some comments by dr
0:46:20 akhtar who had the privilege of
0:46:21 interviewing on my channel actually he's
0:46:22 an academic at the university of oxford
0:46:24 he's a muslim philosopher
0:46:27 you can look him up on wikipedia and
0:46:30 he's written um a book actually i'm
0:46:32 saying it's amazing about islam and the
0:46:34 secular mind a philosophy of islam by uh
0:46:38 shabir akhtar as i say and
0:46:41 he makes some very bold statements which
0:46:43 um i quite like uh in his book um
0:46:47 and i'll just read you what he says and
0:46:49 he's he's basically saying the quranic
0:46:51 like the biblical worldview conflicts
0:46:54 with uh the scientific perspective okay
0:46:57 but but in a particular way and i'll
0:46:59 just read you what he says the quranic
0:47:01 like the biblical worldview conflicts
0:47:04 with the scientific perspective which
0:47:06 assumes that the cosmos is a
0:47:09 self-contained set of patterned
0:47:12 empirical sequences
0:47:14 intelligible to us in terms of natural
0:47:17 causality
0:47:19 the spatial temporal continuum is
0:47:22 subject to discoverable lawful
0:47:24 regularity so that's the kind of the
0:47:26 scientific worldview
0:47:28 but he says within science nature
0:47:31 remains autonomous
0:47:33 and self-sustaining islam however posits
0:47:37 an additional supernatural realm and
0:47:40 denies the autonomy of nature it denies
0:47:43 determination he quotes here 35 quran 35
0:47:46 41 and the abdul um haleem translation
0:47:50 reads
0:47:51 god keeps the heavens and earth from
0:47:53 vanishing if they did vanish no one else
0:47:56 could stop them god is most forbearing
0:47:59 most forgiving so god keeps the heaven
0:48:01 and earth from vanishing then he goes on
0:48:03 directly
0:48:05 actively and continuously god sustains
0:48:08 the world after creating it he prevents
0:48:10 the lowest heaven our sky from
0:48:13 collapsing on sinful humanity that's a
0:48:16 reference to kron 2265
0:48:19 arranges the clouds directs the winds
0:48:22 they give rain and revive the dead earth
0:48:24 quran 35 9
0:48:26 holds the birds poised in mid
0:48:30 mid air quran 67 19 and keeps the two
0:48:34 c's separate quran third 25 53
0:48:37 and then this is actually it's a great
0:48:39 bit of rhetoric here and i really like
0:48:40 this next bit this is the last bit i'm
0:48:42 going to read the quranic cosmology
0:48:45 presupposes continuous interaction
0:48:48 between the natural causal world and the
0:48:51 supranatural realm of occult causality a
0:48:54 cult meaning secret we don't observe the
0:48:56 causality that's what the quran
0:48:58 presupposes he says then he says
0:49:01 supernatural agents routinely act within
0:49:05 and interpenetrate the natural world of
0:49:08 empirical causality
0:49:11 he says god is active he shapes the
0:49:13 embryo in the womb as he pleases quran 3
0:49:16 6
0:49:17 and then he says in the spiritual
0:49:19 interaction between the two worlds
0:49:21 human petition prayer piety pure speech
0:49:25 and good deeds ascend to the unseen
0:49:28 world crown 22 37
0:49:32 this picture he says is incompatible
0:49:35 with empirical science
0:49:37 modern scientists feel obliged to reject
0:49:40 on principle the possible existence of
0:49:43 god
0:49:44 the devil indeed all spirits including
0:49:47 those of the departed dead the jinn
0:49:50 demons angels and other immaterial or
0:49:53 incorporeal entities lacking space time
0:49:58 coordinates
0:49:59 end quote i mean it's great i like the
0:50:02 way he juxtaposes you know demons angels
0:50:05 uh lacking space-time coordinates you
0:50:08 know uh absolutely right now i mean to
0:50:11 be fair he's not making uh an obstacle
0:50:13 obscurantist or a creationist
0:50:16 uh point in the narrow sense of denying
0:50:18 macroevolution but what he's asserting
0:50:21 here is the theological the
0:50:22 metaphysicals you've got the physical
0:50:24 and the metaphysical that goes beyond
0:50:26 the physical
0:50:28 he's asserting the reality of the
0:50:30 metaphysical world where god exists and
0:50:33 the interpenetr penetrability of these
0:50:36 dimensions i think he does that
0:50:38 beautifully and of course the bible is
0:50:39 the same
0:50:40 both the jewish bible and the new
0:50:42 testament
0:50:43 and so he says in that sense there is a
0:50:46 conflict uh with a scientific
0:50:47 perspective what would you say to that
0:50:50 right so first i want to say uh you know
0:50:52 how you went physical metaphysical
0:50:53 there's a very good friend of mine um
0:50:56 he says that all the time because i
0:50:58 stress those distinctions all the time
0:51:00 and you kind of reminded me of him when
0:51:01 you when he went like that
0:51:04 so but yeah um i think uh professor i
0:51:08 think he's made a very good point and i
0:51:10 think if he's criticizing anything it is
0:51:13 this naturalistic metaphysics that has
0:51:15 become predominant in the scientific
0:51:18 framework
0:51:20 now scientists scientists occupy
0:51:22 a range of ideas metaphysics is no
0:51:25 they're not metaphysically isolated
0:51:27 individuals they occupy some kind of
0:51:29 metaphysics now
0:51:30 there's no denying that naturalism rains
0:51:33 the day in most people's minds right
0:51:35 however we also have scientists who are
0:51:37 religious folks
0:51:38 so just because there's a scientific
0:51:40 theory that can be couched in the
0:51:41 naturalistic framework it also means
0:51:44 that that same theory can be counted in
0:51:46 a theistic framework both are possible
0:51:49 what your metaphysical contentions are
0:51:51 don't necessarily have to become the
0:51:53 staple diet for your scientific ideas
0:51:56 they're just
0:51:58 that's that's the reason why they're
0:51:59 called metaphysics they're beyond the
0:52:00 physical categories so if people ask me
0:52:04 well how can you be a muslim and an
0:52:06 evolutionist um or doesn't that entail
0:52:08 naturalism or atheism like no because
0:52:11 god how he made he may create the world
0:52:14 in any shape or form as he sees fit
0:52:17 so if it is if you believe in a god that
0:52:20 is omniscient omnipotent and can do
0:52:22 anything
0:52:23 he can create his revolution there's no
0:52:25 problem whatsoever right so it we have
0:52:27 to be very careful but when we're saying
0:52:30 that this is atheistic or naturalistic
0:52:32 we are not confusing the interpretation
0:52:36 of an atheist of the science versus the
0:52:38 science itself these are two different
0:52:40 things i can put the the i can put a the
0:52:43 theory of electrons and the theory of
0:52:46 atoms in an atheistic framework because
0:52:47 of the theistic framework the only
0:52:49 difference is that there is this
0:52:50 inter-penetrative causation
0:52:52 although i think theoretically you're
0:52:54 right of course the problem is that in
0:52:56 terms of the pr the propaganda war if uh
0:53:00 if naturalism antitheistic naturalism is
0:53:04 um you know um synthesized with science
0:53:07 which certainly is in some scientists uh
0:53:10 explanation of of their work richard
0:53:12 dawkins famously
0:53:14 um that can create a perceived problem
0:53:16 for uh people of the abrahamic faiths
0:53:19 because they got then deal with this
0:53:21 individual he was qualified clearly in
0:53:23 some ways to speak authoritatively but
0:53:26 is extending his uh purview uh
0:53:29 illegitimately into metaphysical realms
0:53:31 which his science doesn't license him to
0:53:32 do but he chooses to do it anyway thus
0:53:34 creating a public relations problem for
0:53:37 uh for believers in general so although
0:53:40 theoretical distinctions there in
0:53:41 practice uh in the way we see these
0:53:44 things operating in the world there's
0:53:46 still a problem is there not
0:53:48 yeah i mean i've i can't speak for how
0:53:50 scientists practice their their faith in
0:53:53 in their laboratories i can't speak to
0:53:54 all of that but what i can definitely
0:53:56 say is that um you have some scientists
0:53:58 who kind of um don't make a
0:54:00 differentiation sometimes do make a
0:54:02 differentiation they're reactive about
0:54:03 it um but i think what it comes down to
0:54:06 simply is this idea that as long as you
0:54:08 believe that your presumption
0:54:11 about the world and its nature is kept
0:54:13 intact i don't think scientists should
0:54:15 have a worry
0:54:16 because i personally believe that
0:54:18 metaphysics should not necessarily
0:54:20 impinge on your scientific activity in
0:54:23 fact in my opinion uh at least the kind
0:54:25 of god that i believe in i believe that
0:54:27 the scientific activity of an atheist
0:54:29 and atheist is virtually
0:54:30 indistinguishable perhaps uh maybe not
0:54:32 on the ethical side of things and maybe
0:54:34 if you believe in an immature soul you
0:54:36 may not be able to access certain
0:54:37 insights but apart from those two i
0:54:39 think there's a lot of overlap between
0:54:41 the two that is why you can have theists
0:54:43 and atheists reaching the same
0:54:44 conclusions and science
0:54:46 i i i still feel slightly uh uneasy
0:54:50 although i accept the theoretical point
0:54:51 you're you're making i mean i do a
0:54:53 series of um
0:54:55 uh posts called uh no design with a
0:54:57 little figure looking eyes looking up
0:54:59 it's meant to be an
0:55:00 anti-atheist point but okay so many
0:55:03 people when they when they when they
0:55:04 when when you put up my my photo that
0:55:07 you're speaking with me many people were
0:55:08 commenting no design and i'm like what
0:55:10 is no design i don't know what that
0:55:12 little now this makes sense
0:55:14 it's a little meme uh i created uh no no
0:55:16 design
0:55:17 with the eyes looking up it it's um it
0:55:20 is to uh so i put some you know
0:55:23 incredible pictures of of design in
0:55:25 nature uh up for people just to to see
0:55:28 because you know the crown talks about
0:55:30 the signs in nature and it's it's a way
0:55:32 it's a ironic um
0:55:35 you know not not terribly hurtful dig a
0:55:37 atheist you've just denied design but i
0:55:39 i mean it strikes me that when i as a
0:55:42 layman when i look at dna when i look at
0:55:44 the biological machines we now know to
0:55:46 exist in uh the human self for example
0:55:49 uh which you can actually observe them
0:55:51 now these are incredibly sophisticated
0:55:53 pieces of machinery um which um
0:55:56 certainly the traditional darwin uh
0:55:58 darwin explanation of natural selection
0:56:01 simply couldn't cope with that because
0:56:02 we're dealing here with very precise
0:56:05 pieces of engineering literally the
0:56:07 macro level of the laws of physics uh
0:56:09 the exquisite fine-tuning there and the
0:56:11 existence of the universe itself and so
0:56:13 on anyone going along um so
0:56:16 it seems to me that muslims are right or
0:56:18 people have faith a right to see design
0:56:19 there because god made the world
0:56:21 but it seems that science in its
0:56:23 methodology
0:56:24 uh at least in its methodology denies
0:56:27 design
0:56:28 design
0:56:29 it just says no it's not design
0:56:31 it's
0:56:32 a product of this macro process which is
0:56:35 not
0:56:36 teleological in other words it doesn't
0:56:37 have a trajectory it doesn't have an end
0:56:39 goal there's no foresight it seems in
0:56:42 that theory so there just seemed to be a
0:56:45 tension here but when the believer is
0:56:47 doing science he's both saying well
0:56:48 she's saying
0:56:50 yep i can use darwinian or neo-darwinian
0:56:52 explanations but i also see design but
0:56:56 they're not just different levels they
0:56:58 are speaking about the same thing design
0:57:00 refers to an actual designer who is
0:57:02 designing
0:57:04 dna or designing a biological machine we
0:57:06 see in in cells for example
0:57:09 how do we
0:57:11 did you know ignore the design
0:57:13 explanation and yet affirm science but
0:57:15 the design explanation is affirming
0:57:17 something intrinsic to the phenomena
0:57:20 being described you see what i mean it
0:57:22 seems to me that a certain artificial
0:57:24 distinction sure so um when we talk
0:57:28 about intelligent design i would rather
0:57:30 lump this conversation with that so that
0:57:32 it makes more sense when we get to that
0:57:34 point but i can definitely address your
0:57:36 point about teleology purpose so design
0:57:41 has multiple aspects to it so complexity
0:57:44 is a feature of design right or
0:57:46 something that shows consistency or
0:57:48 patterns is a sense of design another
0:57:50 aspect of design is intentionality can
0:57:53 you see a purpose behind it so these are
0:57:55 three slightly different understandings
0:57:57 of design right i'm addressing the last
0:57:59 point the idea of purposefulness right
0:58:01 so
0:58:02 from an ashrae standpoint it's it's very
0:58:05 clear that god can design the world or
0:58:07 god can organize the world where your
0:58:10 purpose may or may not be apparent to
0:58:12 you so god could create us through a
0:58:14 random-like process
0:58:16 and your purpose does not need to be
0:58:18 apparent to you through the natural
0:58:19 world in fact
0:58:21 i make it very clear
0:58:22 that your purpose is only
0:58:24 dictated by revelation
0:58:26 anything outside of revelation is your
0:58:28 whimsical opinion so you can construe
0:58:31 several speculations about why you were
0:58:33 created by a god once you write arrive
0:58:35 at the designation but in terms of what
0:58:37 is your purpose that can only be
0:58:39 affirmed through revelation
0:58:41 so that's what they would say on this
0:58:43 particular subject i wasn't talking
0:58:44 about the meaning and purpose in the
0:58:46 human life i was talking about in
0:58:48 biological systems like uh biological
0:58:50 machinery we see in excel so it's not a
0:58:53 question of do i understand the meaning
0:58:54 of that but
0:58:56 the the the muslim view is the chronic
0:58:58 view seems to be that these uh
0:59:00 mechanisms have intrinsic teleology to
0:59:02 tell a site what i mean technology i
0:59:04 think the greek word telos means uh
0:59:07 ancient greek word means uh end or
0:59:09 something having a goal so
0:59:12 teleology so there's a study of those
0:59:14 things that have purpose and goal-like
0:59:16 ends uh orientation yeah uh random they
0:59:19 have a trajectory which is meaningful uh
0:59:22 and you know has there's foresight
0:59:23 involved and it's moving towards a goal
0:59:26 um
0:59:27 so um
0:59:28 it just seems that science
0:59:30 as
0:59:31 perhaps in the west uh uh denies
0:59:34 teleology although it's there in
0:59:35 aristotle but they seem to be what they
0:59:37 rejected aristotle's teleology
0:59:39 but theologically teleology must exist
0:59:42 because the quran says endlessly that
0:59:44 god created these things these are
0:59:45 science these are i have to use the word
0:59:47 i the same word for the quran is useful
0:59:50 these things we see in the universe
0:59:51 which indicate the creative
0:59:54 uh design-like sorry the creative powers
0:59:57 of god himself as creator it just seems
0:59:59 i i i don't see the the conceptual
1:00:03 uh i don't i can't stand this
1:00:04 holistically it seems that science
1:00:06 denies what the quran affirms and
1:00:08 therefore there is really a conflict is
1:00:10 there not okay so what you just said
1:00:12 there i addressed in in the intelligent
1:00:14 design part what you just said there
1:00:15 right and i think this and to some
1:00:17 degree this also dovetails perfectly
1:00:19 with what i want to say in this
1:00:20 presentation slide so
1:00:22 carol yeah okay great so um now it comes
1:00:26 to
1:00:26 addressing what is and isn't
1:00:28 theologically valid according to the
1:00:30 framework that i have uh uh adopted in
1:00:33 my approach which is the ash id
1:00:35 framework adopted by imam kazali right
1:00:38 now just to make it very clear i have
1:00:40 two questions here one is it
1:00:42 metaphysically possible which is
1:00:44 specifically what i mean by that is can
1:00:47 god do it yes or no
1:00:48 and
1:00:49 the second question is is it
1:00:50 scripturally possible i.e is a
1:00:52 compatible scripture so these are the
1:00:54 two questions that i'm going to be
1:00:55 addressing here now the god of ushari
1:00:58 theology
1:01:00 pretty much stresses on god's
1:01:01 omnipotence that god can do anything as
1:01:03 long as as long as it is logically
1:01:04 possible so as long as you're not
1:01:07 arguing for a contradiction
1:01:09 it's possible that god can manifest that
1:01:11 choice if he wanted to do so so can god
1:01:14 create us to creationism human
1:01:16 exceptions of adamic exception or no
1:01:18 acceptance the answer is blatantly yes
1:01:20 for all possibilities he can create us
1:01:23 through a variety of different ways and
1:01:24 i think no one can i mean no one would
1:01:26 argue against that i think that's a very
1:01:28 clear understanding that metaphysically
1:01:30 everything is possible now to i'm going
1:01:33 to entertain one contention that you may
1:01:36 be entertaining or maybe some of your
1:01:38 viewers might be entertaining paul and
1:01:39 that is the idea of randomness right so
1:01:42 randomness is a very loaded term um and
1:01:45 in fact in my book i actually have four
1:01:47 philosophical concepts of randomness
1:01:50 right and i say only one of them is
1:01:52 actually in conflict with the
1:01:53 theological model they adopt the rest of
1:01:55 the three are absolutely fine now but
1:01:57 just briefly speaking
1:01:59 there's
1:02:00 uh an epistemic interpretation of
1:02:02 randomness and then there's an
1:02:04 ontological interpretation randomness by
1:02:06 epistemic i mean simply that it's due to
1:02:09 my inability to gather the information
1:02:12 right so if i have a
1:02:13 you know a coin toss
1:02:15 if i know all the variables down to
1:02:17 every detail i can put it exactly like a
1:02:20 clockwork like like a clock machine
1:02:22 where it's going to land heads or tails
1:02:24 that's because i have all the
1:02:25 information but of course as the limited
1:02:27 human being i don't necessarily have
1:02:29 every single detail down to the t as a
1:02:31 result i may or may not guess that toss
1:02:34 i may get it right i may not get it
1:02:35 right no no no
1:02:37 yeah you don't know enough that is an
1:02:38 epistemic limitation on us
1:02:41 right so when when scientists are saying
1:02:43 randomness they could it could be easily
1:02:45 understood as an epistemic limitation
1:02:48 when a mutation occurs it may be due to
1:02:51 several causes copying errors x-rays
1:02:53 whatever have you we just don't know
1:02:55 when how frequently occurred because
1:02:57 we're trying to interpret the past so we
1:02:59 don't necessarily have the full
1:03:01 information and that's fine this is
1:03:03 where probability and statistics
1:03:05 statistics comes into natural sciences
1:03:07 that's what what this does it is a kind
1:03:10 of a a way of explaining possibilities
1:03:12 through a probabilistic framework so
1:03:14 that's that's that that's that's one
1:03:16 interpretation
1:03:18 the other interpretation is ontological
1:03:20 where there might be physical gaps in
1:03:22 nature so there might be things in
1:03:25 creation which do not have a physical
1:03:27 cause miracles may be one of them right
1:03:30 it's not actually a physical explanation
1:03:32 for a miracle because it's directly
1:03:34 something that god does that does not
1:03:36 have a preceding physical cause so again
1:03:38 in the quran example aussie would be uh
1:03:40 would be jesus's uh
1:03:42 uh conception in the womb of mary
1:03:44 miraculously uh yeah yeah yeah exactly
1:03:46 yeah virgin birth it doesn't matter what
1:03:48 science scientists can't
1:03:50 adjudicate on that can't describe it or
1:03:52 explain it because it is a
1:03:54 outside the remit exactly
1:03:56 the room yeah so um in those cases we
1:04:00 can accept physical gaps in nature
1:04:02 there's no problem with that the only
1:04:04 kind of randoms that muslims or uh
1:04:07 chinese will not be able to accept is it
1:04:09 is the strong interpretation of
1:04:11 ontological randomness where this is the
1:04:13 idea that god is somehow a deist god or
1:04:16 a limited god like a kinetic model where
1:04:18 god limits himself to give autonomy to
1:04:21 creation of sorts this kind of god or
1:04:23 this kind of interpretation of
1:04:24 randomness just simply does not exist in
1:04:26 the muslim mindset it does not exist and
1:04:29 unfortunately people always resort to
1:04:31 this kind of thinking uh when it comes
1:04:33 to randomness whereas randomness can be
1:04:36 couched in other interpretations very
1:04:38 clearly in the scientific image now some
1:04:40 atheists press on this interpretation
1:04:43 because they want to kind of keep that
1:04:44 divide between evolution and religion
1:04:46 like dawkins does that's what his pencil
1:04:48 agenda is but we needn't be uh impressed
1:04:51 by that or adopt that as i said science
1:04:54 is is just a methodology and you can
1:04:57 count that methodology in an atheistic
1:04:59 framework as well as a theistic
1:05:00 framework easily and in my opinion so um
1:05:03 the yeah does it um anything else you
1:05:06 want to add to the poll right now
1:05:08 i'll wait to the the uh
1:05:09 the id section before i go further yeah
1:05:12 great okay so and now finally the second
1:05:14 question is what is scripturally
1:05:16 possible or compatible and in my
1:05:19 estimations and this is my humble
1:05:20 opinion creationism is compatible with
1:05:24 the quran so evolutionists who are
1:05:26 criticizing evolution is saying you're
1:05:28 getting going against the quran because
1:05:29 you don't believe
1:05:31 you're you're putting a lot more in the
1:05:32 quran than what it says if there is not
1:05:34 enough information
1:05:36 and and there is ambiguity or silence in
1:05:38 the quran you cannot criticize your
1:05:41 fellow brothers or your sisters just
1:05:42 because they adopt creationism so that
1:05:44 has to stop by the same token um the
1:05:47 reverse should be true as well if you
1:05:49 are an evolutionist right
1:05:51 human exceptionalism and a damage are
1:05:53 viable models theologically both are
1:05:55 fine at the end of the day so in so
1:05:58 given my analysis and my conclusions
1:06:01 whatever people believe about evolution
1:06:03 now is a personal opinion it cannot be a
1:06:05 theological conflict now some people
1:06:07 still see it as a theological conflict
1:06:08 and that's fair enough i'm more than
1:06:10 happy to receive criticism and then we
1:06:11 can have the dialogue further in fact
1:06:13 we're actually working on another
1:06:15 monograph where we look at every single
1:06:17 verse and every single hadith in detail
1:06:19 to show the various possibilities that
1:06:21 can coexist with those verses and that
1:06:23 will come out in a year or two so that's
1:06:25 a completely hermeneutic exercise just
1:06:27 to kind of um appease to people's
1:06:29 worries or contention about this verse
1:06:31 or that verse and that that's a two-year
1:06:33 project inshallah but um but i i've made
1:06:36 it very clear that uh these are the
1:06:39 possibilities the only thing that i
1:06:41 think we that at least sunday islam will
1:06:43 not be able to accept
1:06:44 is this idea that adam and eve had
1:06:46 parents and that is because the
1:06:48 scriptural indications are you know very
1:06:51 very very apparent uh and and it's
1:06:53 difficult to argue otherwise uh now this
1:06:56 is not to say that people who adopt this
1:06:58 position you know i would exclude them
1:07:00 out of islam i can't say that that's not
1:07:02 my position to say so but i'd say that
1:07:04 that would be a huge theological
1:07:05 disagreement when it comes to
1:07:08 it it would strike me that they were
1:07:09 clearly disagreeing basically with the
1:07:11 quran they were saying no well you say
1:07:14 the quran says this but well it was not
1:07:16 it wasn't right god got it wrong it
1:07:18 would be impossible
1:07:19 yeah so so yeah i mean like yeah but but
1:07:21 this is this is what i conclude in my
1:07:24 book
1:07:25 now we move on to your favorite subject
1:07:27 paul which is intelligent design right
1:07:29 okay so um let me start off with
1:07:32 explaining the background of intelligent
1:07:34 design and so i'm actually working on a
1:07:36 book right now on islam and intelligent
1:07:38 design with and hopefully will come out
1:07:40 with
1:07:43 okay yeah yeah so i mean i'm working on
1:07:45 six books at the moment um one of
1:07:47 there's a textbook one of those
1:07:48 intelligent design one other there's a
1:07:49 hermit but yeah you don't need to worry
1:07:50 about it
1:07:52 i find it difficult reading six books at
1:07:54 the same time
1:07:58 i mean because it's all related and it
1:07:59 all gets very interesting so you get
1:08:01 ideas and you kind of put them all into
1:08:03 a melting pot and you get you know you
1:08:04 can get very good outputs like that um
1:08:07 but let me make it clear what
1:08:08 intelligent design is yeah intelligent
1:08:11 design is a very recent movement that
1:08:14 started off in the 1980s in america
1:08:16 right it doesn't have
1:08:18 an origin back in the 17th century
1:08:20 unless you want to stretch the argument
1:08:22 style but as a movement it is very
1:08:25 distinctively a modern movement in the
1:08:27 states now it has many creationist
1:08:29 historical antecedents right so if you
1:08:31 look at the history of america if you
1:08:32 look at the history of creationism
1:08:34 ronald numbers has done a fantastic job
1:08:35 he's published several books in this
1:08:37 area he kind of walks you through from
1:08:39 1859 to the contemporary period about
1:08:42 how many different creationist movements
1:08:43 individuals came to the picture and then
1:08:45 how intelligent design evolved out of
1:08:48 that framework now
1:08:50 so so let's make it clear this is a
1:08:52 movement that started off in the 1980s
1:08:54 now i just want to make sure this is
1:08:56 clear from the beginning because people
1:08:58 misunderstand when i criticize
1:09:00 intelligent design so i'm not let me
1:09:01 make it apparent i'm not a fan of id in
1:09:04 fact i think i you should be gunned down
1:09:05 from the islamic framework i think
1:09:07 muslims should never adopt that's my
1:09:08 personal opinion but i'll articulate why
1:09:11 now the name is very deceptive because
1:09:14 when you criticize intelligent design
1:09:17 people automatically think one of these
1:09:19 three things or all of them together
1:09:21 people think that you're rejecting that
1:09:22 god is intelligent
1:09:24 or they're thinking that you're
1:09:25 rejecting the god as a designer or
1:09:27 they're thinking that you're rejecting
1:09:28 the design influence of the quran that's
1:09:30 what you're rejecting i reject none of
1:09:32 those i want to make it clear i reject
1:09:35 none of those
1:09:36 but when you use
1:09:37 the third one the design references in
1:09:39 the crown yeah yeah we actually have an
1:09:41 article coming out with zygon um so so
1:09:43 i'm guest editing a special issue with
1:09:45 zygon which is the world's top religion
1:09:47 uh journal in science or religion and
1:09:49 it's it's we had a conference on islamic
1:09:51 revolution and i i have a paper that
1:09:54 i've co-written with sheikh hamza
1:09:55 karamali who's a kalam scholar uh he's
1:09:57 currently living in turkey and a phd
1:09:59 student from cardiff university
1:10:02 the three of us sat down and wrote a
1:10:03 paper on the design argument written
1:10:06 from a calamity framework in terms of
1:10:08 the quran and we make it very clear that
1:10:10 from a calam perspective critiquing id
1:10:13 does not equate to critiquing the quran
1:10:15 very clearly we kind of show that very
1:10:17 amazingly you reject the american
1:10:20 movement uh start the 1980s id movement
1:10:22 but you do to use the language in a
1:10:24 different context except intelligent
1:10:26 design
1:10:27 i accept there's design in the universe
1:10:29 i do not accept the propositional
1:10:30 argument of intelligent design right but
1:10:32 you'll come to that in a second okay
1:10:34 yeah yeah yeah so i want to make it
1:10:35 clear that i am not rejecting any of
1:10:38 these things because people
1:10:39 misunderstand me unless i make this
1:10:41 apparent and clear than being could you
1:10:43 make it clear yeah right okay so now
1:10:46 id is um is it's a very smart movement
1:10:49 right now they make it very clear in
1:10:52 their books i i think that particularly
1:10:54 lay people when i speak to them about
1:10:56 intelligent design i don't think that
1:10:57 they've actually read the books to know
1:10:58 enough what they're saying
1:11:00 id is not um arguing against deep time
1:11:03 so the first proposition that we're
1:11:04 talking about id is also not arguing
1:11:07 necessarily in common ancestry michael
1:11:09 behe for instance he accepts common
1:11:11 ancestry he accepts common ancestry many
1:11:14 people get shocked when i say that but
1:11:15 he accepts common ancestry
1:11:17 what they are specifically arguing
1:11:19 against
1:11:20 is this idea
1:11:22 that natural selection and random
1:11:24 mutation are sufficient to explain
1:11:27 certain biological complexities
1:11:31 this is their argument they're
1:11:32 specifically attacking the
1:11:34 mechanisms the same way that we saw
1:11:36 remember the debate between new
1:11:37 dominance and the extended evolution
1:11:38 synthesis the same thing
1:11:40 so
1:11:43 in stephen mayer he's probably the the
1:11:45 high priest of uh the id movements in
1:11:47 america that's one way putting it in his
1:11:49 recent book return of the god hypothesis
1:11:52 just published this year uh he talks
1:11:54 about three scientific discoveries that
1:11:56 reveal the mind behind the universe
1:11:58 um this is not all to do with
1:12:00 neo-darwinism this is to do with one of
1:12:01 them is to do with a big bang uh for
1:12:04 example um so this is not just focused
1:12:06 on um
1:12:08 uh neo-darwinism i want to stress that
1:12:10 is to do with the whole universe the
1:12:12 existence of the universe itself the
1:12:14 fine-tuning argument uh and so on and so
1:12:16 forth like going into his book i mean
1:12:19 right yeah so um uh so so intelligent
1:12:22 design in terms of the biological realm
1:12:25 they are specifically against the
1:12:27 mechanism that is their united front
1:12:29 yeah that natural selection and random
1:12:31 mutation on their own
1:12:33 yeah is insufficient as a result so this
1:12:35 is how their argument goes because um
1:12:38 you can explain biological complexities
1:12:40 either through a designer or through a
1:12:42 natural selection around mutation
1:12:44 natural selection are insufficient
1:12:46 therefore a better explanation is a
1:12:47 designer and they make it clear
1:12:50 that the designer can be anything it can
1:12:53 be aliens it can be this without further
1:12:55 now in the private world
1:12:57 this is only biological issues by the
1:12:59 way when
1:13:00 in may's recent book you sing with the
1:13:02 existence of the universe itself and the
1:13:03 big bang and the fine tuning of the laws
1:13:05 of physics so that that's not it's not
1:13:07 just about mechanisms it's about the big
1:13:10 picture too yeah yeah that's that's a
1:13:12 different story yeah i'm i'm focusing on
1:13:13 the biological right okay so there are
1:13:15 these biological complexities like your
1:13:17 dna the eye or whatever and so therefore
1:13:20 a better explanation is a design so this
1:13:22 is michael b he's example the bacterial
1:13:24 platform right so this is a bacteria
1:13:26 there's a flagellum irreducible
1:13:28 complexity etcetera yeah yeah yeah so
1:13:30 there's it looks like a motor so many
1:13:32 parts need to come together it is
1:13:34 impossible this game by natural
1:13:35 selection therefore a designer did it or
1:13:37 or a better explanation of the designers
1:13:39 right now for me
1:13:41 this is a problematic narrative now i
1:13:44 give i have a whole chapter intelligent
1:13:45 design where i completely articulate my
1:13:47 opinions in there right but i'm going to
1:13:49 summarize that here as best as i can in
1:13:53 theology the fundamental axiom is
1:13:56 contingency
1:13:58 now any world that god creates whether
1:14:00 it's this world or another world the
1:14:02 foundation of that creation is that it
1:14:05 is a contingent creation
1:14:07 and all contingencies go back to a
1:14:09 necessary being which is identified to
1:14:11 be with god right so this is the key
1:14:13 starting point
1:14:14 now that contingency can occupy very a
1:14:18 variety of descriptions it can be random
1:14:21 non-random it could look designed it
1:14:23 could look very simple it could be
1:14:24 completely chaotic so god could create a
1:14:26 world in ashrae theology where there's
1:14:28 no design there's total chaos that is
1:14:30 completely valid from an actually
1:14:32 theological framework absolutely valid
1:14:34 because the foundational starting point
1:14:36 is that there is a contingent entity
1:14:40 going back to the necessary being now
1:14:43 because of this because of this whether
1:14:45 the universe is designed or not makes no
1:14:47 difference in terms of proving god's
1:14:49 existence so i don't need a designer or
1:14:52 the desire the intelligent design
1:14:54 argument to substantiate god
1:14:57 all i need is contingency and that is
1:14:58 sufficient for my purposes
1:15:00 am i rejecting that the universe is
1:15:02 designed no i never said that the
1:15:05 universe is clear design their patterns
1:15:07 their structural
1:15:08 aspects of the universe i don't deny any
1:15:10 of that but i'm saying that my faith in
1:15:13 god does not resist resist uh restaurant
1:15:16 design it rests on the contingency
1:15:18 argument and this is a basic calam
1:15:20 foundational principle both in ashrae
1:15:22 clam and mata
1:15:24 but doesn't the quran though the quran
1:15:25 doesn't rest on the kalam
1:15:28 argument
1:15:29 does it or the argument contingency so
1:15:30 much it does rest on the ayat
1:15:34 this word
1:15:35 signs which is not just the chronic
1:15:37 verses but the signs of the universe it
1:15:39 talks about the birds the mountains the
1:15:41 water the animals the the rain um and so
1:15:44 on and so on is it not pointing to signs
1:15:47 of intelligent design to use our jargon
1:15:50 although it's not using that language
1:15:51 but it's it's saying that these are uh
1:15:54 evidences
1:15:56 there's strong evidences for the
1:15:58 existence and they're self-evident our
1:16:00 fitra our innate nature can recognize
1:16:03 these if we just open our eyes and see
1:16:05 them so this question of just reflecting
1:16:07 just
1:16:08 i can't use this you can't offer it
1:16:10 can't you see can't you observe this
1:16:13 universe um
1:16:15 and so the stress is not so much on the
1:16:18 contingency point but on the
1:16:20 the design to use modern jargon um so
1:16:24 it's not incidental whether or not it is
1:16:26 designed the quran is saying it is
1:16:28 designed and you can see it and you
1:16:30 should see it because this this leads to
1:16:34 to god
1:16:35 right
1:16:36 so so none of that is being negated the
1:16:39 fact that there is design and you can
1:16:40 infer from that design that there must
1:16:42 be some kind of designer is never
1:16:43 negated right but it works off the back
1:16:45 of contingency now that argument we
1:16:48 articulate in the paper that i'm talking
1:16:49 about which will be published in a few
1:16:50 months so i'll i'll just you know
1:16:53 postpone that conversation when that
1:16:55 article comes out
1:16:56 now so that's that's more of a
1:16:58 theological foundation that i'm i'm i'm
1:17:00 i'm looking at it from so for me
1:17:02 personally speaking when people because
1:17:05 this is the thing id advocates
1:17:07 themselves make it clear that id is
1:17:10 compatible with theism atheism and
1:17:12 agnosticism i'm talking about the
1:17:14 biological argument
1:17:15 so when they they themselves make that
1:17:18 claim why do i bother with id as a
1:17:20 theological argument i don't need to
1:17:21 bother with that i have contingency that
1:17:24 is my theological argument against them
1:17:26 now as for the proposal itself as for
1:17:28 the proposal itself that there's some
1:17:30 things that are so biologically complex
1:17:33 that they could not have come out of um
1:17:35 scientific processes or natural
1:17:37 processes this is a tentative proposal
1:17:40 which even um
1:17:42 what's it called christians and
1:17:44 agnostics have recognized in their
1:17:45 thesis so you're saying currently
1:17:47 science is not an explanation for some
1:17:49 of these things therefore god did it
1:17:51 which is as god as a gaps argument no i
1:17:53 i agree there is a god of the gap so you
1:17:55 know what what
1:17:56 what i'm personally saying is it's not
1:17:58 just
1:17:59 examples of extraordinary complexity uh
1:18:01 and and design obviously
1:18:03 uh in the example you gave and and the
1:18:05 dna and so on but also the things that
1:18:08 are apparently very straightforward and
1:18:10 simple like a glass like a a glass of
1:18:12 water h2o has the most miraculous
1:18:16 properties um without i mean videos have
1:18:18 been made by as a scientist in brazil
1:18:20 he's an expert just on the miraculous
1:18:22 qualities of water h2o
1:18:25 quite extraordinary so it's not the uh
1:18:27 the gaps it's the the playing the
1:18:29 evidence in in plain sight sure sure
1:18:31 it's a yeah
1:18:32 of uh awe
1:18:35 and reverence and praise to god i mean
1:18:36 uh for his 100 100 yeah so so but you
1:18:40 see that's the distinction between a
1:18:42 general design argument and intelligence
1:18:44 design
1:18:45 intelligent design is saying that there
1:18:47 are there are currently gaps that
1:18:49 evolutionary biology can't explain or go
1:18:51 there's a designer
1:18:52 and i'm saying that is a tentative
1:18:54 proposal that is not the same thing as
1:18:56 what you're saying that there's apparent
1:18:57 design i don't argue against apparent
1:18:59 design in nature neither does the quran
1:19:01 so that's that's that's something
1:19:03 that's helpful you there's a more
1:19:05 nuanced thing and i'm i'm i'm with you
1:19:07 now but when i
1:19:08 uh when i talk about design i'm talking
1:19:10 about in that broader sense yeah that
1:19:12 broader sense no one can believe
1:19:14 in a glass of water as well as design in
1:19:16 dna or the laws of physics or a flower
1:19:18 or a bird
1:19:20 it's everywhere literally everywhere but
1:19:22 rather than in the in those things we
1:19:24 can't quite explain sure yeah just
1:19:26 because we we're at a scientific block
1:19:28 does not mean then god did it and that's
1:19:30 a very tentative place to put your
1:19:32 position in now now here's the thing
1:19:34 people extrapolate this argument to the
1:19:36 origins of life that's the key thing
1:19:39 because evolution if it if it started
1:19:41 off it started off with an origin of
1:19:42 life scenario now in this paper which
1:19:45 which will be coming out in a few months
1:19:46 we make it very clear the quran neither
1:19:49 negates nor affirms the possibility that
1:19:52 there could have been scientific
1:19:53 explanation that could be a scientific
1:19:54 explanation for the origins of life even
1:19:56 the design things that you're mentioning
1:19:57 that the god talks about the clouds
1:19:59 about the rain about weather patterns
1:20:01 all of them have scientific explanations
1:20:03 all of them have it right the quran
1:20:04 affirms both that there are such things
1:20:06 as miracles which you can't explain
1:20:08 which you won't be able to explain and
1:20:10 there are things in nature that are
1:20:11 designed but god doesn't negate
1:20:12 scientific explanations for their
1:20:14 reality can i question that actually
1:20:16 well seriously mention that the science
1:20:18 can explain the weather and so on does
1:20:20 it because
1:20:21 doesn't science just assume
1:20:23 the laws of physics does it not just
1:20:26 assume the existence of the universe we
1:20:28 have does it not assume um the the
1:20:31 existence of of of the world in such a
1:20:33 way that these weather patterns can
1:20:35 happen does it not as i can go on there
1:20:37 seem to be a whole bunch of assumptions
1:20:39 here
1:20:40 and then given all that oh and now it
1:20:42 can explain the weather but it hasn't it
1:20:44 hasn't really deeply unders explained
1:20:46 thing it's simply at a certain level uh
1:20:50 described the physical processes
1:20:52 involved in the weather changing or
1:20:54 raining or something but it hasn't
1:20:56 actually given us a complete explanation
1:20:58 of anything
1:20:59 uh because it hasn't it hasn't even
1:21:01 explained why the universe exists at
1:21:03 this moment
1:21:04 all the laws of physics all also and so
1:21:07 on so what i mean so it's a it's a
1:21:09 relatively surface description whereas
1:21:12 it doesn't go deep down into the
1:21:14 totality of it which it doesn't explain
1:21:17 i haven't come across an explanation
1:21:19 that i'm aware of and it can explain all
1:21:21 of these things uh not a biogenesis but
1:21:24 uh what why the universe bothers to
1:21:25 exist at all at this moment why the laws
1:21:28 of physics are what they are in the
1:21:30 incredible fine j you know and so on and
1:21:32 so on and so on and so on
1:21:34 yeah so um i think we have to at least
1:21:37 this is my understanding right that i
1:21:38 think this is where the distinction
1:21:39 between metaphysics and science kicks in
1:21:41 science i don't believe is scientism is
1:21:44 when you believe science can solve
1:21:45 everything i fundamentally reject that
1:21:47 and i think all muslims reject that
1:21:48 right now if you keep science in this
1:21:50 place in that it is an explanation given
1:21:53 certain things as you said the fact that
1:21:55 there are laws that exist fine science
1:21:57 can do it and find these patterns in
1:21:59 nature and put scientific equations and
1:22:01 then map them out no problem science can
1:22:03 do that without an issue and and and and
1:22:05 that's the point that's being
1:22:06 articulated here just because we have a
1:22:08 scientific explanation for something
1:22:10 complex does not mean god is out of the
1:22:12 window because contingency is the
1:22:15 foundational principle here that's where
1:22:16 in ashrae theology whether you have
1:22:18 desire or not you still have god and
1:22:21 that and my point in this in in my book
1:22:23 and in my paper is design is not being
1:22:26 negated but the fact that these design
1:22:28 looking features can have scientific
1:22:31 explanations should not worry us or
1:22:33 worry our faith if one day people find
1:22:36 an explanation for the orders of life my
1:22:38 faith would not be shocked even an inch
1:22:41 but i know that some people they are
1:22:43 resting their case on this scientific
1:22:45 gap to prove god exists
1:22:48 and that is the worry that i have with
1:22:49 this id argument i p i
1:22:52 i sincerely worry for muslims who have
1:22:55 taken on id as a theological
1:22:57 construction
1:22:58 which is what i want i i sympathize with
1:23:00 them though because
1:23:02 with the the ascendancy the seeming
1:23:03 ascendancy of methods methodological
1:23:05 naturalism becoming
1:23:08 scientific now scientism with the
1:23:10 ascendancy of scientism id pushes back
1:23:13 on scientism it rejects it and says look
1:23:16 you can't explain everything you know
1:23:18 there's this there's there's this so it
1:23:20 looks like a a theological response to
1:23:23 an rejection of a critique of scientism
1:23:25 which muslims go yeah yeah that's great
1:23:28 because we need a pushback on this so i
1:23:29 can understand why
1:23:31 even if you're right why uh why it's an
1:23:34 ultimately unnecessary position to take
1:23:36 i can understand why it's so popular on
1:23:38 a human level
1:23:40 yeah i know i i mean like this is the
1:23:42 key thing that you're always going to
1:23:43 get variations and responses look
1:23:45 depending on which part of society
1:23:47 looking at academia theologians
1:23:48 seminaries the laity etc so you'll
1:23:51 always have that variation and i can see
1:23:53 the appeal i used to be an id advocate
1:23:54 eight years ago i'll make that crystal
1:23:56 clear so i used to be that when i
1:23:58 started learning theology i i i make it
1:24:01 very clear that i personally adopt the
1:24:03 uh theological model not with any like
1:24:06 you're wrong i'm right mentality i'm
1:24:08 just saying this is my position and
1:24:10 there are other positions okay fair
1:24:11 enough if that's your model fair enough
1:24:12 that's that's what you believe in right
1:24:14 so i'm i'm very tolerant about what
1:24:15 other people believe but i'm saying that
1:24:17 this is the model that i occupy and for
1:24:19 me if there are explanations of these
1:24:22 things eventually it wouldn't harm my
1:24:24 faith and i think we need to stop
1:24:26 putting basically uh this was a
1:24:28 conversation i was having with a few
1:24:29 people no i'm not gonna mention their
1:24:30 names but um uh
1:24:32 yeah so and and i made it very clear to
1:24:35 them and he agreed with me on this is
1:24:36 that um id
1:24:39 is it
1:24:41 even though it has this appeal to being
1:24:44 a very
1:24:45 intuitive answer to a lot of things the
1:24:48 problem with that is that it i feel this
1:24:50 is a science in the quran argument 2.0
1:24:54 where people first believed in the quran
1:24:56 because there are scientific miracles
1:24:58 the moment you show that there are no
1:24:59 scientific miracles or this is a very
1:25:00 weak argument people start reeling their
1:25:02 faith in hundreds of sources the most
1:25:04 famous uh you know apologists in the
1:25:07 muslim world
1:25:08 he had to take a u-turn on scientific
1:25:10 american qur'an and i believe if we
1:25:13 latch on i'm saying we as in the muslim
1:25:16 community if we latch on to id as the
1:25:18 next best thing in the world i believe
1:25:20 in a couple of decades time if there is
1:25:22 a you know a viable explanation for the
1:25:24 origins of life it will do the exact
1:25:26 same thing
1:25:28 and that's what i'm worried about
1:25:30 i i agree with you wholeheartedly
1:25:32 scientism definitely i don't accept i
1:25:35 believe in a soul i believe there's an
1:25:36 immaterial reality to us i believe that
1:25:38 science can't explain that i'm not
1:25:40 saying that science can explain
1:25:41 everything but i'm saying that where
1:25:43 there is where this openness in
1:25:45 scripture and your theology for
1:25:47 scientific explanation to take place
1:25:49 don't put yourself open to falsification
1:25:51 because that's what idea is doing
1:25:53 you are opening yourself unnecessarily
1:25:56 to falsification
1:25:58 and that is the danger i see fundamental
1:26:00 id not with the idea of this intuitive
1:26:02 understanding of design but the fact
1:26:04 this incessant that there are gaps in
1:26:06 nature and you have to believe that
1:26:08 these gaps prove god
1:26:10 that is the danger
1:26:13 that is a danger i see with id
1:26:15 okay that's a powerful argument there's
1:26:17 a powerful argument yeah
1:26:19 um okay um was that the the last slide
1:26:22 in your presentation
1:26:26 the most important here we are folks his
1:26:28 email address any questions well he's
1:26:30 giving you his email address
1:26:32 Music
1:26:34 um okay well that's uh that's very very
1:26:37 very interesting indeed um well thank
1:26:38 you very much indeed uh professor for
1:26:41 your time um i'm very heartened to hear
1:26:43 um that uh well you're working on six
1:26:46 books and that there's more to come from
1:26:48 your um highly productive pen um and
1:26:51 this is clearly something worth uh
1:26:53 watching this whole discussion and uh i
1:26:56 like your nuanced very nuanced approach
1:26:58 bringing theological perspectives as
1:27:00 well as a grasp of the the science uh
1:27:04 whether it be scientism or
1:27:05 methodological naturalism um
1:27:07 uh and it is a complicated multifaceted
1:27:10 subject or multi multi-disciplinary
1:27:12 subject
1:27:13 um as well um can i add to that paul
1:27:16 just uh just what you said here so
1:27:18 because of the multi-faceted nature of
1:27:21 this conversation i believe that the
1:27:23 layperson in particular is overwhelmed
1:27:26 with so much and i think that's why it's
1:27:28 very easy to kind of latch on to
1:27:30 easy scenarios whereas the deeper you
1:27:32 get the more you realize there's space
1:27:34 here for dialogue and frame construction
1:27:36 and so that's what i wanted to do
1:27:37 through my book and you know these
1:27:39 exchanges that we've been having so i
1:27:40 hope even if you disagree with me i
1:27:42 don't have a problem with people
1:27:43 disagreeing with me uh that's absolutely
1:27:45 fine but at least try to understand what
1:27:48 i've written and then build your you
1:27:49 know opinions off of that regardless of
1:27:51 whether you're doing that's not the
1:27:52 point here the point is at least just
1:27:54 acknowledge that there are some options
1:27:56 there for you and that's enough for me
1:27:58 to kind of settle the conversation okay
1:28:01 now um i've said before i said again the
1:28:03 uh the link to uh the book on islamic
1:28:06 evolution um will be in it is in the
1:28:08 description below um click on that you
1:28:11 can read the book for yourself i think
1:28:12 it's it was 120 quid or something in if
1:28:15 you would
1:28:16 100 yeah uh somewhat wages some but here
1:28:19 uh the publishers uh quite legally are
1:28:21 allowing us to everyone uh in the world
1:28:24 to read it for free um and it's
1:28:26 certainly as i say there's some
1:28:27 fascinating oh here we go uh
1:28:29 endorsements on the back cover but
1:28:31 leading uh islamic intellectuals uh
1:28:33 hamza uh hamza yusuf and um dr yasser
1:28:37 khadi uh as well as non-muslim
1:28:39 intellectuals in the field of science
1:28:42 and faith uh from oxford and other
1:28:44 places as well so it's clearly um uh got
1:28:48 some credentials shall we say um so uh
1:28:51 it's worth looking at it's a long book
1:28:53 but um i haven't read all of that i read
1:28:55 selected parts of it but it's certainly
1:28:57 um very well written i'm readable that's
1:28:59 the other thing by the way it's readable
1:29:00 which is really important if you're
1:29:01 reading a long book that it's not
1:29:03 unreadable
1:29:05 initially um in the contract i signed to
1:29:08 a an agreement that this is supposed to
1:29:10 be a 90 000 word book but because i
1:29:12 wanted to make it accessible it ended up
1:29:14 becoming a 140 000 word book uh but i
1:29:17 did it for that reason because i wanted
1:29:19 anybody who had no background in any of
1:29:21 these conversations to be able to pick
1:29:23 it up like okay this this doesn't make
1:29:25 sense i can't read this
1:29:27 yes no and indeed indeed it does so um i
1:29:30 i think i i think i i am persuaded that
1:29:33 you have presented a compelling argument
1:29:35 uh and and that um evolution is not a
1:29:38 problem however evolution is understood
1:29:40 uh macroevolution is not a problem for
1:29:42 uh for muslims but there they do appear
1:29:44 to be one or two traps that we might
1:29:46 fall into
1:29:47 uh in if if we're not careful it seems
1:29:50 so um
1:29:51 thank you very much indeed uh for your
1:29:53 time sir um extraordinary uh
1:29:55 presentation uh much food for thought i
1:29:58 hope viewers will uh consider the
1:30:00 options maybe download the book have a
1:30:02 look at it and um and give us your views
1:30:04 please in the comments below so um
1:30:06 thank you very much indeed sir for your
1:30:08 time thank you very much for inviting me
1:30:09 paul i appreciate it and hope we can
1:30:11 talk again indeed until next time bye