The Academic Problems of Darwinian Evolution (2017-09-26) #

0:00:00 assalamualaikum warahmatullahi
0:00:02 wabarakatuhu welcome to a very important
0:00:06 show on evolution I'm here with sabor
0:00:09 Ruffman how you do it you're right good
0:00:11 good one of the researchers at I era and
0:00:14 we're going to be discussing Darwinian
0:00:16 evolution how certain let's get started
0:00:19 straight away so what how certain are we
0:00:22 of Darwinian evolution and more
0:00:25 specifically I want to ask you how
0:00:27 certain are we that we have the same
0:00:30 ancestors as present-day
0:00:31 let's say chimps ok brilliant question
0:00:34 what I'm gonna do in this show in sha
0:00:37 Allah God willing is show the popular
0:00:40 narrative which is it is as certain as
0:00:43 planetary motion as certain as the
0:00:44 plants going around the around the Sun
0:00:46 that we are certain this has happened
0:00:48 because this is this all certainty that
0:00:51 Darwin is speak with ok I'm gonna show
0:00:53 me are you challenging that certain time
0:00:54 no okay I'm gonna show the academics not
0:00:57 me right say it is based on a
0:01:00 probabilistic framework which has
0:01:01 multiple assumptions which are being
0:01:03 challenged and its core concepts are
0:01:05 disputable so are you saying that what's
0:01:07 happening on a popular level it's
0:01:09 completely different from what's going
0:01:11 on in the academic world absolutely and
0:01:12 this is not just something which I'm
0:01:14 pointing out this is something that even
0:01:15 the British government understands that
0:01:18 the academia is what's known in academia
0:01:21 hasn't filtered down to the general
0:01:23 masses which is why they run projects to
0:01:26 narrow the gap right but I would say
0:01:28 when it comes to Darwin's particular
0:01:30 theory yeah Richard Dawkins in the blind
0:01:32 watchmaker says Darwin allowed us to be
0:01:36 intellectually satisfied atheists before
0:01:38 Darwin it could have been tenable to be
0:01:39 an atheist right but he allowed us to be
0:01:41 intellectually satisfied atheists so
0:01:42 because of that we've got a deliberate
0:01:44 campaign by humanists by atheists by
0:01:47 Darwinists to miss educate the public on
0:01:50 this particular issue sounds quite
0:01:52 conspiratorial support I mean it does
0:01:54 mean is it just what you're saying or is
0:01:57 there some people from like an academic
0:01:58 perspective that also made the same kind
0:02:00 of claim well what you'll find and this
0:02:02 is very very interesting is that
0:02:04 mainstream secular academics who are
0:02:07 themselves like who for example James
0:02:10 Shapiro look as a
0:02:12 Cambridge educated evolutionary
0:02:14 biologist at the University of Chicago
0:02:16 right and he basically says that it's a
0:02:20 religion Lynn Margulis he's again an
0:02:23 atheist evolutionary biologist her and
0:02:24 similar and symbiotic theory is taught
0:02:27 every single usually apprised of some
0:02:29 sort she did she won the National Medal
0:02:31 of Science and Clinton gave that to her
0:02:33 again she's an eighth yes she called an
0:02:35 Anglo Saxon sect right Masatoshi Nye who
0:02:39 is a dawn in population genetics a
0:02:41 subfield of evolutionary biology again
0:02:43 another realized yeah not yet so he's
0:02:47 got these formulas at all at an academic
0:02:51 level in libraries across the world he
0:02:53 has said Darwin and he doesn't believe
0:02:55 in Darwin's mechanism he believes in his
0:02:58 own notation driven evolution he says
0:03:00 Darwin in our field is God so you can't
0:03:02 challenge him right so these are atheist
0:03:04 evolutionary academics saying this is
0:03:07 way more than science right and one
0:03:09 other thing which is very important just
0:03:11 a few months ago there's a book
0:03:12 published by Oxford University by an
0:03:14 atheist evolutionary biologist run
0:03:16 called Darwinism as religion so yours
0:03:20 antibody to see the philosopher of
0:03:21 science Michael ruse right well you
0:03:23 argues in that book is that Darwin's
0:03:25 theory is a valid scientific theory yes
0:03:28 but it has morphed into a full-out
0:03:32 religion not religion we are believes in
0:03:34 God by religion nonetheless okay let's
0:03:36 get straight into the question I posed
0:03:39 to you in the beginning of this session
0:03:40 we talked about certainty in terms of
0:03:43 evolutionary theory you're saying it's
0:03:45 not a certain as evolutionists or let's
0:03:48 say even popular atheists are making out
0:03:51 to be so what is your evidence of that
0:03:52 okay all of the people are not a
0:03:54 reference in this video people that you
0:03:56 can go check out learn and you can
0:03:59 actually find out there why I'm saying
0:04:00 yeah it's based on what they're saying
0:04:01 yeah so first off if we pick up any book
0:04:04 on the philosophy of biology philosophy
0:04:07 or biology is a subfield in which if you
0:04:09 imagine a biologist as studying
0:04:10 organisms right and a philosopher of
0:04:13 biology studying biologists how do they
0:04:14 come to conclusion so a basic book on
0:04:16 this is evidence in evolution by
0:04:18 Cambridge University okay why the
0:04:20 philosopher of biology Eliot Sobel who
0:04:22 is an atheist right and what he says in
0:04:23 this book is this duh
0:04:26 evolution is based on a probabilistic
0:04:27 framework okay and he talks about the
0:04:29 multiple assumptions which are there
0:04:31 okay likewise we have Peter Godfrey
0:04:33 Smith another philosopher herbology he
0:04:36 published a book with Princeton
0:04:37 University called philosophy herbology
0:04:38 yeah he's dead
0:04:39 he speaks about bodies are moving away
0:04:41 from the Tree of Life which we've been
0:04:43 told as a fact okay to a web of life so
0:04:46 mainstream secular and these two
0:04:48 individuals are atheists mainstream
0:04:50 secular universities and individuals and
0:04:52 academics yeah admit to three facts
0:04:55 probabilistic framework multiple
0:04:57 assumptions which are being challenged
0:04:59 and its core concepts are disputed
0:05:02 disputable let's stick with two and
0:05:04 three because one might be claimed to be
0:05:06 not a problem and everything in it said
0:05:08 in a sense is probabilistic right yeah
0:05:10 sure but what we need to be careful
0:05:12 about is this yeah remember the
0:05:14 narrative they're telling us they're
0:05:15 telling us it's as clear it's no brainer
0:05:17 it's as clear as planetary motion that's
0:05:19 the probably stick that's an observation
0:05:20 right so it's a very big claim okay so a
0:05:23 probabilistic framework is something
0:05:26 which automatically lowers that
0:05:27 certainty that you're talking about okay
0:05:29 some would say though I mean we're
0:05:31 talking about probabilistic framework we
0:05:32 don't have we don't have a problem with
0:05:34 that two and three you mentioned some of
0:05:38 the main major assumptions like we're
0:05:40 gonna probably go into homology or
0:05:41 something like this before we move on to
0:05:43 homology what we need to realize is this
0:05:44 yeah number one Darwin and the way that
0:05:47 he framed hysteria and the way that he
0:05:49 propagated it yeah he didn't know I
0:05:51 believe a very honest way yeah and I
0:05:53 believe he was a very hardworking
0:05:54 scientist and many of his works have
0:05:56 been misrepresented okay for example
0:05:57 right if you pick up a book on
0:05:59 evolutionary biology today a book about
0:06:01 Darwinian evolution like the greatest
0:06:03 show on earth right all jerry coins
0:06:06 evolution is true you're just gonna get
0:06:08 this theory is true here's why it's true
0:06:10 here's why it's true XYZ okay but he's
0:06:12 make up the Origin of Species you find
0:06:14 that Darwin right in the beginning he
0:06:16 says something very very important okay
0:06:17 he says you can use the facts that I
0:06:20 have in my book to come up with
0:06:22 conclusions which are opposite to mine
0:06:23 because he understands the philosophy of
0:06:25 science the philosophy of science
0:06:27 teaches us one you can have a conclusion
0:06:31 you can have observations in the future
0:06:33 which can challenge your previous
0:06:34 conclusion the Black Swan problem
0:06:36 problem reduction too you can always
0:06:38 have the same data give
0:06:39 rise to multiple theories later on in
0:06:42 Chapter six of his book he speaks about
0:06:44 the problems with his own theory now
0:06:46 look at the honesty of the man he puts
0:06:48 together a theory and he puts together a
0:06:50 chapter about the problems with this
0:06:52 theory and he tries to iron them out and
0:06:54 he admits some of these problems are
0:06:56 unsolvable some of these problems are
0:06:58 more apparent than real but I still
0:07:00 think my Theory's correct but one thing
0:07:02 that he says in his book if this fails
0:07:05 his Theory fails according to him which
0:07:07 is gradualism that their variations that
0:07:10 take place and evolution works at a
0:07:12 gradualist ik pace he said if this fails
0:07:15 then my theory will absolutely break
0:07:17 down and evolutionary biologists today
0:07:20 understand that gradualism has largely
0:07:22 failed and is this linked to things like
0:07:25 punctuated equilibrium but moreover I
0:07:28 just want to kind of put a case forward
0:07:32 let's pretend I'm an evolutionary
0:07:32 biologist now say listen we have a deal
0:07:35 we have a range of different data we
0:07:37 have for example the fossil record
0:07:39 archeological data we have RNA and DNA
0:07:41 we have the baby genome development in
0:07:45 animals and things like that all of
0:07:47 these things triangulate with each other
0:07:48 to give you the same conclusion which is
0:07:50 that every living thing and the
0:07:52 biological world is in congruence but
0:07:54 also goes back to one life-form so in
0:07:58 other words we all go back to one we're
0:07:59 all descended from the same kind of
0:08:01 singular life form sure so this is the
0:08:04 kind of primary theory or kind of
0:08:06 primary presupposition of evolution how
0:08:08 would you go around you're saying it's
0:08:10 not as clear as planetary motion but the
0:08:14 question is isn't that enough evidence
0:08:15 to you why is that not enough evidence
0:08:16 for you okay it's a very good question
0:08:18 yeah the only way I'm gonna change your
0:08:19 analogy if we were to have a
0:08:21 conversation like this yeah it wouldn't
0:08:24 be an evolutionary biologists thing on
0:08:25 the other side because an evolutionary
0:08:27 biologist were no better than that it's
0:08:28 most likely a Darwinist because remember
0:08:30 and even not every single evolutionary
0:08:32 biology is alone as the Darwinism yes
0:08:34 every Darwinist is the evolution of our
0:08:36 course right and evolution is different
0:08:38 to Darwinism evolution simply means
0:08:40 biological change over time double mean
0:08:41 evolution is tree of life and the
0:08:43 mechanism alright first thing which he
0:08:45 said is very very important let's flush
0:08:47 it out okay so you're claiming as a
0:08:50 Darwin is right
0:08:51 biochemistry yeah
0:08:53 genetics yes uh not to me yeah
0:08:55 psychology yeah sociology linguistics
0:08:57 biogeography here the fossil record
0:08:59 bioinformatics yes and every other
0:09:02 sphere of by law the subfields of
0:09:06 biology can blend I in congruence
0:09:08 leading up to one conclusion yes the
0:09:10 very first thing I'll point out right
0:09:11 now even knowing any science okay
0:09:13 that is impossible because science
0:09:16 doesn't proceed like that the same dater
0:09:18 can give rise to multiple conclusions
0:09:19 okay so that's the first point
0:09:21 well secondly if we delve into the data
0:09:23 we realize there's lots of black swans
0:09:25 lots of recalcitrant facts to resist a
0:09:29 theory yeah I was just going to ask you
0:09:30 to define that what caused the true
0:09:32 impact of recalcitrant factors right
0:09:34 I've been accused of murdering a lead
0:09:37 owl say okay I happen to be accused of
0:09:39 murdering a lead our Thursday at 6:30 on
0:09:43 the 20th of September we're on stage
0:09:45 right now the Rakhal certain fact is
0:09:48 you're an eyewitness and the person
0:09:50 filming is a night window you're here
0:09:52 down here that's a recalcitrant fact
0:09:53 right so recalcitrant fact is a factory
0:09:56 resist a theory now with in evolutionary
0:09:59 biology we have recalcitrant facts in
0:10:02 genetics for example orphan genes we
0:10:05 have recalcitrant facts when it comes to
0:10:07 the fossil record in terms of punctuated
0:10:09 equilibrium saltation 11 we have
0:10:13 recalcitrant facts when it comes to
0:10:14 random mutations in terms of natural
0:10:16 genetic engineering now these may sound
0:10:18 like technical terms but all I want you
0:10:19 to understand this is basically it's not
0:10:21 in congruence no in a way which is the
0:10:24 only theory that's in congruence you can
0:10:27 come with other theories besides that
0:10:29 right because remember I'm not saying
0:10:31 those fields don't lead to Darwinism
0:10:33 they can right but they can also lead to
0:10:35 other theories right so what you're
0:10:37 saying just to kind of simplify is
0:10:39 you're saying that the data that we have
0:10:40 in front of us can be interpreted in a
0:10:42 range of different ways and moreover
0:10:44 you're saying that if we want to stick
0:10:46 to the fine
0:10:47 kind of structure of Darwinian evolution
0:10:50 and we want to try and create what you
0:10:52 would think is like a line of best fit
0:10:53 you'd see a lot of anomalous sort of
0:10:56 dots on the sky autographed it wouldn't
0:10:58 be just one line of best fit every day
0:11:00 every line every door Scott and the
0:11:02 other thing is look I believe Darwin's
0:11:04 theory to be a valid scientific model
0:11:06 yes but but I think the reason why
0:11:09 people get confused is because they
0:11:10 conflate science with truth right
0:11:11 science gives you workable models of our
0:11:13 reality which are falsified it doesn't
0:11:15 give you truth with a capital T that's
0:11:18 the beauty of science they keep changing
0:11:19 keeps evolving keeps changing as we get
0:11:22 new data I've got some questions for you
0:11:24 one of them is that you've mentioned in
0:11:27 the things that you are mentioning as a
0:11:28 subfield of biological change over time
0:11:30 you mentioned a few things like
0:11:33 civilizational or you call it basically
0:11:36 how animals act together so she lodges
0:11:39 sociological behavior yeah sociological
0:11:41 behavior of animals so is it the case
0:11:44 that here for example chimps and human
0:11:47 beings have the same sociological other
0:11:50 behaviors more similar from a
0:11:52 sociological perspective according to
0:11:53 you again
0:11:55 mainstream evolutionary biologists this
0:11:56 is where we have homo places homo places
0:11:59 our similarities are not due to common
0:12:00 descent so we have okay once again to
0:12:04 simplify so you've got two key terms
0:12:06 here yeah right one of them is homology
0:12:08 yeah and the opposite of that so more
0:12:10 places so can we quickly just shall I
0:12:12 write homology is an assumption yes
0:12:14 similarities are due to common descent
0:12:15 common descent so I have all the
0:12:17 similarities that we see in the animal
0:12:19 kingdom is due to is a result of the
0:12:22 fact that we are from the same let's say
0:12:24 it's assumed no way this is common and
0:12:26 some common ancestor and this is the
0:12:28 assumption of homology goes back to the
0:12:30 Padma Purana 3,000 years ago the ancient
0:12:33 Indians now Hindus because they're
0:12:35 philosophers they are naturalist so when
0:12:38 it comes to homology if someone uses it
0:12:41 as an assumption there's nothing wrong
0:12:43 per se if someone says this and I want
0:12:45 you to realize I don't need this contest
0:12:47 you know they use this argument all the
0:12:48 time
0:12:49 similarities are due to common descent
0:12:51 right heylook similarities exist
0:12:53 therefore similarities led you to come
0:12:55 to descent right what's wrong with that
0:12:56 argument so circular circular sadly we
0:12:59 will find even documentaries using this
0:13:01 sort of circular reasoning is this
0:13:03 something which is fleshed out in the
0:13:05 academic or what you're saying because
0:13:07 what you're saying here is actually
0:13:08 quite profound let's be honest here
0:13:09 you're saying that the foundation of
0:13:12 evolutionary it W in evolutionary models
0:13:15 was the one that we were kind of
0:13:16 acquainted with which is homology one of
0:13:19 the may
0:13:19 assumptions everything that it goes back
0:13:21 to kind of common descent order the
0:13:23 differences or these similarities that
0:13:25 we see that is that is due to common
0:13:27 descent you're saying that actually this
0:13:30 itself this foundational thing cannot be
0:13:32 proven in and of itself yeah is that is
0:13:35 that your claim I'm not claiming this I
0:13:37 am going to give you an example of
0:13:39 someone who points this out you know
0:13:41 evolution is not your claim
0:13:42 no not my claim and I'm gonna give you
0:13:44 an example evolutionary biologists they
0:13:46 don't use this circular reasoning this
0:13:48 is used by people who are popularizers
0:13:50 okay all they say is we assumed it and
0:13:52 they carry on there's nothing wrong with
0:13:53 doing okay
0:13:53 Ronald Brady he's a philosopher of
0:13:55 biology as in mainstream secular
0:13:57 academic he published a paper in a
0:13:59 journal called cladistics called on the
0:14:01 aura on the independence of systematics
0:14:04 and what he goes on to say is this this
0:14:06 line of reasoning is circular right if
0:14:08 you uh if you want to say that homology
0:14:11 is true you have to come up with an
0:14:12 independent argument I won't use this
0:14:14 argument cause it's circuit but it's
0:14:15 something which doesn't seem like you
0:14:17 can plan under a microscope on you got
0:14:18 so how you prove it
0:14:19 you can't you can't it's an obsession
0:14:21 okay you move on so if it's an
0:14:23 assumption and it can't be proven what
0:14:25 you're effectively saying is that that
0:14:27 which holds the house of the foundations
0:14:30 which hold the house of Darwinian
0:14:31 evolution itself are unsound or are not
0:14:34 on Sam but unprovable of course that's
0:14:36 what you're saying well that's not what
0:14:37 I'm saying this is what that's what's
0:14:38 being said in that's what being said in
0:14:40 academic world because no one tries to
0:14:41 prove assumptions so that's very
0:14:43 profound well it is it is if we
0:14:45 understand that the popular
0:14:47 understanding yes different to the
0:14:48 academic understanding but it's not
0:14:50 profound for an academic well if so they
0:14:52 find how do you basically evolutionary
0:14:55 biologists or Darwinists reconcile this
0:14:58 because how can they how can they be so
0:15:00 certain about something which hasn't got
0:15:01 which has you could even say axiomatic
0:15:03 type presuppositions
0:15:05 okay now this is where it gets really
0:15:07 interesting right I find the language of
0:15:08 people I wish to Dawkins very
0:15:10 interesting because he is after all
0:15:12 somebody who is seen as an authority in
0:15:14 this field although he is not he's
0:15:16 referred to as a science journalist but
0:15:18 what he does say in public is different
0:15:20 to what he sometimes writes in books
0:15:23 right lesser-known works so for example
0:15:25 when he met Hamza in Ireland during the
0:15:28 2011
0:15:30 well they theists convention you know he
0:15:32 was talking about you don't believe in
0:15:33 evolution it's just as clear as
0:15:36 planetary mayor right yeah yeah in his
0:15:39 book a devil's chaplain well he goes on
0:15:42 to say in this book that future facts
0:15:44 that I'm quoting him vibration future
0:15:47 facts may come to light which will force
0:15:49 our successors of the 21st century to
0:15:52 abandon Darwinism or modify beyond
0:15:55 reckoning right now what what's
0:15:57 basically going on here is this he knows
0:16:00 what he's talking about he's an
0:16:01 intelligent guy well but there's two
0:16:02 terms that need to be divorced
0:16:04 evolution hmm and Darwinian evolution
0:16:06 this is what's causing the so if I if I
0:16:09 say to you this thing right I say is
0:16:11 there a doctor in the house we need a
0:16:12 doctor and there's a brother who has a
0:16:15 PhD in philosophy it's not the same
0:16:17 thing this is a medical doctor
0:16:19 that's the laceration fallacy of
0:16:21 equivocation is what the Dominus have
0:16:22 been doing they've been saying evolution
0:16:24 is true
0:16:25 look the cells they're dividing they're
0:16:27 doing this you know give back my
0:16:29 theology
0:16:29 microbiology antibiotic medicine and
0:16:32 they use that to extrapolate to human
0:16:35 sham ancestry right not the same thing
0:16:36 at all it's a fallacy of purification
0:16:38 let me ask you a question straight up
0:16:40 we've got some archaeological evidence
0:16:42 of Lucy of all of these different
0:16:46 homeworks or different things
0:16:49 isn't this an evidence could this not be
0:16:50 put into our database of evidences of
0:16:53 the truthfulness of human chimp ancestry
0:16:56 good question all I would do and I've
0:16:59 said this previously and there's no
0:17:03 paleontologist in the world who would
0:17:04 disagree if somebody disagrees please
0:17:07 dance my new van you've debated Aaron
0:17:09 raw and he's a paleontologist isn't he
0:17:11 well he studied paleontology right but
0:17:13 this is a mainstream thing which is
0:17:15 understood in evolution biology okay
0:17:17 there are four assumptions when they
0:17:19 look at Lucy or look at anything okay
0:17:21 number one is the assumption of
0:17:23 naturalism naturalism is everything has
0:17:26 to explain naturalistically
0:17:27 hence why Darwin said if there's no
0:17:29 fossils it'd still be true right because
0:17:32 it doesn't matter it doesn't matter
0:17:33 because the assumption is so this is
0:17:35 really axiomatic no yeah of course it's
0:17:37 incorrect so now it becomes a
0:17:38 self-fulfilling prophecy
0:17:39 well actually the the analogy that I
0:17:41 think is good is you know have you been
0:17:43 to a circus with it having our tightrope
0:17:45 in the plank did you I see I've seen
0:17:47 that yeah yeah beneath it they have a
0:17:48 safety net right okay
0:17:50 so above if you like that's the science
0:17:51 if they fall down the naturalism is a
0:17:54 safety net right all right Henry guy in
0:17:56 his book The Accidental species
0:17:57 misunderstanding the human evolution
0:17:59 he's an atheist evolutionary biologist
0:18:01 he's the senior editor of nature which
0:18:03 is the most prestigious journal in the
0:18:05 world it's like premiere so a way about
0:18:06 people like Dawkins he says in his book
0:18:09 the same thing he says if there's no
0:18:10 fossils human ship ancestry still be
0:18:12 true and he says that because of
0:18:13 homology no naturalism the assumption of
0:18:17 naturalism and wouldn't that be coupled
0:18:18 with you with homologation but this full
0:18:20 assumptions are separate right second
0:18:21 assumption is homology right third
0:18:23 assumption is his only one origin right
0:18:26 which is why humans chimps have to be
0:18:27 put together you me a blade of grass and
0:18:30 elephant and octopus oh family well
0:18:32 family because of the assumption of one
0:18:34 origin yeah that's an assumption
0:18:36 fourthly this is extremely important
0:18:38 right
0:18:38 even if these assumptions didn't exist
0:18:40 this is the most fundamental assumption
0:18:42 okay go ahead and this is the one that's
0:18:43 most challenged go on from to get from A
0:18:46 to Z we need a mechanism right and
0:18:48 that's natural selection right if the
0:18:49 mechanism fails in history fails imagine
0:18:52 there's a bridge you've got two
0:18:54 structures on either side then you've
0:18:55 got a beam these structures are the
0:18:58 mechanism of natural selection the Tree
0:19:00 of Life is the trajectory right if these
0:19:03 structures break the tree breaks so
0:19:04 you're saying is challenged why is it
0:19:05 challenged well anybody who knows the
0:19:09 basics of evolutionary biology owes the
0:19:12 mechanism is being challenged by
0:19:13 mainstream academics by a host of
0:19:16 alternatives evolution by
0:19:17 self-organization new mutation ISM near
0:19:21 Omaha near Lamarckism that's become very
0:19:23 popular that's easy a dead theory which
0:19:25 came back to - all right right this is
0:19:27 also intended yes that's a good point
0:19:30 and there's also evolution my natural
0:19:32 genetic engineering are these fringe of
0:19:34 course they are they're very friendly
0:19:35 they are fringe but what we have to
0:19:37 understand is epistemic ly hmm something
0:19:40 may be fringe but it's epistemic equal
0:19:42 right okay so what you're saying here
0:19:44 are tell me what you're saying so if
0:19:47 someone comes in a nutshell
0:19:48 let's try and say this to someone to
0:19:50 someone to kind of summarize yeah assume
0:19:53 I'm someone who's absolutely convinced
0:19:55 as a matter of certainty that a
0:19:56 Darwinian evolution
0:19:57 is true and be okay that human chimp
0:20:00 ancestry is certainly the case okay
0:20:02 I'm going to come up to you and say
0:20:04 listen I believe a and B what would be
0:20:07 in a in a kind of summarized nutshell
0:20:09 your response to show them that it's not
0:20:12 certain okay good question yeah I would
0:20:16 firstly if I literally had no time I
0:20:19 would ignore the science yeah simply go
0:20:21 to the philosophy of science a
0:20:23 philosophy of science is based upon
0:20:24 limited set of data generalizations
0:20:26 future data which can challenge the
0:20:28 previous theory the same data can give
0:20:30 rise to multiple theories yeah just
0:20:33 based on those two things you shouldn't
0:20:35 be searching about anything in science
0:20:36 because pick up any book on the
0:20:38 philosophy of science such as philosophy
0:20:39 of science a new introduction by Oxford
0:20:41 University yeah in it says no no
0:20:45 scientific theory no scientific
0:20:47 conclusion can be concrete proof you can
0:20:51 always change okay and the second thing
0:20:53 about him in Japan's history well I
0:20:55 would simply do human chimp ancestry is
0:20:57 based upon four assumptions homology
0:20:59 naturalism the mechanism and a single
0:21:02 origin yes
0:21:03 secondly all of Darwinian evolution is
0:21:05 based on probabilistic framework which
0:21:07 has assumptions and which is disputable
0:21:09 as somebody may turn around and say to
0:21:11 me yeah but who cares
0:21:12 ninety-nine percent of biologists
0:21:14 believe in Darwinian evolution I will
0:21:16 say to them well guess what so do I but
0:21:18 what does believe mean they believe it
0:21:19 to be a valid theory it doesn't mean
0:21:21 they believe it to be absolutely true
0:21:22 the same thing with me as a Muslim I
0:21:24 believe it to be a valid theory
0:21:26 plausible theory I'm not saying it's
0:21:28 impossible but it's not absolutely true
0:21:30 and obviously for Islamic reasons you
0:21:32 would opt out of believing that human
0:21:34 beings have a common ancestor with each
0:21:35 other no I would but I wouldn't even
0:21:37 have to be a Muslim to do that right
0:21:39 because for example someone like David
0:21:41 stove he's that mainstream atheist
0:21:43 philosopher awesome Darwin in fairy
0:21:45 tales
0:21:45 Darwin in fairy tales his popular book
0:21:47 also you have people like Jerry Fodor
0:21:49 his book what Darwin got wrong and
0:21:51 interestingly and I think we didn't
0:21:53 actually mention this point they
0:21:54 understand it's not absolute but
0:21:55 interestingly at this point we didn't
0:21:57 actually mentioned Darwin's theory is
0:21:58 unique for five reasons go on there's
0:22:01 nothing no other theory in the history
0:22:03 of science which has these things number
0:22:05 one according to mainstream secular
0:22:08 academics it's turned into a secular
0:22:11 according to even Dominus themselves -
0:22:13 he influenced politics and it became
0:22:16 into a thorough political system within
0:22:18 itself
0:22:19 Stalin read the Origin of Species that
0:22:21 led him to atheism when he killed people
0:22:24 he said he thought he was doing natural
0:22:26 selection but an ethical system people
0:22:29 get a meaning out of it you know they
0:22:31 they could drive morality for me
0:22:32 fourthly
0:22:33 we have my favourite Spencer socialist
0:22:35 of course is nearly full we have mass
0:22:38 propaganda we have the popular
0:22:40 perception and we have academia and 5
0:22:43 this is extremely important is that
0:22:45 apart from me being a religion apart
0:22:47 from the the sociological aspect of it
0:22:49 sorry the religion the political aspect
0:22:52 the ethical aspect the the propaganda
0:22:56 sociologically if you go up to somebody
0:22:58 and say do you believe in this theory
0:22:59 that yeah yeah I believe it to be true
0:23:01 masses of people believe it to be true
0:23:03 if you ask them for a whiff of evidence
0:23:05 it's just scratch the surface they don't
0:23:07 know and I have experienced this myself
0:23:09 and I just want to end up on this yes in
0:23:11 Stanford they did an experiment about
0:23:13 social conformity and they put three
0:23:16 lines on the board and there was a group
0:23:18 group of people one of them was a test
0:23:20 subject the rest of them were actors and
0:23:22 they have lines ABC and so they went out
0:23:24 to everyone which line is the shortest
0:23:27 the shortest was see this guy lied and
0:23:30 said ay ay ay ay ay it came to the test
0:23:35 subject all the rest of them are fake he
0:23:38 denied his own perception and he said
0:23:40 hey even though he knew C was the
0:23:42 smallest which goes to show that human
0:23:44 beings are social creatures we go with
0:23:47 the flow and we accept things because of
0:23:49 Authority without actually questioning
0:23:51 them and Darwin's theory is unique in
0:23:53 the sense that you have millions of
0:23:55 people who believe in it it's a it's a
0:23:57 materialistic story for capitalism and
0:23:59 it is something which is accepted
0:24:01 without any evidence tell us tell us
0:24:03 yeah so you wanna say the last thing
0:24:04 yeah that's it there's five things about
0:24:06 Darwin see which is unique okay tell us
0:24:08 about this what's this this is a project
0:24:12 called Darwin in delusions and the only
0:24:15 purpose of ship all over the ship well
0:24:17 the HMS Beagle 1859 to the island right
0:24:21 alright so what it basically is this I
0:24:23 want to make it clear what delusions
0:24:25 I'm not saying somebody who believes it
0:24:27 to be a valid scientific theory is
0:24:28 deluded is a YouTube channel it's a
0:24:30 YouTube channel this is to show that if
0:24:33 you believe it's certain and if you want
0:24:34 to bring your if you don't bring meaning
0:24:36 of life out if you don't bring morality
0:24:38 out of it you know from Darwin to Hitler
0:24:40 you should read this book right how it
0:24:42 led the Nazis to do what they were
0:24:44 actually doing in terms of their social
0:24:45 Darwinism then I would say you're pretty
0:24:48 diluted because this is a valid
0:24:49 scientific theory but it's not the
0:24:51 gospel truth interesting interesting
0:24:52 interesting people are gonna be going on
0:24:55 there inshallah and subscribing to it
0:24:57 and listening to more of support on his
0:25:00 research is really truly eye-opening and
0:25:03 I'm sure even if you're not a Muslim or
0:25:05 let's say even if you are a Darwinian
0:25:06 evolutionist you should be challenged
0:25:08 challenging yourself and not really kind
0:25:10 of relying on like the social narrative
0:25:13 I'm at the end of the day social
0:25:14 narratives change and the way they do
0:25:17 change is by critical inquiry and I do
0:25:19 invite everyone to critically examine
0:25:22 under the microscope of objectivity the
0:25:26 truthfulness of Darwinian evolution
0:25:28 based on the information and obviously
0:25:31 this is going to be a good YouTube
0:25:32 channel for you to subscribe to anyways
0:25:34 for until next time assalamu alaikum
0:25:37 warahmatullah ever again Sonali