Webinar: Darwinian Delusions — How to Understand Islam and the Science of Evolution (2020-08-17) ​

0:00:07 how's everyone doing
0:00:09 welcome to darwinian delusions how to
0:00:12 understand islam and the science of
0:00:14 evolution
0:00:16 as you guys know from anybody who's
0:00:17 attended my previous
0:00:19 webinars or videos or talks or whatever
0:00:22 i like to keep things as interactive as
0:00:24 possible
0:00:24 so we're going to be doing this session
0:00:27 and during the session
0:00:28 any questions i see in the chat i'll try
0:00:31 and answer them there and then and then
0:00:32 we'll have an a
0:00:33 an extensive q a inshallah
0:00:36 in which we go over these things in more
0:00:39 detail
0:00:40 so i'm sure you guys are familiar those
0:00:43 of you who've attended the previous
0:00:44 webinars on how to use
0:00:46 the chat and how to use the questions my
0:00:49 suggestion would be
0:00:50 during during the actual um
0:00:53 session just use the chat and questions
0:00:56 just start putting your questions
0:00:58 through
0:00:59 when we are at the q a section okay
0:01:02 bismillah let's begin
0:01:03 so what's what's this about darwinian
0:01:06 delusions
0:01:07 okay so the name you may be thinking
0:01:09 delusions
0:01:10 and darwinian like where did where did
0:01:12 this name come from
0:01:13 well you got the god delusion book right
0:01:16 you got richard dawkins going on about
0:01:18 how evolution undermines existence of
0:01:20 god
0:01:21 and why various organs for god don't
0:01:24 make any sense and god is basically a
0:01:25 delusion
0:01:27 so it's just a spin on that and it's
0:01:31 it's a bit of a focus on darwinism
0:01:33 because darwinism is
0:01:34 like the genesis story that atheists use
0:01:36 to try and justify their worldview
0:01:39 so let's begin
0:01:43 so what we're going to be covering today
0:01:45 is this
0:01:46 we're going to be doing a quick sort of
0:01:48 review of the philosophy of science
0:01:50 webinar which
0:01:51 was held a few weeks ago i believe
0:01:55 and that obviously dovetails into
0:01:58 you know this topic quite nicely because
0:02:01 that sets the framework
0:02:02 within which we look at any scientific
0:02:05 theory
0:02:06 whether you're a muslim christian jewish
0:02:07 person or atheist whoever you are
0:02:09 it's important to understand the
0:02:10 philosophy of science we're going to
0:02:12 cover
0:02:14 evolution and darwinism what is
0:02:15 darwinism about
0:02:17 is it absolutely true is it beyond doubt
0:02:21 has it undermined the existence of god
0:02:23 or is it actually the case
0:02:26 that no it's a valid scientific theory
0:02:29 doesn't mean it's true literally however
0:02:32 it's based on a probabilistic framework
0:02:33 which has assumptions and there's
0:02:34 disputes about its core
0:02:36 mechanism on top of that
0:02:39 there's nothing about darwinian theory
0:02:41 that undermines the existence of god
0:02:44 what do i mean by that actually let's
0:02:47 leave that
0:02:47 for later because you may be wondering
0:02:49 hang on a second
0:02:50 surely darwinism does undermine god and
0:02:53 that is true
0:02:54 it does from one perspective what i
0:02:56 actually mean by this
0:02:57 is that as a purely scientific theory is
0:03:01 an argument against god no is there a
0:03:03 perception that this argument
0:03:05 is used against god yeah and then we're
0:03:08 going to be covering something about
0:03:10 islam and evolution
0:03:13 let me just open up the chat section to
0:03:15 see what's going on no one's
0:03:17 putting in any comments in the chat
0:03:18 section
0:03:20 normally those are coming in quite a lot
0:03:24 maybe everyone's just in the q a section
0:03:28 all right so
0:03:34 quick overview of the philosophy of
0:03:38 science webinar that was held a few
0:03:40 weeks ago
0:03:42 science is held up as an ultimate truth
0:03:47 science is held up as a alternative to
0:03:50 god
0:03:51 science is deified in the olden days
0:03:55 people used to worship lot
0:04:00 these idols and even today people
0:04:03 worship physical idols
0:04:04 in india in other parts of the world and
0:04:07 then you get an
0:04:07 atheist who's like you know oh
0:04:11 look at these primitive people
0:04:12 worshiping idols right we don't worship
0:04:14 idols we don't worship anything we don't
0:04:16 believe in any of that
0:04:19 what we believe in is science right
0:04:23 well the universe is basically a
0:04:26 gigantic idol
0:04:28 it's just a gigantic uzza for the
0:04:30 atheist because
0:04:32 when you have the quraysh who are going
0:04:33 and saying oh you know
0:04:35 to lot and trying to
0:04:39 think that this thing governs their life
0:04:42 and impacts their
0:04:43 destiny well it's the same thing with
0:04:45 the atheist they think the universe
0:04:47 created us the universe
0:04:49 uh is us and they have this or
0:04:51 deification of the universe and how do
0:04:52 they worship the universe
0:04:54 well they've made science which is
0:04:56 supposed to be a wonderful tool
0:04:57 into a weapon against religion
0:05:01 against god and as a tool to worship the
0:05:04 universe
0:05:06 and of course this none of this approach
0:05:08 actually makes
0:05:09 any sense whatsoever because
0:05:14 what we got to understand is that
0:05:16 science
0:05:17 is not there to give you a world view
0:05:20 science is simply there for us to try
0:05:22 and attempt to see
0:05:24 how the world actually works
0:05:30 okay i'm just reading some of the
0:05:33 comments that are coming in
0:05:36 and i think some of the comments are
0:05:38 we're going to be dealing with that
0:05:39 later so
0:05:40 sister salman is asking in what aspect
0:05:42 do islamic thought in the darwinian
0:05:43 theory conflict we'll be
0:05:45 uh delving into that later inshallah
0:05:48 okay so this idea
0:05:52 that science is the be-all and end-all
0:05:53 the philosophy of science challenges
0:05:55 it challenges the fact that um
0:05:59 well it doesn't challenge the fact that
0:06:00 a challenge is the perception that
0:06:02 science gives you certainty
0:06:04 and it challenges the perception that
0:06:05 science is the only way of looking at
0:06:07 the world
0:06:07 right there's multiple ways of gaining
0:06:10 knowledge about the world
0:06:11 including testimony mathematics logic
0:06:14 introspection however
0:06:17 science is one way of gaining knowledge
0:06:20 about the world
0:06:23 so science does not lead to certainty
0:06:25 and it can change this is an extremely
0:06:27 important point to understand
0:06:30 why does science not lead to certainty
0:06:33 well simply because of the way the
0:06:36 scientific method or the scientific
0:06:38 methods
0:06:39 work so you have a scientist who's
0:06:42 trying to work out what color
0:06:43 swans and then he or she goes out and
0:06:47 tries to discover the color of swans
0:06:49 and discovers actually swans
0:06:52 are white and they see
0:06:56 a thousand swans they say yup they're
0:06:57 white then over time
0:07:00 they look at another thousand then they
0:07:03 say yep those are white
0:07:05 in all they get a million swans and they
0:07:08 see their y and then they say
0:07:10 from this limited set of data we make
0:07:12 the
0:07:13 unlimited conclusion all sounds are
0:07:15 white
0:07:16 that doesn't obviously uh lead to
0:07:19 certainty because one day you can come
0:07:21 across a black swan
0:07:22 so the black swan problem of the problem
0:07:24 of induction raised you know by david
0:07:26 hume and others
0:07:27 is something that's not been resolved so
0:07:29 science doesn't leave
0:07:30 lead to certainty from that perspective
0:07:33 another thing to keep in mind
0:07:36 is the problem of under determination
0:07:38 which is the same
0:07:39 same scientific data um can give rise to
0:07:42 alternative theories
0:07:44 and the third thing to consider is the
0:07:46 problem of unconceived alternatives
0:07:49 which is there may be solutions in front
0:07:51 of you that the data supports
0:07:52 but we simply cannot see them because
0:07:54 they are unconceived
0:07:58 another point to keep in mind just
0:08:00 because the scientific theory
0:08:02 works doesn't mean it's absolutely true
0:08:06 so newtonian mechanics it works but does
0:08:10 that mean
0:08:10 the assumptions of neutronium mechanics
0:08:12 that time and space is fixed
0:08:13 that that's true well actually we have a
0:08:16 conflict now because general relativity
0:08:18 which is
0:08:19 which has replaced newtonian mechanics
0:08:22 actually says time and space is no
0:08:24 longer fixed
0:08:25 it's actually flexible like fabric so
0:08:28 it doesn't matter if a scientific theory
0:08:30 works it doesn't mean
0:08:32 it's true
0:08:35 and science of course doesn't lead to
0:08:37 atheism and uh i say of course an
0:08:39 atheist
0:08:40 a new atheist a militant atheist would
0:08:42 say no
0:08:43 it actually does um
0:08:46 so what we can simply do is we can say
0:08:50 science is a way of trying
0:08:54 to understand how the world works but
0:08:56 it's not there to replace
0:08:58 god it doesn't negate the existence of
0:09:01 god
0:09:02 and it's not something which can ever
0:09:04 negate the existence of god
0:09:06 this is just a pure misconception and
0:09:08 this is confusing philosophical
0:09:11 and methodological naturalism now you
0:09:14 may be wondering
0:09:16 what on god's good earth is
0:09:17 philosophical and mythological
0:09:19 naturalism
0:09:21 well in short philosophical naturalism
0:09:25 is the idea that there is nothing except
0:09:29 nature everything in all reality can be
0:09:33 broken down
0:09:35 to mata and processes right
0:09:38 everything can be broken down to that
0:09:40 everything
0:09:41 can be explained naturalistically so
0:09:44 that's philosophical naturalism
0:09:47 philosophical naturalism is of course uh
0:09:50 held by
0:09:50 atheists atheists generally not always
0:09:53 but generally are philosophical
0:09:55 naturalists
0:09:56 they believe the universe has no creator
0:10:00 there's no supernatural being there's no
0:10:01 angels there's no mind
0:10:03 there's no objective morals no
0:10:06 consciousness
0:10:07 essentially everything is just the brain
0:10:09 at work
0:10:10 and that of course is not something
0:10:12 which muslims believe we believe
0:10:14 in the divine we believe in god we
0:10:16 believe in angels we believe
0:10:18 in gin we believe in the mind we believe
0:10:20 in these
0:10:21 things which are beyond the natural
0:10:24 methodological naturalism what is that
0:10:26 well methodological naturalism is not a
0:10:28 belief system
0:10:30 it's a method philosophical naturalism
0:10:32 is a belief system
0:10:34 methodological naturalism is a method
0:10:36 which is when we are doing science
0:10:37 in particular we are going to use
0:10:40 natural causes and effects
0:10:42 we're not going to refer to divine
0:10:44 intervention
0:10:46 a mind consciousness angels gin
0:10:50 god anything like that nothing we will
0:10:52 just stick to
0:10:54 what we can observe what is measurable
0:10:56 testable cause and effect
0:10:58 physical reality now what's interesting
0:11:02 is that a muslim a christian a jewish
0:11:05 person or someone believes in god
0:11:07 they obviously cannot be a philosophical
0:11:08 naturalist
0:11:10 but in terms of science in terms of
0:11:12 working within the scientific lab
0:11:14 the scientific research facility
0:11:15 whatever they can be a methodological
0:11:18 naturalist they can simply say well
0:11:19 methodological naturalism's
0:11:21 something i subscribe to and they could
0:11:24 just carry on
0:11:25 with that
0:11:29 okay so everything i'm going to be
0:11:33 mentioning
0:11:34 today um is not going to be
0:11:40 anything except that you will find it
0:11:43 within
0:11:44 mainstream secular naturalism
0:11:48 well with within the naturalistic
0:11:51 framework right
0:11:52 so you'll find naturalist talking about
0:11:53 this you'll find secular is talking
0:11:55 about
0:11:56 this you'll find these sorts of things
0:11:57 in peer-reviewed journals
0:11:59 any scientist i refer to is going to be
0:12:02 somebody who's a
0:12:04 mainstream scientist
0:12:07 okay so what i'm mentioning today is
0:12:10 not from say people who are
0:12:14 anti-darwinism right this is just
0:12:17 mainstream
0:12:18 stuff first thing
0:12:22 to understand darwinian evolution
0:12:26 is a valid scientific theory model in
0:12:28 paradigm
0:12:30 usually when i say this the first
0:12:32 reaction muslims have is
0:12:34 are you saying is true and the answer to
0:12:38 that obviously
0:12:39 is no
0:12:42 when darwinian evolution is called
0:12:45 science
0:12:46 or a valid scientific theory model
0:12:48 paradigm it simply means that
0:12:51 darwinian evolution is science that's
0:12:54 what it means
0:12:55 it doesn't mean it's true it doesn't
0:12:57 mean that it's unchangeable it doesn't
0:12:59 mean any of those things
0:13:01 why this misconcept misconception exists
0:13:03 is because
0:13:05 there's a perception that if something's
0:13:07 science
0:13:09 then it must be true and this is
0:13:11 scientism this is this idea that
0:13:13 you know science is the only root of
0:13:16 knowledge science gives you certainty
0:13:18 science leads to atheism you know this
0:13:19 type of thinking this quasi-scientism
0:13:22 type of idea
0:13:24 something being a valid scientific model
0:13:27 doesn't necessarily mean it's true it
0:13:29 just
0:13:29 means it's a valid scientific model for
0:13:31 example
0:13:33 100 years ago newtonian mechanics
0:13:37 was a valid scientific model theory
0:13:39 paradigm it was science
0:13:42 time in space being fixed was science
0:13:45 today we know that time and space
0:13:48 according to our best understanding
0:13:50 is not fixed so a valid scientific
0:13:53 theory doesn't mean true
0:13:54 it just means it's a valid scientific
0:13:57 theory
0:14:00 i hope this is clear because usually
0:14:03 when it comes down to this
0:14:05 point about science and this is why we
0:14:07 cover the philosophy of science
0:14:08 before we do the science um
0:14:12 this is something that if you
0:14:13 misunderstand now than the rest of this
0:14:15 talk is going to be difficult for you to
0:14:18 grasp you really need to understand
0:14:20 science doesn't mean true it just simply
0:14:22 means something is scientific
0:14:26 and interestingly enough the people who
0:14:29 push out
0:14:30 darwinism as a replacement for god the
0:14:33 likes of richard dawkins and the people
0:14:35 who push out this type of scientism
0:14:37 and this type of certainty about science
0:14:40 at the same time in their lesser known
0:14:42 writings
0:14:43 they recognize the philosophy of science
0:14:46 they recognize the limits of science the
0:14:48 presuppositions of science and how
0:14:50 science is in the be-all and end-all
0:14:52 it's not the gospel truth
0:14:56 we must acknowledge the possibilities
0:14:59 the possibility
0:15:00 that new facts may come to light
0:15:03 which will force our successes of the
0:15:05 21st century to abandon darwinism and
0:15:07 modify it beyond recognition
0:15:09 that sounds like something a militant
0:15:11 creationist would say
0:15:13 right or the sort of thing you'd find in
0:15:15 a creationist
0:15:16 literature have been handed out in
0:15:18 speaker's corner or whatever right
0:15:21 no this is found in richard dawkins book
0:15:25 of devil
0:15:26 chaplin and i recommend um you read this
0:15:28 chapter
0:15:29 and you read this particular um it's
0:15:31 called universal darwinism right
0:15:33 you read this section just to make sure
0:15:36 if you're in any doubt that this isn't
0:15:37 taking our context in fact there's more
0:15:40 there's an amplification of this point
0:15:41 when you read it within context
0:15:44 what's he saying he's saying new facts
0:15:47 may come to light which will force us to
0:15:49 basically abandon darwinism or modify
0:15:51 beyond recognition
0:15:53 meaning what the problem of induction
0:15:56 essentially philosophy of science
0:15:57 essentially
0:15:59 so what is being said here
0:16:03 does not mean does not mean richard
0:16:06 dawkins doubts
0:16:08 darwinian evolution rather it simply
0:16:11 means he understands the limitations of
0:16:13 science
0:16:14 additionally charles darwin whose view
0:16:16 by the way is way better than richard
0:16:19 hawkins
0:16:20 way better than richard dawkins when it
0:16:22 comes to
0:16:23 evolution he actually acknowledges
0:16:27 a similar point from philosophy of
0:16:28 science he
0:16:30 acknowledges the point which i referred
0:16:32 to earlier known as the problem of under
0:16:34 determination
0:16:36 which is essentially at the same data
0:16:38 can give rise to alternative theories
0:16:40 in the beginning of the origin of
0:16:41 species this is what he says
0:16:44 i am well aware that there is scarcely a
0:16:46 single point discussed in this volume
0:16:49 meaning the origin species on which
0:16:51 facts cannot be reduced
0:16:54 often apparently leading to conclusions
0:16:56 directly opposite to those which have
0:16:57 arrived
0:16:58 a fair result can be obtained only by
0:17:02 fully stating and balancing the facts on
0:17:03 both
0:17:04 sides of each question and this possibly
0:17:06 cannot be done here
0:17:09 very interesting what's he saying
0:17:13 he's saying whatever i've written in my
0:17:15 origin of species
0:17:16 i'm fully aware somebody can use my
0:17:20 evidence
0:17:21 my data to arrive at a theory
0:17:24 other than mine that's what he's saying
0:17:28 and that's amazing if you think about it
0:17:30 right
0:17:32 um that shows how darwin was a lot
0:17:34 better than these
0:17:36 neo-darwinists because he understood
0:17:40 that essentially the philosophy of
0:17:43 science teaches
0:17:44 us the same data can give rise to
0:17:46 alternative theories
0:17:47 and darwinists today would simply say
0:17:50 darwinism is the only game in town
0:17:53 clearly conceptually philosophically
0:17:55 that can not be the
0:17:57 point it's impossible that one
0:18:01 scientific theory
0:18:02 can cover all of the data in a way that
0:18:05 a rival theory
0:18:06 cannot also encompass it in a way and
0:18:09 also be
0:18:10 empirically equivalent you can't have
0:18:12 something that's also very similar
0:18:14 right in terms of explanatory power why
0:18:16 is that not possible
0:18:18 conceptually that works on every
0:18:20 scientific theory then why on earth
0:18:21 would it not work with
0:18:22 darwinian evolution why is darwinism an
0:18:25 exception
0:18:27 why are we doing a webinar on darwinism
0:18:30 and not string theory
0:18:32 right or how string theory leads to
0:18:34 atheism
0:18:35 there's something clearly about this
0:18:37 theory and we're going to cover that
0:18:38 near the end
0:18:39 that you'll see that you know this isn't
0:18:41 just a scientific theory it's more than
0:18:43 that
0:18:45 all right let me just quickly go to the
0:18:47 chat and see if there's
0:18:48 any questions or comments
0:18:58 okay
0:19:06 science does not claim to be absolute
0:19:09 truth it claims to be the best
0:19:11 understanding based
0:19:13 from the evidence we have the changing
0:19:15 the nature of science
0:19:17 is core in the scientific method
0:19:19 absolutely that's written by us
0:19:23 totally agree with that comment right
0:19:25 next
0:19:28 so we have evolution and darwinism two
0:19:30 different things
0:19:32 now you may be thinking wait a minute
0:19:34 evolution is darwinism darwinism is
0:19:36 evolution you know darwin's theory of
0:19:38 evolution it's all just one and the same
0:19:40 it's like saying i don't know
0:19:47 what's a good example it's like saying
0:19:50 islam and muslims right it's just
0:19:53 synonymous
0:19:54 right it's just one thing why separate
0:19:58 the two
0:19:59 see this is important to separate the
0:20:01 two
0:20:02 simply to show that evolution
0:20:06 existed before darwin and evolution is
0:20:08 something different to darwin and
0:20:09 evolution can be defined in many
0:20:10 different ways
0:20:11 which can be very confusing even
0:20:13 academically
0:20:15 even academics fall into this that you
0:20:18 really have to do this academic sort of
0:20:20 throat clearing before you speak about
0:20:22 this topic because
0:20:23 people mean different things when they
0:20:24 say evolution okay
0:20:26 so let's go over this the general idea
0:20:30 of biological change over time
0:20:32 just the general idea of biological
0:20:34 change over time
0:20:35 this idea is evolution
0:20:40 things change over time they evolve
0:20:42 species gain traits
0:20:44 lose traits you end up with vestigial
0:20:45 organs you have
0:20:47 new organs you adapt to the environment
0:20:50 evolution as a general idea has been
0:20:52 known
0:20:53 written and philosophized about for
0:20:56 thousands of years
0:20:58 this sounds incredible and it is
0:21:00 actually um
0:21:02 you can go back to the ancient indus
0:21:05 valley civilization the babylonians
0:21:08 egyptians chinese
0:21:12 whoever and you will find and of course
0:21:16 not to forget the greeks right you will
0:21:19 find people speaking about biological
0:21:21 evolution
0:21:22 that's very clear however
0:21:28 biological evolution is something that
0:21:30 was discussed
0:21:31 and known about and you know people go
0:21:34 involved in these type of discussions
0:21:38 later on a french scientist
0:21:42 john bapsti lemak he put together
0:21:46 about 50 years before darwin he put
0:21:49 together a particular type of
0:21:51 evolutionary theory
0:21:53 known as lamarcian evolution
0:21:56 and that theory was that
0:22:00 life has many different origins and you
0:22:02 have parallel lines of evolution taking
0:22:04 place
0:22:06 and the mechanism is
0:22:09 the inheritance of acquired
0:22:10 characteristics now you may be thinking
0:22:11 what on earth is that
0:22:13 like what does that mean look this is
0:22:15 not biology class
0:22:16 but all you guys need to remember is
0:22:18 it's a mechanism right
0:22:20 the marking evolution has a mechanism
0:22:22 and it has a history
0:22:24 it has two distinct elements it has a
0:22:27 history and a mechanism
0:22:28 the history is the hedge of life
0:22:32 multiple different origins of life
0:22:33 parallel lines of evolution taking place
0:22:36 and then the mechanism is the
0:22:38 inheritance acquired characteristics
0:22:40 some 50 years after john bapsi lamar
0:22:42 comes along darwin
0:22:45 darwin comes up with an alternative to
0:22:48 the lamarckin evolution
0:22:50 which we today call darwinian evolution
0:22:53 darwinian evolution is not multiple
0:22:55 origins this
0:22:56 one origin luca last universal common
0:23:00 ancestor
0:23:01 and from this one origin
0:23:05 you get all of the billions of
0:23:09 species that have ever lived so
0:23:12 everything
0:23:12 a blade of grass
0:23:16 a coconut a pineapple
0:23:20 homo sapien and
0:23:23 ricky gervais right everything going
0:23:26 back
0:23:27 has a last universal common ancestor
0:23:31 and that last universal common ancestor
0:23:34 was
0:23:34 essentially a cell of some sort and he
0:23:37 existed approximately
0:23:39 four billion years ago how did this
0:23:42 happen
0:23:43 this is extremely important guys what
0:23:45 i'm about to say right now
0:23:47 how did a cell evolve
0:23:50 over billions of years into elephants
0:23:54 giraffes gorillas monkeys and
0:23:56 and celebrities through a mechanism
0:24:02 and that mechanism is called
0:24:06 natural selection
0:24:09 natural selection
0:24:13 so you have the tree of life which means
0:24:16 one
0:24:17 single origin many different things
0:24:19 branching out you get the tree of life
0:24:22 and all of this drive of life
0:24:25 drive of diversity and this massive
0:24:29 evolutionary change it happens because
0:24:32 of
0:24:33 natural selection why am i emphasizing
0:24:36 that point
0:24:38 the reason why i'm emphasizing that
0:24:39 point is because
0:24:41 natural selection is the core of
0:24:44 darwinism
0:24:46 even the tree of life idea it did exist
0:24:49 before darwin
0:24:51 some like lamarck they said
0:24:54 hedge of life multiple origins
0:24:58 darwin said tree of life but even people
0:25:00 before him they said tree of life
0:25:02 and the tree of life is based upon the
0:25:04 idea things which are similar put them
0:25:06 into one compartment they have a common
0:25:08 ancestor going back there's one origin
0:25:09 right but none of this story
0:25:13 of the tree of life was going to make
0:25:15 any sense
0:25:16 unless you have a mechanism and darwin
0:25:19 proposed natural selection
0:25:21 and natural selection is the core of
0:25:24 darwinism and its natural selection
0:25:27 that has to be dismantled if you want to
0:25:30 show
0:25:30 that darwinism isn't all that is cut out
0:25:33 to be
0:25:35 this is very important because a lot of
0:25:37 people get hung up on
0:25:38 hey look isn't it that this species is
0:25:41 similar to this species and anatomy
0:25:43 or in genetics you've got human and
0:25:45 chimps which are 99
0:25:46 similar how they calculate 99 is another
0:25:48 matter but say you got that or we're 50
0:25:51 with bananas or whatever no it's natural
0:25:54 selection
0:25:55 it's natural selection that we need to
0:25:57 challenge and it's natural selection
0:25:59 that they need to verify
0:26:00 in order for the tree of life to make
0:26:02 sense it's not enough
0:26:04 to simply they say things are similar we
0:26:06 knew things were similar before darwin
0:26:09 in fact taxonomy today how they classify
0:26:12 species into different
0:26:14 um genres that is something
0:26:18 that linnaeus came up with and that's a
0:26:20 hundred more than a hundred years before
0:26:22 darwin
0:26:23 so the linnaean classification system
0:26:25 which we still use today
0:26:27 is pre-darwinian what gives it life
0:26:31 the idea of the tree of life is natural
0:26:33 selection so it's natural selection
0:26:35 this is very important because whenever
0:26:37 we are arguing with darwinists
0:26:39 they always run away to similarities
0:26:41 well guess what
0:26:43 darwinian theory is not a theory of
0:26:45 similarity
0:26:48 darwinian theory is a theory of
0:26:50 transformation
0:26:52 and that transformation happens through
0:26:54 natural selection
0:26:57 i've been alhamdulillah last couple of
0:26:59 years debating darwinis
0:27:00 right sometimes people with formal
0:27:03 qualifications like phds
0:27:05 sometimes you know
0:27:08 people who should be sitting on park
0:27:10 benches with tinfoil hats like iron rock
0:27:13 whoever it is essentially they're going
0:27:16 to make the same argument
0:27:18 the darwinists are going to say look
0:27:20 these two things are similar
0:27:22 therefore darwinism is true if that's
0:27:24 the case pick up the origin of species
0:27:26 and throw it in the bin
0:27:28 what is the origin of species about
0:27:30 natural selection
0:27:32 therefore it's natural selection that we
0:27:34 need to challenge in order to show
0:27:36 darwinism isn't that isn't all that is
0:27:39 cut out to be
0:27:41 all right guys very important point i'm
0:27:43 about to mention here
0:27:45 it's not as important as you know i've
0:27:47 been saying this is an important point
0:27:48 that's an important point
0:27:49 i'm sure some of you want to throw me
0:27:51 out the window right now however
0:27:53 this is a very
0:27:56 interesting and novel point which people
0:28:01 times within the discourse of um
0:28:04 evolutionary discussions overlook
0:28:07 okay and it's a very interesting
0:28:09 conceptual point
0:28:12 remember i spoke about methodological
0:28:13 naturalism who remembers methodological
0:28:15 naturalism
0:28:18 methodological naturalism is the idea
0:28:20 that causation
0:28:23 causation is only physical
0:28:28 right when we're studying science
0:28:31 that's not the same as philosophical
0:28:32 naturalism which says that
0:28:34 cause and effect and physical reality is
0:28:36 all that there is physical matter and
0:28:38 processes
0:28:39 nothing else exists in the universe okay
0:28:43 so what we got to realize is this
0:28:49 it is impossible it is
0:28:53 impossible for us to have a discussion
0:28:56 about evolutionary theory
0:28:58 without looking at methodological
0:29:00 naturalism because methodological
0:29:02 naturalism is an assumption it's not a
0:29:04 conclusion
0:29:05 and that assumption colors all of the
0:29:07 data
0:29:08 and it leads to three distinct
0:29:10 conclusions
0:29:13 a priori meaning before we look at the
0:29:16 evidence
0:29:17 before we do any of the science because
0:29:19 of the assumption of methodological
0:29:21 naturalism
0:29:22 there is no design no independent
0:29:25 ancestry
0:29:26 and there is a naturalistic purpose
0:29:29 okay shabazz khan has asked an
0:29:32 interesting question
0:29:34 does common ancestry contradict with the
0:29:38 creation of
0:29:39 adam and hawa alayhi salaam as
0:29:42 to my knowledge animals and adam and how
0:29:45 are peace be upon them
0:29:46 were created separately so how do they
0:29:48 share common ancestry okay
0:29:53 common ancestry the idea
0:29:56 that all of life has a common ancestor
0:30:00 going back to the last universal common
0:30:02 ancestor
0:30:03 does this contradict the creation of
0:30:06 adam
0:30:07 alaihis salam let me repeat the question
0:30:12 if the science is certain if the science
0:30:15 is a hundred percent true
0:30:16 so someone's not saying it's a valid
0:30:18 scientific theory someone's literally
0:30:19 saying
0:30:21 this is the truth right
0:30:25 it is true that animals
0:30:28 and so all of life all plants
0:30:31 all bacteria everything goes back to a
0:30:34 last universal common ancestor
0:30:35 if someone says this is true and then
0:30:38 says does it contradict the quran if i
0:30:40 hold this to be true
0:30:43 the answer is yes
0:30:46 there is a contradiction why
0:30:50 because the creation of adam
0:30:52 alayhis-salam
0:30:53 is a miracle
0:30:57 from the islamic conception adam
0:30:59 alaysalam
0:31:00 has no ancestors
0:31:04 adam alayhis-salam does not have a
0:31:07 forerunner
0:31:08 adam al-islam is a miracle in the same
0:31:12 way
0:31:12 isa salam is a miracle
0:31:16 this is very important to understand so
0:31:19 not only is it that allah says
0:31:22 the likeness of adam is like that of isa
0:31:26 allah also says that he created
0:31:30 our mother from
0:31:34 the rib of adam alaihissalam
0:31:38 no reproduction was involved there
0:31:40 nothing to do with evolution
0:31:42 that was another miracle
0:31:46 now the idea
0:31:49 that this does not contradict the quran
0:31:52 that we can somehow merge this with the
0:31:55 quran maybe we can say this maybe we can
0:31:57 say that
0:31:58 maybe something else happened right very
0:32:00 simple answer
0:32:02 the for any of you guys who've been
0:32:05 following the work that i've been
0:32:08 putting out for the last couple of years
0:32:10 you would have known by now
0:32:12 that how this sort of approach
0:32:15 began is 2013
0:32:18 when um hamza sauces wrote this paper
0:32:21 which was about evolution and certainty
0:32:24 right and the basis of the paper was
0:32:27 that
0:32:28 what's the point of trying to take the
0:32:32 quran
0:32:33 and take biological evolution take
0:32:34 darwinism and
0:32:36 see where they correlate where they
0:32:38 contradict when all we simply need to do
0:32:43 is use the basic philosophy of science
0:32:46 to understand sciences and give you
0:32:48 certainty
0:32:49 we do an epistemic weight we look at the
0:32:52 fact that the quran is true and is
0:32:54 absolutely true because we have evidence
0:32:56 for it
0:32:57 science is ill-muthan it's the knowledge
0:32:59 of speculation
0:33:00 so there's no contest if there is a
0:33:04 okay so if scientists are having a
0:33:06 discussion about
0:33:07 what is the cause of something
0:33:10 or how did this thing and say the quran
0:33:13 is silent on that
0:33:15 the quran and the sunnah is silent on
0:33:17 that
0:33:18 so i don't know they have a particular
0:33:21 idea about
0:33:22 pine trees um do a particular type of
0:33:26 communication with other trees right
0:33:29 they have a theory about how this
0:33:31 happened or what's the mechanism behind
0:33:34 this or what's the
0:33:35 purpose behind it whatever it is they
0:33:37 have some
0:33:38 thing all about string theory you know
0:33:41 11 dimensions whatever it is something
0:33:44 that the quran and the sunnah
0:33:46 is silent about as a muslim you can say
0:33:49 perhaps this is true
0:33:51 perhaps this is true you can say that
0:33:53 however
0:33:55 when you have something which clearly
0:33:58 contradicts the quran
0:34:01 it doesn't matter if all of the
0:34:03 scientists get together
0:34:04 in the world and they say this is our
0:34:07 conclusion
0:34:08 it's not going to change and this is an
0:34:10 absolute fact it doesn't matter what
0:34:12 they think
0:34:13 if that thing contradicts the quran we
0:34:15 will never take the science over the
0:34:17 quran i'll give you an example
0:34:20 how are babies formed how
0:34:24 does this creation of
0:34:27 a child happen well i'm assuming
0:34:30 everyone here is over 18.
0:34:32 um so you know the whole thing about
0:34:35 the birds and the bees i'm sure you've
0:34:37 been through that
0:34:38 story essentially
0:34:42 you have reproduction you have
0:34:47 a male you have a female you have
0:34:51 intimacy then you have a nine
0:34:54 month roughly process of development
0:34:58 then you have delivery boom you got a
0:35:01 child
0:35:02 it's not that easy but you know
0:35:05 that's what happens how does that happen
0:35:09 we've seen time and time and time and
0:35:11 time again
0:35:12 it happens via physical
0:35:16 causation between a male and a female
0:35:20 yeah allah the most high has told us
0:35:25 gave birth to isa alayhis salaam
0:35:28 without any male intervention
0:35:32 go go to a science conference go listen
0:35:36 to a bunch of scientists who are sitting
0:35:37 around a table
0:35:39 and discussing science go there and say
0:35:43 guys assuming they're not all guys say
0:35:46 guys and women and
0:35:47 everybody right so tell me
0:35:52 is it possible that a woman gives birth
0:35:57 without having any interaction with a
0:35:59 man without ivf
0:36:01 without any physical interaction with
0:36:03 semen
0:36:04 can a woman give birth to a child
0:36:07 they will all laugh at you
0:36:11 they will all laugh at you they will
0:36:13 think
0:36:14 you are insane for even asking that
0:36:16 question
0:36:18 no we are not insane but alhamdulillah
0:36:21 we have iman
0:36:22 and our iman is stronger than your
0:36:24 laughter i
0:36:26 iman is stronger than your scientific
0:36:28 consensus i
0:36:29 iman is stronger than the limited lenses
0:36:32 that you look at the world that you
0:36:34 think
0:36:34 everything is physical reality for us
0:36:37 doesn't consist of cause and effect of
0:36:40 atoms in motion
0:36:41 reality for us is allah and what allah
0:36:46 created and what allah can do because
0:36:48 allah sent the laws of motion
0:36:50 allah set the uniformity of nature allah
0:36:53 says
0:36:54 he can do whatever he wills
0:36:57 so we're not in the game of having a
0:37:00 discussion with you
0:37:01 about whether the virgin birth makes
0:37:03 sense or not because the virgin birth is
0:37:05 true
0:37:06 despite what your limited minds are
0:37:08 telling you why
0:37:10 because we have evidence what's the
0:37:12 evidence
0:37:13 we have proof that the quran is the word
0:37:15 of allah and
0:37:16 if allah says he created
0:37:19 a man and a woman and he brought them
0:37:22 together
0:37:23 and they had a child we say
0:37:26 we believe if allah the same allah says
0:37:30 i created a woman from the woman alone i
0:37:34 created another child
0:37:36 without any male intervention we say
0:37:39 we believe it makes no difference
0:37:42 whether it's a natural what we call
0:37:45 natural birth
0:37:46 or whether it's what people today would
0:37:48 consider unnatural
0:37:50 supernatural which is a virgin birth for
0:37:52 us both of these are just as easy for
0:37:54 allah because allah simply says
0:37:57 okay so what we got to realize is this
0:38:01 it is very important for us to look at
0:38:04 the
0:38:05 paradigm from which science is operating
0:38:09 so let's let's look into this particular
0:38:12 example which i was giving earlier
0:38:14 the limitation of methodological
0:38:16 naturalism methodological naturalism
0:38:19 because there is no god because there is
0:38:21 nothing supernatural
0:38:23 then there is no biological design
0:38:26 design is an illusion of design
0:38:28 that's a necessity that's a necessary
0:38:31 conclusion
0:38:32 from the assumption of mythological
0:38:34 naturalism that
0:38:35 is something you cannot avoid
0:38:39 that's impossible to avoid secondly
0:38:43 no independent ancestry you cannot have
0:38:46 independent ancestry why
0:38:50 oh human beings appeared in the history
0:38:51 of life without being linked to
0:38:52 something else
0:38:53 that's impossible from a scientific
0:38:55 perspective because
0:38:57 everything has to be explained
0:38:58 naturalistically
0:39:01 okay lastly
0:39:04 naturalistic purpose like richard orkin
0:39:08 says in selfish gene
0:39:09 the highest rationale is survival and
0:39:12 reproduction
0:39:15 so this idea that we were created to
0:39:18 for the worship of a being a
0:39:20 transcendent creator a divine law giver
0:39:22 this is not something which
0:39:24 methodological naturalism would permit
0:39:31 so no design francis crick puts it in a
0:39:34 very nice way
0:39:36 biologists must constantly keep in mind
0:39:39 what they see was not designed but
0:39:40 rather evolved
0:39:43 keep this in mind this is not a
0:39:46 conclusion
0:39:49 francis crick is not saying we have
0:39:51 concluded
0:39:54 and we've looked at the data and we've
0:39:56 decided
0:39:58 with a hypothesis of
0:40:01 um design and hypothesis of node design
0:40:04 and we've now come to conclusion there's
0:40:05 no design
0:40:06 rather he is echoing methodological
0:40:09 naturalism
0:40:10 by default there is
0:40:15 no design why
0:40:18 because there is no god according to
0:40:20 methodological naturalism
0:40:22 in terms of science when you're talking
0:40:24 a methodological naturalist outside of
0:40:26 science
0:40:27 they can believe in god however within
0:40:29 the scientific discourse
0:40:31 they have to pretend as if there is
0:40:32 absolutely nothing supernatural
0:40:36 no separate ancestry it's not possible
0:40:40 to have separate ancestry
0:40:42 okay before we look at
0:40:46 what gareth nelson says about this i
0:40:47 want you to consider something
0:40:49 earlier on and by the way the example of
0:40:52 isla
0:40:52 islam and adam al-islam is very
0:40:54 interesting the reason why it's very
0:40:56 interesting
0:40:57 is because when allah gives us examples
0:41:02 those examples have multiple layers of
0:41:04 meanings and those examples
0:41:07 are timeless and you know allahu akbar
0:41:09 when you think about
0:41:11 the verse of the quran which allah says
0:41:13 the likeness of adam is like isa
0:41:16 there's so many ways you can speak about
0:41:18 it it's not only in creation
0:41:22 it's not only in our belief as muslims
0:41:24 that we believe in adam and essa
0:41:26 it's also in the disbelief in adam and
0:41:29 disbelief in isa
0:41:32 of course we muslims don't disbelieve
0:41:34 but this is for the disbelievers
0:41:36 interestingly
0:41:40 most atheists in the world are not
0:41:43 atheists from a hindu background or
0:41:45 buddhist background
0:41:47 or muslim background or shinto
0:41:49 background
0:41:50 they atheists from a christian
0:41:52 background
0:41:53 and who do they deny isa alaihissalam
0:41:57 they deny jesus
0:42:00 not only do they deny
0:42:03 his divinity they als
0:42:07 we also deny the divinity but they also
0:42:09 deny his messengership
0:42:11 that he was sent by god on top of that
0:42:15 they also deny
0:42:18 his existence they doubt it did he
0:42:21 really do those things
0:42:22 was he born over in terms of his virgin
0:42:24 birth no way
0:42:26 they will never accept it interestingly
0:42:30 those same atheists their genesis story
0:42:33 which is darwinism
0:42:34 also makes them deny adam al-islam
0:42:37 so they deny issa and adam alaysalam
0:42:41 just like we believe in isa and other
0:42:44 malissa
0:42:45 so it's quite interesting how both those
0:42:47 figures are linked
0:42:49 from a disbelief point of view also
0:42:51 consider this
0:42:53 imagine remember i gave the example
0:42:55 earlier of those scientists who are
0:42:56 sitting around
0:42:57 and they are you know laughing at the
0:43:00 idea of a virgin birth
0:43:01 okay say those scientists
0:43:06 we all take them and we
0:43:09 take them to two thousand twenty years
0:43:13 ago
0:43:14 roughly around the time that islam was
0:43:17 walking around giving his da'wah to ban
0:43:19 israel
0:43:20 and we go to the middle east
0:43:23 we go to bethlehem we go to jerusalem we
0:43:27 go to the holy lands
0:43:28 and we go there and we using our
0:43:31 technology we freeze
0:43:33 freeze the entire village where isla
0:43:35 islam is preaching
0:43:37 and we get these scientists to
0:43:42 take all of the frozen people in the
0:43:44 village in which isla is there
0:43:47 and to take out the dna of everybody
0:43:51 and we tell them build up a family tree
0:43:54 who's linked to who
0:43:55 they will take out everybody's dna and
0:43:58 then they'll start saying he's related
0:44:00 to this
0:44:00 this person is related to that that
0:44:02 person is related to that
0:44:04 when they go to isla salam
0:44:07 and they take out his dna what they're
0:44:10 going to say
0:44:11 they're going to look at other people's
0:44:13 dna they're going to see marimal islam's
0:44:15 dna and they're going to say
0:44:17 who's the who's the mother mary
0:44:19 malays-salam because there's homology
0:44:21 not homology there's a synergy
0:44:23 right in terms of the sequence
0:44:28 likewise when it comes to the father
0:44:31 we as muslims believe and know with
0:44:33 absolute certainty that is
0:44:36 no father but they
0:44:39 because they're limited by mythological
0:44:41 naturalism and they don't believe in god
0:44:43 and they cannot accept virgin birth
0:44:45 a priori they will look at a male member
0:44:49 of marie malay islam's family look at
0:44:52 the dna sequence look
0:44:53 okay my god this matches right this
0:44:56 matches islam
0:44:57 and they will label person x the father
0:44:59 even though we know that's not the
0:45:00 father
0:45:02 we know with certainty that's not the
0:45:03 father
0:45:05 because of mythological naturalism
0:45:07 likewise
0:45:08 the darwinists they have to link human
0:45:12 beings to something else
0:45:14 in nature well why not just link them to
0:45:17 something that looks similar to us
0:45:19 in this case chimpanzees so
0:45:22 that's how they come up with it now
0:45:24 gareth nelson
0:45:26 he has an interesting quotation in this
0:45:28 regard
0:45:29 we've got to have some ancestors we'll
0:45:31 pick those so he's speaking about human
0:45:33 beings have to have ancestors and we'll
0:45:34 pick those whichever hominids they are
0:45:36 right or lucy or whatever homo naladi
0:45:40 whatever right
0:45:41 we've got chance to have ancestors we'll
0:45:42 pick those why because we know they have
0:45:45 to be there
0:45:47 and these are the best candidates that's
0:45:49 by and large it has worked i'm not
0:45:51 exaggerating he's talking about
0:45:53 the way that genealogy works in terms of
0:45:56 coming up with hominid species
0:45:58 who are supposed to be forerunners human
0:45:59 beings that's
0:46:01 how it works
0:46:04 but what we need to do is we need to
0:46:05 move the discussion away
0:46:08 from purely similarity to the discussion
0:46:12 about
0:46:12 transformation because even if you and
0:46:15 there's an interesting video
0:46:17 which i'm going to be releasing
0:46:18 inshallah tomorrow on darwinian
0:46:20 delusions
0:46:21 um uh youtube channel
0:46:24 in which there is a muslim brother who
0:46:27 is speaking to a
0:46:29 atheist evolutionary professor
0:46:32 and the evolutionary professor takes out
0:46:34 some skulls and says
0:46:36 this thing is similar to this thing
0:46:38 they're all found in the same valley
0:46:39 therefore
0:46:40 they all have a common ancestor and that
0:46:42 muslim brother
0:46:44 he simply says how do you know
0:46:48 natural selection did that that's all he
0:46:50 asks him
0:46:51 how do you know natural selection did
0:46:53 that so the muslim brother didn't fall
0:46:55 into the trap
0:46:56 of saying aha it's not homology or it's
0:47:00 this or is that
0:47:01 all he simply did is he asked the right
0:47:03 question how do you know natural
0:47:05 selection did that
0:47:07 and this evolutionary professor lost it
0:47:10 his body language his tone his manner of
0:47:12 speaking
0:47:13 he knew he knew he just got exposed
0:47:18 because all they want to do all the
0:47:19 darwinists want to do is stick the
0:47:21 conversation
0:47:22 to what is similar and what is similar
0:47:25 and what is similar
0:47:26 well guess what darwinism is not about
0:47:28 similarity
0:47:29 darwinism is about transformation
0:47:36 okay
0:47:39 question by
0:47:42 samama fahim can we
0:47:46 ever see science as rendering god
0:47:48 unnecessary
0:47:50 if not proving that god does not exist
0:47:52 what would you say that entails
0:47:54 um i mentioned this in the beginning if
0:47:56 you missed that part
0:47:57 listen to that part again or last times
0:47:59 webinar i don't want to cover it again
0:48:00 because of time
0:48:01 but in short the answer to that is no
0:48:04 okay
0:48:07 in other words again talk about
0:48:08 mythological
0:48:10 naturalism the atheist biologist from
0:48:13 harvard
0:48:14 richard lewinton says this we are forced
0:48:17 by our a priori meaning before evidence
0:48:19 adherence to material causes
0:48:21 to create an apparatus of investigation
0:48:23 and self-concepts
0:48:25 that produce material explanations no
0:48:27 matter how counter-intuitive
0:48:29 no matter how mystifying to the
0:48:32 uninitiated
0:48:33 moreover that materialism is absolute
0:48:36 for we cannot allow divine foot in the
0:48:38 door
0:48:39 so guys what's he talking about here
0:48:43 what is he talking about he
0:48:47 is talking about methodological
0:48:50 naturalism and philosophical
0:48:54 naturalism and how the limits on science
0:48:59 force scientists to accept certain
0:49:01 conclusions
0:49:02 and reject others
0:49:06 as a thought experiment this is
0:49:10 not the way biological evolution works
0:49:13 this does not at all a representation of
0:49:17 darwinian evolution
0:49:18 however this is at least
0:49:22 coherent from a scientific perspective
0:49:25 if someone has to put together a
0:49:26 hypothesis
0:49:27 that human beings and chimps have a
0:49:29 common human beings and pigs
0:49:32 um are the forerunners of human beings
0:49:35 and human beings
0:49:36 are a hybrid between pigs and chimps
0:49:40 there is almost nobody in the world that
0:49:43 believes this
0:49:44 i mean there is a scientist eugene
0:49:47 mccarthy
0:49:48 um he's big on this right he really
0:49:50 believes this is true
0:49:52 he has a few followers but it's
0:49:54 literally hardly anybody
0:49:56 right who believes this stuff however
0:49:59 the idea that allah created other
0:50:04 without any forerunners or isa without a
0:50:06 father
0:50:07 those things are scientifically
0:50:09 impossible because of mythological
0:50:10 naturalism
0:50:11 but something as bizarre as this is
0:50:14 still
0:50:15 scientific even if it's not accepted by
0:50:18 scientists ultimately because of
0:50:20 their other presuppositions still
0:50:24 it is scientifically a hypothesis
0:50:28 it's not classified as outside the realm
0:50:30 of science because it's naturalistic
0:50:33 it's naturalistic right
0:50:36 so this shows you the implications of
0:50:39 mythological naturalism
0:50:41 all right now as you guys um
0:50:45 for those of you who attended other
0:50:47 similar talks or
0:50:48 lectures and stuff like that you guys
0:50:49 would have realized that i spent a long
0:50:51 time of this particular webinar focusing
0:50:55 on the the presuppositions the limits
0:50:57 the implications
0:50:58 of the um assumption of methodological
0:51:01 naturalism
0:51:02 why because i come to realize usually
0:51:05 when i started speaking about evolution
0:51:07 a few years ago i would go straight to
0:51:09 probabilistic framework assumptions and
0:51:10 disputes
0:51:11 but the problem is these things
0:51:15 still are colored by methodological
0:51:18 naturalism
0:51:19 so ultimately if you understand
0:51:21 philosophy of science you know that
0:51:22 darwinism is not a problem
0:51:24 but even if you just understand
0:51:25 methodological naturalism
0:51:27 you then also understand it's not a
0:51:28 problem but additionally
0:51:31 we've got a problem with pad we've got
0:51:32 problem with the idea that
0:51:34 darwinism is certain absolutely true
0:51:36 because
0:51:38 there's no way of getting around this
0:51:41 darwinian evolution according to
0:51:43 mainstream secular biologists
0:51:45 is based on a probabilistic framework
0:51:47 that's impossible
0:51:49 to escape it has assumptions
0:51:52 that's impossible to escape and there
0:51:55 are disputes about his core ideas
0:51:56 that's impossible to escape as well and
0:51:59 we're going to be covering
0:52:01 this briefly probabilistic framework
0:52:06 the way that one science journal
0:52:08 mentions it in terms of evolutionary
0:52:10 anthropology
0:52:11 is it's like you know the book war and
0:52:14 peace
0:52:15 which is humongous um you know you could
0:52:18 probably use it as a weapon
0:52:20 throw it at somebody not in endorsing
0:52:22 violence here but
0:52:24 you know it's a big book anyway uh
0:52:27 work out the plot with 13 randomly
0:52:29 selected pages imagine you were given
0:52:31 this book
0:52:32 right and all of the pages were blank
0:52:36 only 13 randomly selected pages had ink
0:52:39 on them and stories on them and writings
0:52:41 and characters and plots
0:52:43 and you're told work out the rest of the
0:52:45 story using these 13 pages
0:52:48 there are 113 people on this webinar
0:52:52 if i gave one guy just dropped off for
0:52:55 so it's 112 now anyway um if i just gave
0:52:59 112 people
0:53:00 this book and they had 13 randomly
0:53:03 selected pages
0:53:04 they would come up with their own plots
0:53:07 right one of the plots
0:53:08 would involve this character died that
0:53:11 character died
0:53:12 i'm sure one of the plots is going to
0:53:14 involve you know gin
0:53:15 like people come up with their own stuff
0:53:17 right whatever they want
0:53:20 and this one we've got to realize that
0:53:23 from the history of life perspective
0:53:26 99.999 percent of the data is missing
0:53:30 is missing that doesn't mean
0:53:33 it's missing from the perspective that
0:53:36 we know
0:53:39 of a species and we know that different
0:53:42 organisms
0:53:43 don't exist anymore because they've just
0:53:45 been fossilized or they died out
0:53:46 whatever it is
0:53:47 no 99.999
0:53:51 of species on earth
0:53:55 whoever lived amongst the billions that
0:53:57 have supposedly lived
0:53:59 we do not have their fossils we don't
0:54:01 have their dna
0:54:02 we don't have their cave drawings we
0:54:05 have nothing
0:54:08 so how can someone be like yeah we
0:54:09 worked it out we know what's going on
0:54:12 it's a very incredibly um
0:54:15 outrageous claim to try and claim
0:54:18 certainty
0:54:19 with that much data missing
0:54:22 so look it's a scatter graph on steroids
0:54:25 you know
0:54:26 you're trying to work out scatter graph
0:54:28 right what's the best line of fit
0:54:29 but it's like a three-dimensional
0:54:31 scatter graph you can come up with the
0:54:33 universal common ancestry or the hedge
0:54:35 of life or the web of life or gradualism
0:54:36 or
0:54:37 rapid change or progression or
0:54:38 non-progression whatever you make is
0:54:40 bound to be probabilistic it's bound to
0:54:42 be inter open to operative
0:54:44 interpretations but of course scientists
0:54:45 have to stick to one story at a time
0:54:47 that's just the way that science works
0:54:50 also it's important to understand you
0:54:52 know when we're told stories
0:54:54 how did this thing evolve evolved like
0:54:55 that how did that thing evolve it
0:54:57 evolved
0:54:58 by this mechanism by this particular
0:55:00 thing
0:55:01 even atheist academics recognize these
0:55:04 are stories
0:55:06 with our empirical basis coherent
0:55:09 stories nonetheless
0:55:10 but coherent stories doesn't equal truth
0:55:14 richard lewinton and stephen j gould
0:55:16 they famously wrote a paper
0:55:19 about this particular idea in the 70s i
0:55:22 believe
0:55:23 and it was it popularized the idea of
0:55:25 just those stories from rudyard
0:55:26 kipling's children's book
0:55:28 that's the name that's now become a
0:55:31 academic term
0:55:32 just those stories and those just so
0:55:34 stories are things like you know the
0:55:36 crocodile grabbing on to the elephant
0:55:38 dragging it into the water that's how
0:55:40 it's got a long
0:55:41 trunk and all of that um and these
0:55:44 stories are
0:55:46 empirically coherent but empirically
0:55:49 baseless
0:55:50 there's no evidence that's how an
0:55:52 elephant's trunk
0:55:54 was elongated right likewise
0:55:58 all of these stories that darwin has
0:55:59 come up with
0:56:01 these are stories which may be coherent
0:56:04 and may be consistent in natural
0:56:05 selection but empirically
0:56:07 they are lacking evidence
0:56:11 uh raymond tallis he's somebody who um
0:56:16 highlights this sort of thing he
0:56:18 mentioned this about color evolution
0:56:20 um how you know there was this theory
0:56:22 about
0:56:23 why men like the color blue women like
0:56:24 the color red anyway he
0:56:26 showed it to be nonsense right and so
0:56:28 they'll come up with all these elaborate
0:56:30 stories where even atheist academics
0:56:31 will be picking holes in them
0:56:36 all right um now we come to the idea of
0:56:40 homology and homoplasia homology
0:56:42 is well before homology you just used to
0:56:45 mean
0:56:46 similarities in structure and function
0:56:49 after darwin the definition changed to a
0:56:51 bit of a circular one
0:56:52 which is similarities due to common
0:56:54 ancestry
0:56:56 so hey look at this skull look at that
0:56:58 skull therefore they're similar
0:56:59 therefore they have a common ancestor
0:57:00 look at this dna sequence look at this
0:57:01 dna sequence dissimilar therefore they
0:57:02 have a common ancestor
0:57:04 firstly guys here's the important point
0:57:07 we know similarities
0:57:08 genetically anatomically linguistically
0:57:12 psychologically which are not due to
0:57:14 common ancestry
0:57:15 that's known as homo homoplasi but even
0:57:17 if someone says
0:57:19 these similarities are due to common
0:57:21 ancestry at best that's an assumption
0:57:24 at best that's an assumption and if you
0:57:26 try and make that assumption into a
0:57:28 conclusion
0:57:29 you can't do that except via circular
0:57:31 reasoning
0:57:32 similarities are due to common ancestry
0:57:34 that's your first premise that's
0:57:35 homology that's the definition of
0:57:36 homology
0:57:37 hey look two similarities exist on a dna
0:57:40 level
0:57:40 or on an anatomical level linguistic
0:57:42 level therefore
0:57:44 common ancestry well done circular
0:57:46 reasoning
0:57:48 if you want to say homology is an
0:57:50 assumption bismillah no problem
0:57:52 but if you want to say homology is a
0:57:54 conclusion
0:57:56 you can't do that except via
0:58:00 using circular reasoning now there's a
0:58:03 philosopher of biology philo
0:58:06 ronald brady and you know he argues
0:58:09 about this type of thing where um
0:58:11 dogmatic endeavors
0:58:13 are being used to basically come up with
0:58:16 certain conclusions
0:58:18 right he says by making and zuma
0:58:20 homology here
0:58:21 by making our explanation to the
0:58:23 definition of the condition to be
0:58:24 explained we
0:58:25 express not scientific hypothesis but
0:58:27 belief
0:58:28 we are so convinced that our explanation
0:58:30 is true that we no longer
0:58:31 see any need to distinguish it from the
0:58:33 situation we're trying to explain
0:58:35 dogmatic endeavors like this must
0:58:37 eventually leave the realm of science
0:58:42 so it's a quagmire from the perspective
0:58:45 that
0:58:45 hey look bats and birds they both have
0:58:48 wings they must have common ancestors
0:58:50 no even according to darwinis that was
0:58:53 an independent evolution
0:58:54 hey look echolocation and the the
0:58:56 genetic data
0:58:59 for echolocation in bats and dolphins
0:59:02 is similar they have a common ancestor
0:59:04 no again
0:59:05 that's homoplasy that's not got to do
0:59:08 with
0:59:08 homology um
0:59:12 so this is important to understand that
0:59:14 ultimately it's all based on
0:59:16 probabilistic framework
0:59:17 and they have to make assumptions about
0:59:20 the data in order
0:59:21 for them to go forward right so you know
0:59:23 these very
0:59:24 simplistic ideas humans and chimps must
0:59:27 share a common ancestor because they're
0:59:28 so similar
0:59:29 humans and mushrooms must be raised
0:59:30 independently because it's so different
0:59:32 this is something which is called naive
0:59:34 even by atheist academics
0:59:38 and there's assumptions right there's
0:59:40 assumptions which are hard to ignore
0:59:44 interestingly darwin spoke about these
0:59:46 types of assumptions
0:59:47 in his book the origin of species
0:59:51 and interestingly in chapter six also he
0:59:54 mentions
0:59:55 difficulties with his theory and
0:59:57 difficulties
0:59:58 with also his assumptions so
1:00:02 you've got the assumption of gradualism
1:00:03 you've got the assumption that all life
1:00:05 goes back to a single
1:00:06 source and that was a neo-darwinian
1:00:09 assumption
1:00:10 of the selfish gene that natural
1:00:12 selection works at genetic level by the
1:00:14 way guys sometimes we're not going off
1:00:15 into biology stuff
1:00:17 don't worry about it all you need to
1:00:20 understand if you don't understand the
1:00:21 biology if you understand the biology
1:00:22 that's good
1:00:23 if you don't understand it just
1:00:25 understand these assumptions involved
1:00:26 and these assumptions are questionable
1:00:28 so gradualism gradualism is something
1:00:30 which darwin saw
1:00:31 if this assumption breaks down my theory
1:00:33 will break down gradualism guess what
1:00:36 it was challenged and it has been
1:00:37 challenged from the time of darwin but
1:00:39 especially since the 70s with punctuated
1:00:41 equilibrium and all these alternatives
1:00:43 so gradualism is something which can
1:00:47 easily be shown not to be true however
1:00:52 it doesn't mean darwinism is false
1:00:54 because they simply changed the
1:00:55 assumptions
1:00:56 and they fixed darwinism and they
1:00:57 carried on why because methodological
1:00:59 naturalism doesn't allow them
1:01:00 to bring in something else so darwinism
1:01:03 is the best bet they have
1:01:05 simply because it explains the data in a
1:01:08 naturalistic way
1:01:11 tree of life again that assumption is
1:01:13 being replaced by some people when they
1:01:15 speak about the web of life
1:01:16 here you have craig venter um and
1:01:19 for doolittle and they also speak about
1:01:22 the same thing about the tree of life
1:01:24 not being represented by a tree
1:01:25 and both of these are atheists by the
1:01:27 way these uh scientists
1:01:30 and again about selfishness right but
1:01:33 human beings ultimately we are survival
1:01:35 machines
1:01:36 self-fishing machines out there to
1:01:39 uh basically ultimately even the good
1:01:42 actions we do we're looking for
1:01:43 something in return so they try and come
1:01:45 up with these theories of
1:01:47 kin selection which is oh we're being
1:01:49 nice to our kin because they carry our
1:01:51 genes
1:01:51 are we being nice to strangers
1:01:53 reciprocal altruism because they're
1:01:54 going to give us something back
1:01:56 all of these things are after the fact
1:02:00 ad hoc ways of reverse engineering
1:02:03 clear facts which go against darwinism
1:02:06 and i love what the atheist philosopher
1:02:09 david stove says about darwinism he says
1:02:11 it's a slander
1:02:13 upon the human beings right this whole
1:02:15 idea of selfishness
1:02:17 now according to some the assumptions of
1:02:20 neo-darwinism have been disproved
1:02:22 right vast majority of scientists still
1:02:25 accept it
1:02:26 however what we gotta understand is
1:02:29 it doesn't matter if all of them accept
1:02:31 it or they don't accept it as valid
1:02:34 the assumptions are accepted by both
1:02:36 sides
1:02:38 here's how we have to think about
1:02:39 darwinian history and the mechanism the
1:02:41 history is the tree of life the
1:02:42 mechanisms natural selection as i
1:02:44 mentioned earlier
1:02:45 however if the mechanism breaks
1:02:48 the history breaks if the road on this
1:02:51 bridge breaks
1:02:52 then it doesn't matter if those
1:02:54 foundations are there
1:02:55 imagine that going across this bridge is
1:02:58 a to b
1:02:59 how species change or the tree of life
1:03:02 or whatever evolutionary trajectory
1:03:03 if natural selection breaks then
1:03:07 you cannot say this evolve from that
1:03:09 this is why the conversations
1:03:11 need to move away from things that are
1:03:13 similar to things
1:03:15 transform and that's based upon the
1:03:16 mechanism and of course there's
1:03:18 disputes about darwinian theory this is
1:03:20 very hard to deny
1:03:22 there are people who put forward
1:03:23 alternatives like evolution by natural
1:03:25 genetic engineering
1:03:26 neoliberal evolution mutation driven
1:03:28 evolution these are eighth year
1:03:30 scientists are putting this forward
1:03:32 right and during this idea we worked it
1:03:35 out we worked out the secret of life we
1:03:36 worked out the darwinian history of life
1:03:38 we know what's going on
1:03:40 you will not find that in academia when
1:03:42 you go there you'll find a lot of people
1:03:44 saying things similar to this what the
1:03:46 evolutionary biologist michael rose says
1:03:48 the complexity of biology is comparable
1:03:50 to quantum mechanics
1:03:51 this whole idea be works everything out
1:03:53 it's not like that
1:03:55 we have projects like the third way
1:03:57 which is secular evolutionary biologists
1:03:59 who do not believe in creationism do not
1:04:01 believe in intelligent design
1:04:03 but they also challenge neo-darwinism so
1:04:05 they come up with their own
1:04:06 and remember these people are not
1:04:07 challenging universal common ancestry
1:04:09 they're challenging the mechanism right
1:04:12 so
1:04:13 the mechanism is something which is the
1:04:16 core of the theory and that is of course
1:04:17 something
1:04:18 that other scientists also challenge but
1:04:21 like i said guys
1:04:22 it's not a scientific theory alone it is
1:04:26 more than a scientific theory have you
1:04:28 ever heard someone say
1:04:29 string theory has made me an
1:04:31 intellectually fulfilled atheist no
1:04:33 but you'll find dawkins saying the likes
1:04:35 of darwin allowed us to be
1:04:36 intellectually fulfilled atheists
1:04:38 look at this idea of morality and human
1:04:41 rights and money
1:04:42 and all of these things being being
1:04:44 absolute fictions
1:04:46 because of darwinian theory which is
1:04:49 i've written
1:04:50 a philosopher yuvanov it's actually the
1:04:51 historian yuvanov hariri
1:04:54 but anyway that doesn't make any sense
1:04:57 so clearly it's something that is more
1:05:00 than a theory
1:05:02 uh oxford university in 2016 they
1:05:04 published a book darwinism as religion
1:05:06 written by michael roos who is an
1:05:07 atheist and he's a darwinian expert and
1:05:09 he's
1:05:10 the most published author in the world
1:05:14 in terms of darwinism you will not find
1:05:17 anybody who comes as close richard
1:05:20 dawkins in comparison to him would be a
1:05:22 teenager
1:05:23 right this guy is a heavyweight academic
1:05:25 he's an atheist and a darwinist
1:05:27 but he admits alongside of the darwinian
1:05:29 theory which is scientific
1:05:31 there's something above and beyond that
1:05:32 which is a religion
1:05:35 right and darwinism is a religion it's
1:05:37 not just a scientific theory
1:05:39 and some 70 80 years ago this handsome
1:05:42 gentleman
1:05:43 julian huxley also argued
1:05:47 darwinism is a religion without
1:05:49 revelation
1:05:51 and he argued the world has to be
1:05:53 evangelized
1:05:54 to this new atheistic vision this
1:05:57 religion this genesis story of atheism
1:06:01 this evolutionary biologist this atheist
1:06:03 philosopher julian huxley he wasn't just
1:06:05 working out of his mom's basement
1:06:07 he was having a direct influence on
1:06:09 world education
1:06:11 he was the founding president of unesco
1:06:15 united nations educational scientific
1:06:18 and cultural organization
1:06:20 and he used that platform and other
1:06:23 platforms
1:06:24 to push out his religion without
1:06:26 revelation
1:06:27 to push out darwinism so it's not just a
1:06:30 scientific theory
1:06:32 and you'll find mainstream secular
1:06:34 academics saying the same thing
1:06:36 jerry foda he called darwinism
1:06:40 so when he when he called out darwinism
1:06:42 he was called a secular creationist
1:06:45 lynn margulis she you can see she's
1:06:47 there
1:06:48 with bill clinton she also
1:06:51 again all the older my atheists she also
1:06:54 considered
1:06:55 neo-darwinism in the future is going to
1:06:57 be considered
1:06:58 as an anglo-saxon sect master
1:07:02 another acclaimed evolutionary biologist
1:07:06 he says darwin is god and you cannot
1:07:07 challenge him and he tries to
1:07:09 argue against darwinism all of them
1:07:11 recognize
1:07:12 this is more than just science james
1:07:15 shapiro who i mentioned earlier
1:07:17 again says the same thing thomas nagel
1:07:20 mind in cosmos the book that is
1:07:22 published by oxford university atheist
1:07:23 philosopher
1:07:24 again making the same argument about how
1:07:26 it's not based on the evidence alone
1:07:29 how it's a presuppositional thing
1:07:32 all right just to sort of
1:07:36 bring things back to the overall picture
1:07:41 okay we covered probabilistic framework
1:07:43 assumptions disputes now let's get into
1:07:44 this
1:07:46 darwinism is a product of the scientific
1:07:48 method so whenever you speak about islam
1:07:49 and evolution
1:07:50 you keep that in mind the scientific
1:07:52 method has a lesser
1:07:53 epistemic way than the divine revelation
1:07:58 divine revelation doesn't suffer from
1:08:00 probabilistic framework assumption
1:08:01 disputes
1:08:02 if divine revelation cannot be
1:08:04 reconciled with darwinism then divine
1:08:06 revelation takes precedence over the
1:08:08 scientific method in the same way it
1:08:09 does with the virgin birth
1:08:10 in the same way it does with the sea
1:08:12 parting or any other miracle
1:08:14 why do atheists find it hard to believe
1:08:16 in miracles because they don't believe
1:08:18 in allah
1:08:19 that's the fundamental issue
1:08:22 anyway there's an interesting quote
1:08:24 quote here from hamza's book
1:08:26 uh the divine reality it is also
1:08:30 important to note that scientific
1:08:31 knowledge and divine revelation
1:08:32 have two different sources one is from
1:08:34 the limited human mind the others from
1:08:36 god
1:08:37 one would have to sub commit an
1:08:39 epistemological disqualification
1:08:42 to use scientific conclusions as a means
1:08:43 to dismiss revelation
1:08:45 we have a pixelated understanding of
1:08:47 reality our knowledge is finite
1:08:49 god's knowledge is not
1:08:54 so in summary darwinian evolution
1:08:58 like i mentioned because of the
1:08:59 philosophy of science
1:09:01 we can say it's science we can say it's
1:09:03 a valid scientific theory model paradigm
1:09:05 but it doesn't mean it's absolutely true
1:09:08 why because philosophy of science
1:09:09 teaches us science is not the only rule
1:09:11 of knowledge
1:09:12 problem of induction problem under
1:09:13 determination problem unconceived
1:09:15 alternatives
1:09:16 problems of sensation which i didn't
1:09:18 actually mention and other sort of
1:09:19 issues
1:09:20 and ultimately methodological naturalism
1:09:23 entails
1:09:23 no separate ancestry no design and a
1:09:26 naturalistic purpose
1:09:28 and darwinism itself is based on a
1:09:29 probabilistic framework which has
1:09:30 assumptions which has disputes
1:09:32 none of this can be denied by secular
1:09:33 academics still a valid theory
1:09:36 still the prevailing naturalistic
1:09:37 paradigm and the only naturalistic
1:09:39 theory
1:09:41 which is there uh which is which is
1:09:44 there
1:09:44 in place right now because it explains
1:09:46 the data better than the other theories
1:09:48 of the theories of evolution and it has
1:09:50 to be the only
1:09:53 the only conclusion that a scientist
1:09:54 stick to simply because it's the only
1:09:57 naturalistic conclusion
1:10:00 it's not just a scientific theory it's
1:10:01 also a secular religion as michael roose
1:10:03 points out and others
1:10:05 and divine revelation takes precedence
1:10:09 over scientific method
1:10:12 so if somebody comes and says and this
1:10:15 is why it's very
1:10:16 important not to take the quran and to
1:10:19 take
1:10:19 science and say well maybe this happened
1:10:22 maybe that happened
1:10:23 maybe this particular scenario maybe
1:10:25 that particular scenario
1:10:26 this happened or no we just need to
1:10:30 be very clear and direct we simply need
1:10:33 to say do you know what
1:10:35 it doesn't it doesn't matter if
1:10:39 the scientific method the scientific
1:10:40 consensus
1:10:42 and the data is being interpreted in a
1:10:45 way
1:10:45 to say that the virgin birth is
1:10:47 impossible we would believe in the
1:10:48 virgin birth
1:10:49 likewise darwin darwinism
1:10:53 the idea that one human being appeared
1:10:55 in the history of life
1:10:57 without being linked to other hominids
1:10:59 or other chimpanzees or anything else in
1:11:01 nature
1:11:02 is simply impossible from a scientific
1:11:05 perspective
1:11:05 we believe it we believe adam we believe
1:11:08 in
1:11:09 eve we believe in miraculous creation
1:11:13 and we believe they don't have any
1:11:16 forerunners
1:11:17 we don't believe they have any um
1:11:20 we believe they are the parents of all
1:11:23 of humanity and that
1:11:26 obviously contradicts science
1:11:30 there's no two ways about that but just
1:11:32 because it contradicts science
1:11:33 doesn't mean the quran is wrong it
1:11:36 simply means
1:11:37 science as a limited method with
1:11:39 presuppositions with limits with
1:11:41 fluctuations it's arrived at a
1:11:44 conclusion that's contradicting
1:11:45 reality because what is reality except
1:11:48 what allah and his messenger have said
1:11:53 what is it all
1:11:56 forms of knowledge historical
1:11:59 testimonial
1:12:01 scientific geographical all of them
1:12:05 are superseded by the quran and the
1:12:08 sunnah if there is a conflict
1:12:10 why because that is the ultimate
1:12:14 truth historically
1:12:18 egyptologists may come together and say
1:12:21 you know what we were wrong pharaohs
1:12:22 never existed
1:12:24 say that happens in the future doesn't
1:12:26 matter pharaohs existed
1:12:28 because the quran said so when it comes
1:12:30 to yusuf al-islam
1:12:32 they may say egyptologists may say we
1:12:35 have no
1:12:36 historical account of joseph we have no
1:12:38 account of the wife who was trying to
1:12:40 cheat on a husband
1:12:41 we will say well carry on but we don't
1:12:44 believe in you
1:12:46 right we don't believe in your pixelated
1:12:49 view we have
1:12:51 a source of knowledge which supersedes
1:12:54 anything that you may try and cover over
1:12:57 with
1:12:57 okay so
1:13:00 even a hundred years ago or less than
1:13:04 80 years ago the sun was stationary
1:13:08 according to scientists something we can
1:13:10 see
1:13:11 not even a theory something we can see
1:13:13 the sun was stationary
1:13:15 and allah says the sun has an obey
1:13:20 so here you have all the scientists
1:13:21 saying the sun is stationary
1:13:23 and you have allah saying the sun has an
1:13:25 orbit
1:13:28 what happened later we discovered
1:13:30 actually the sun does have an ob around
1:13:32 the milky way galaxy
1:13:33 however at the time we never had that
1:13:37 information
1:13:39 so ultimately why do people find it hard
1:13:42 to believe in the quran or the miracles
1:13:44 of the quran or when something
1:13:45 is said in the quran like the virgin
1:13:46 birth which contradicts science
1:13:49 it's because they don't believe in allah
1:13:50 so we have to bring people back
1:13:52 to the belief in allah before any of
1:13:54 this framework that we're talking about
1:13:55 makes sense
1:13:56 which is also why it is superfluous
1:13:59 ridiculous and it doesn't make sense
1:14:02 to argue why darwinism is false
1:14:06 with an atheist until
1:14:09 you first show them why we believe in
1:14:11 allah
1:14:13 which is why when you are talking to an
1:14:16 atheist and they bring up evolution the
1:14:18 first thing you need to show is how
1:14:19 evolution doesn't undermine the
1:14:20 existence of god
1:14:22 right or darwinism rather
1:14:25 all right so that's basically the
1:14:27 summary of
1:14:29 this talk i've gone over time by about
1:14:31 15 20 minutes apologies for that
1:14:34 so now what i'm going to do is i'm going
1:14:35 to go to the comments
1:14:37 and the questions and try to address
1:14:41 those
1:14:42 inshallah
1:14:45 all right
1:14:53 sidra alia is asking i don't know why
1:14:56 i'm getting this
1:14:56 thought can there be any link between
1:14:59 the fact that previous nations
1:15:02 were punished to become pigs and apes
1:15:04 and now
1:15:05 humans believe that and now humans
1:15:08 believe that humans
1:15:09 have been evolved from pigs and apes
1:15:12 i mean i know those punished people
1:15:14 don't exist
1:15:15 in the form they currently are currently
1:15:19 existing pigs and apes
1:15:21 so sister sidra your question
1:15:25 from our paradigm that was given today
1:15:28 is
1:15:29 a non-question because your question is
1:15:32 assuming
1:15:33 science is saying something the quran is
1:15:36 saying something
1:15:37 let's match them up and see if
1:15:40 we can reconcile them or if
1:15:44 the best thing we could do is simply say
1:15:47 the quran is the truth science can
1:15:49 change
1:15:50 science isn't the be-all and end-all and
1:15:52 leave it there
1:15:54 we don't need to come up with ways of
1:15:57 oh maybe this happened maybe that
1:15:58 happened what does allah say in the
1:15:59 quran
1:16:00 do not talk about that which you don't
1:16:02 know
1:16:04 do not talk about that which you don't
1:16:06 know very simple point
1:16:09 so yes there may be ways
1:16:13 that people may get bright ideas of
1:16:15 maybe this happened maybe that happened
1:16:16 maybe and allah knows
1:16:18 about you know those ideas
1:16:22 but isn't it extremely dangerous to say
1:16:25 something without knowledge
1:16:28 isn't it extremely dangerous
1:16:30 theologically
1:16:32 from an iman point of view from a future
1:16:34 generation's point of view
1:16:36 doesn't it feed into scientism when we
1:16:39 start
1:16:40 saying okay this is how things can match
1:16:42 these are things like
1:16:43 the ultimate problem in the world in
1:16:46 terms of atheism
1:16:48 is scientism darwinism
1:16:51 is a byproduct of that problem
1:16:55 the ultimate issue is they believe
1:16:57 science to the be
1:16:58 to be the be all and end all in terms of
1:17:00 epistemology and in terms of certainty
1:17:03 we need to show them a piston from an
1:17:05 epistemic perspective
1:17:06 science is in the be all and all and
1:17:08 from a certain point of view
1:17:10 it's certainly not there to give you
1:17:12 certainty
1:17:13 and then when somebody says all right
1:17:16 let's just say
1:17:17 hypothetically this could have happened
1:17:19 that could have happened
1:17:21 no what we need to do is we need to deal
1:17:23 with the elephant in the room
1:17:24 and the bright pink glowing elephant in
1:17:27 the room
1:17:28 is science
1:17:31 in fact it's not an element it's not an
1:17:33 elephant it's a it's a cow
1:17:35 it's a holy cow like bunny israel made
1:17:38 up that cow and they started
1:17:40 you know worshiping it yeah science has
1:17:43 become into a holy cow
1:17:45 right people worship it and this is why
1:17:47 you know if you want to show yourself to
1:17:49 be more credible
1:17:51 even if you're a manager right you'll
1:17:54 say
1:17:54 i studied science i studied management
1:17:57 sciences
1:17:59 why would you say management sciences
1:18:01 why don't you just say management
1:18:04 it's a simple reason because if you add
1:18:07 science to anything it just looks more
1:18:08 credible
1:18:10 you know look at adverts yeah buy this
1:18:13 product
1:18:14 and then you get a scientist you know
1:18:16 sticking up their thumb
1:18:17 here you go mate buy this product why
1:18:19 scientism
1:18:21 what we need to do is that holy cow
1:18:23 that's walking around grazing on our
1:18:25 carpet
1:18:26 just give it a kick nothing wrong with
1:18:28 kicking a cow
1:18:29 okay disclaimer like hypothetical
1:18:32 platonic cow
1:18:33 it's a cow yeah deal with the cow
1:18:36 don't feed it don't start you know
1:18:40 giving it more salt and grass and then
1:18:42 you know sucking on the others
1:18:44 forget that kick the cow scientism's
1:18:48 faults
1:18:48 kick the bloody cow that's what we gotta
1:18:50 do we gotta get away from this idea
1:18:53 that science is the be-all and end-all
1:18:55 and we should get away with this
1:18:57 knee-jerk reaction of let's reconcile
1:18:59 imagine if we did this
1:19:01 a hundred years ago all right scientists
1:19:04 believe the universe is eternal
1:19:05 okay so they believe the universe is
1:19:07 eternal even einstein when it came to
1:19:10 his um a general relativity before we
1:19:14 before the theory before the idea that
1:19:16 the universe is expanding and therefore
1:19:18 it's not eternal all the rest right even
1:19:20 he
1:19:21 in terms of general relativity he
1:19:24 incorporated the idea of the universe
1:19:26 being
1:19:26 eternal what would we do a hundred years
1:19:29 ago
1:19:29 let's see how we can take the verses of
1:19:32 the quran which say the universe has a
1:19:33 beginning
1:19:34 and interpret them in a way to say the
1:19:36 universe doesn't have a beginning
1:19:38 we would look like absolute muppets
1:19:41 after the 1940s when it was discovered
1:19:43 the universe
1:19:44 is not actually eternal 100 years from
1:19:47 now they may actually go back to saying
1:19:48 is eternal
1:19:49 on top of that not only would we look
1:19:51 like muppets for
1:19:52 changing the word of allah as science
1:19:54 comes and we keep changing it
1:19:56 on top of that what does it show us
1:19:58 about our iman
1:20:00 that we're willing to change the word of
1:20:01 allah the interpretation of the word of
1:20:03 allah
1:20:04 because of limited human understanding
1:20:08 which is in flux
1:20:10 what kind of iman is that and ultimately
1:20:14 i mean
1:20:14 day and night essentially um we're
1:20:18 dealing with cases where
1:20:19 people are like okay here's a scientific
1:20:22 argument against god here's a scientific
1:20:24 argument
1:20:24 against the quran here's this ultimately
1:20:26 we're dealing with science
1:20:28 being used as a baton and we simply need
1:20:31 to
1:20:32 show it's a blunt instrument
1:20:36 it's not as heavy as people make it out
1:20:38 to be
1:20:39 and all we simply need to do is not
1:20:41 misrepresent science
1:20:42 all we need to do is look at the
1:20:44 philosophy of science
1:20:47 end of rant anyway assalamualaikum
1:20:51 how do biologists explain the emergence
1:20:53 of the male and female
1:20:54 through a single cell how did that cell
1:20:56 survive and result in the emergence of
1:20:58 other species
1:20:59 through natural selection that's their
1:21:01 story that's their just soul story
1:21:03 they'll come up with elaborate ways on
1:21:05 how asexual reproduction led to
1:21:07 sexual reproduction but as i pointed out
1:21:09 and time to do some shameless plugging
1:21:11 on my darwinian delusions channel
1:21:13 as i've pointed out um
1:21:16 you got to do um
1:21:20 what's this thing yeah it's a big
1:21:23 problem
1:21:24 of trying to explain how asexual
1:21:26 reproduction like bacteria
1:21:28 they they don't have sex bacteria don't
1:21:31 like you know have wedding ceremonies
1:21:33 and get married yeah they just
1:21:34 they have asexual reproduction and
1:21:35 bacteria multiplies multiplies
1:21:37 multiplies
1:21:38 very easy reproductive way of dealing
1:21:41 with life
1:21:42 and then you get human beings trying to
1:21:45 get married
1:21:46 yeah and human beings trying to get
1:21:48 married is complex
1:21:51 like come on anybody here from pakistan
1:21:53 yeah you would know how do you get
1:21:54 married
1:21:55 well you get the groom you get the wife
1:21:58 and the groom
1:21:58 has to be above six foot the wife has to
1:22:00 look pretty fair
1:22:02 the groom has to have a six-figure
1:22:03 salary the wife has to be able to
1:22:06 cook and clean and also massage the fee
1:22:08 of a mother-in-law at the same time
1:22:10 and blah blah blah blah you get all of
1:22:12 these additional qualifications until
1:22:14 people don't get married until they're
1:22:15 49 years old right you have all these
1:22:18 complexities
1:22:20 before you get biological reproduction
1:22:23 however bacteria simply
1:22:27 reproduce and so to be crude
1:22:31 the human being zone acts like we were
1:22:33 designed by natural selection
1:22:35 if we were truly designed by natural
1:22:37 selection we would just be running
1:22:38 around
1:22:39 having sex and not just sex from the
1:22:42 perspective of
1:22:43 yeah the way he was done in the 60s no
1:22:46 from the perspective people would be
1:22:48 actually having kids
1:22:49 and they would simply try to have as
1:22:52 many kids as possible which is the exact
1:22:54 opposite exact opposite of what people
1:22:56 actually do
1:22:58 so anyway in short the answer is just
1:22:59 those stories
1:23:06 let's look at some other questions
1:23:12 if science doesn't give certainty how do
1:23:14 we use
1:23:15 scientific facts like embryoli
1:23:18 embryonic what's this
1:23:21 oh embryology in the quran to prove the
1:23:25 divinity of the quran
1:23:26 well my friend you're in for a surprise
1:23:30 right we have another webinar
1:23:34 on science and the quran and the
1:23:36 scientific miracles
1:23:37 and you will see that this approach does
1:23:40 not make any sense
1:23:42 right this idea of scientific miracles
1:23:44 in the quran
1:23:46 and science giving us indisputable
1:23:49 facts which are never going to change
1:23:52 and also there's an another important
1:23:54 distinction which i mentioned in my
1:23:55 previous presentation
1:23:56 there's a difference between a
1:23:57 scientific observation or an observation
1:24:01 and a scientific theory when we're
1:24:03 talking about science we're talking
1:24:04 about theoretical frameworks broad
1:24:05 theoretical frameworks there to try and
1:24:07 explain one interpretation of the
1:24:09 observations
1:24:10 observations in of themselves are not
1:24:12 science staring at the
1:24:14 stars is not science you can stare at
1:24:16 the stars and come up with
1:24:18 astronomy or astrology astrology is
1:24:20 clearly not science but it's using
1:24:22 observations okay
1:24:23 so observations in of themselves are not
1:24:25 science
1:24:26 so if someone says if the earth is going
1:24:28 around the sun clearly that science is
1:24:30 never going to change
1:24:31 no mate that's not science that's an
1:24:32 observation okay
1:24:59 okay
1:25:03 how can we briefly explain
1:25:06 that evolution doesn't undermine the
1:25:08 existence of god to an atheist
1:25:11 in the same way you can briefly explain
1:25:14 there's no correlation between being a
1:25:17 serial killer
1:25:18 and stamp collecting now if someone does
1:25:21 want to maintain you can be a serial
1:25:23 killer
1:25:24 and and being a stamp collector somehow
1:25:27 entices you to being a serial killer
1:25:31 then rather than trying to disprove the
1:25:33 link between
1:25:34 being a serial killer and stamp
1:25:36 collecting you simply
1:25:38 are going to raise an eyebrow look at
1:25:39 them in the eye and say
1:25:41 please can you briefly explain the link
1:25:43 between being a stamp collector
1:25:45 and being a serial killer so there's no
1:25:47 point answering a question
1:25:49 when they haven't made an argument
1:25:51 usually the atheists confuse
1:25:54 an argument for an assertion or an
1:25:56 assertion for an argument whichever way
1:25:57 you want to put it
1:25:58 they confuse the fact that they're
1:26:00 supposed to tell us how biological
1:26:02 evolution or darwinism undermines the
1:26:04 existence of god
1:26:05 and then we're supposed to give them a
1:26:06 reply they mainly assert it
1:26:09 and they assume we're going to refute it
1:26:10 but you can't what can be asserted
1:26:14 without evidence can be dismissed
1:26:16 without evidence
1:26:32 what do you think of muslim scientists
1:26:34 who are arguing for evolution
1:26:37 how would i convince them they are wrong
1:26:40 okay
1:26:42 so i have come across somebody who
1:26:46 you know online has videos and this
1:26:49 particular
1:26:50 person is a professor um in a middle
1:26:53 eastern university and
1:26:55 she basically says this right she tries
1:26:58 to say
1:26:59 adam alayhis-salam is a metaphor
1:27:03 or you know just various sorts of things
1:27:08 the problem with these types of people
1:27:11 is that
1:27:12 they only know science they don't know
1:27:16 the philosophy of science
1:27:17 and they definitely don't know theology
1:27:20 so with those people is to stop them
1:27:23 being so
1:27:23 binary right and get them to look at the
1:27:26 holistic picture
1:27:28 and if they are using their mind
1:27:30 objectively i'm sure they won't come to
1:27:32 these conclusions
1:27:38 what do you say to those muslims who are
1:27:39 matching things of quran and science and
1:27:41 trying to match things just to appeal
1:27:43 to be logical um
1:27:47 the best way of appealing to be logical
1:27:49 is by being logical
1:27:50 and by simply understanding logically
1:27:54 whose testimony is greater than allah's
1:27:57 and allah says this in the quran whose
1:27:59 testimony is greater than allah's
1:28:02 so don't appear to be logical be logical
1:28:04 and understand there's nothing higher
1:28:06 than divine revelation
1:28:17 [Music]
1:28:26 okay
1:28:38 so look um you know some of you guys in
1:28:40 the comment section you're writing down
1:28:42 names of people
1:28:43 and saying you know this person says
1:28:45 this
1:28:46 look what i would recommend yeah is you
1:28:49 simply
1:28:49 don't use people's names right you
1:28:52 simply say
1:28:54 okay here's an argument someone's giving
1:28:56 what do you think about this argument
1:28:58 i think that's the best way of dealing
1:29:00 with it i and i think this is just
1:29:02 generally in the dawah we should focus
1:29:05 on non-muslims
1:29:06 and we shouldn't be name-calling and
1:29:09 this type of thing
1:29:10 look this idea
1:29:13 that human beings we interbred
1:29:18 with other hominid species or we did
1:29:20 this
1:29:21 or maybe this happened or the second
1:29:23 creation of adam islam on earth or this
1:29:25 or this
1:29:25 you know all of these ideas or even like
1:29:28 the sister mentioned earlier about
1:29:29 pigs and chimps maybe that's in the
1:29:31 quran because that's what a nation was
1:29:33 cr
1:29:33 was punished and you know they have all
1:29:35 these ideas
1:29:37 right but where do these ideas stem from
1:29:40 they stem
1:29:41 from ultimately
1:29:44 the idea that we have to reconcile
1:29:47 science with the quran where does the
1:29:51 idea of
1:29:52 reconciliation of science with the quran
1:29:54 come from
1:29:55 that reconciliation comes from the idea
1:29:58 that science gives you truth the quran
1:30:00 gives you truth
1:30:01 therefore we have to reconcile is that
1:30:05 idea valid
1:30:06 no because science doesn't give you
1:30:07 truth how can science give you truth
1:30:10 science is based on methodological
1:30:13 naturalism
1:30:14 so automatically it is making an
1:30:17 assumption about the world
1:30:19 and what's within the world which is not
1:30:22 provable
1:30:23 methodological naturalism says there's
1:30:25 no god can we reconcile the idea of
1:30:27 methodological naturalism
1:30:29 which says there's no god with the idea
1:30:30 of the in the quran that there is a god
1:30:33 no
1:30:36 ultimately what we got to understand is
1:30:39 there is no
1:30:40 point there is no point
1:30:44 putting up science to the level of the
1:30:46 quran
1:30:47 saying both of them give us truth
1:30:49 there's a misunderstanding in our notion
1:30:51 of truth
1:30:52 let's get in there no what we've got to
1:30:54 do is this
1:30:55 we got to understand science doesn't
1:30:57 give you truth whether you're scientific
1:30:59 realist scientific instrumentalist
1:31:01 empirical in whatever right
1:31:05 constructive empiricism whatever they
1:31:06 call it science doesn't give you truth
1:31:09 science based upon the assumption of
1:31:11 methodological naturalism
1:31:12 and the problem of reduction and the
1:31:14 problem of determination
1:31:16 problem of unconceived alternatives
1:31:18 problem of
1:31:19 sensations i mean there's so many ways
1:31:21 to slice the onion and explain sciences
1:31:23 and the be
1:31:23 all and the end all would we
1:31:27 okay let's reconcile the virgin birth
1:31:30 with science that's assuming
1:31:34 science gives you the truth and the
1:31:37 entire picture about biological evil
1:31:39 biological reproduction but we as
1:31:41 muslims believe allah says
1:31:44 he can create a virgin birth no problem
1:31:46 right
1:31:48 so we need to we need to stop this
1:31:51 thing of um putting up science to that
1:31:54 level and like i've been saying before
1:31:56 just kick the cow right stop
1:31:59 feeding it
1:32:02 um okay more questions
1:32:17 very interesting question by arik rahman
1:32:21 aslam i am just paraphrasing quran says
1:32:25 that if the book is not from god then
1:32:28 there would be many contradictions
1:32:30 so isn't the quran's challenge to his
1:32:32 veracity contingent on external
1:32:34 evidences
1:32:35 so can any contradictions with let's say
1:32:38 historical evidence
1:32:39 not bound by induction make it true
1:32:41 nonetheless
1:32:42 all right if i understand your question
1:32:44 correctly you're saying look
1:32:46 there shouldn't be a contradiction
1:32:48 between the quran and what we know
1:32:50 through
1:32:50 another evidence another field say
1:32:53 history or geography or
1:32:55 science or whatever
1:32:58 no not necessarily because it's possible
1:33:02 that the quran is giving you a picture
1:33:05 which a sci a a particular discipline is
1:33:08 giving you the opposite picture
1:33:10 so is it possible
1:33:14 that egyptologists
1:33:18 they challenge like i said before the
1:33:20 story of joseph they say there was no
1:33:22 joseph there was no king
1:33:23 there was no famine the quran mentions
1:33:25 the famine there was no famine
1:33:26 all all of our egyptian
1:33:30 knowledge and the language
1:33:33 we've we've uncovered we have all of the
1:33:36 history of ancient egypt
1:33:38 and there's not a single year except
1:33:40 that
1:33:41 they had a bumper harvest and every
1:33:42 harvest was better than the other
1:33:44 the quran says that there was a famine
1:33:48 and the famine uh seven years or
1:33:51 uh i think it was seven years right and
1:33:55 and at the time uh you know then they
1:33:57 had to store and then they had to do
1:33:59 this
1:33:59 so all the egyptologists can say
1:34:01 something what would we as muslims say
1:34:04 we would say those egyptologists who are
1:34:07 reading the ancient egyptian language
1:34:10 we can simply say those people who wrote
1:34:13 down
1:34:13 there was no famine all that time they
1:34:16 either didn't
1:34:18 know about the famine there was some
1:34:21 lost history
1:34:22 or they're simply lying
1:34:25 we're not going to take the word of
1:34:27 egyptologists when they say
1:34:29 well they don't say this but say if they
1:34:30 said there was no famine
1:34:32 why because allah there's no one's
1:34:35 testimony is greater than allah allah
1:34:36 said there's a famine so there's a
1:34:38 famine eventually we will find
1:34:41 evidence why because as
1:34:44 ibn taymiyyah said there is no
1:34:47 contradiction
1:34:49 between um
1:34:52 in short revelation and and reason the
1:34:54 contradiction is
1:34:57 actually no i'm going to take back that
1:34:59 quote because there's a long time since
1:35:00 i
1:35:01 um spoke about this and i listened to it
1:35:04 so i don't want to say something that's
1:35:05 wrong
1:35:06 long story short if there looks like
1:35:09 there's a contradiction
1:35:11 we're not going to say we've missed uh
1:35:14 no the quran is wrong because it's
1:35:15 disagreeing with something else no we're
1:35:17 going to say the quran is true
1:35:19 and we'll eventually find out what's
1:35:20 wrong or what data we're missing
1:35:23 okay let's stick to one last question
1:35:30 um question about morality that's not
1:35:32 really the topic
1:35:43 thank you so much how can we support
1:35:45 your work
1:35:46 thank you peter for that question you
1:35:48 can simply go to sapience institute and
1:35:50 support the institute support the work
1:35:53 um
1:35:54 you've got people like muhammad hijab
1:35:56 hamza imran hussein myself
1:35:58 dr uthman the thief adnan rasheed yusuf
1:36:02 ponders
1:36:03 jamie turner great great guys
1:36:06 who are working for the sake of allah so
1:36:09 all the help and support and everything
1:36:11 is more than welcome
1:36:15 so let's end it there alhamdulillah it
1:36:17 was a good session i really enjoyed it
1:36:19 thank you so much for
1:36:21 listening attentively and asking
1:36:23 questions and putting up
1:36:25 with this very long and um
1:36:29 long and difficult topic it is it is
1:36:31 difficult i have to admit by inshallah
1:36:32 hopefully the way i've broken it down
1:36:34 you guys can understand it a lot better
1:36:36 everything good i have said is from
1:36:38 allah every mistake is from myself
1:36:41 for listening