Islam's Answer to Evolution (Animation #2)

What is the mainstream, academic and balanced view of Muslims on Evolution?
There are many videos on this but they are either too long, or they compromise the fundamentals of Islam.

Subboor Ahmad was the researcher and he is the leading academic on Islam & Evolution, watch his videos, debates and lectures for more.

0:00 Muslim stance on Evolution
0:28 2 types of Evolution confused
1:28 5 problems of Evolution
3:27 Other Evolution theories and conclusion

#evolution #darwinism #islam #muslim

[MohammedHijab]

This is the next level of Dawah publications. Everyone should be spreading these animations as it takes a lot to produce them!

[NutshellAnimations]

Came for the animation but stayed for the knowledge. Fantastic work, brother.

[SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

Alhamdulilah so happy to see this, keep these videos coming inshaaAllah

[saiftgc]

As a muslim scientist I can confirm this and congratulations smile to Jannah on being on accurate.

[tuxeventuxeven]

This video is gross misrepresentation of evolution, and here`s why?:


1) The theory of evolution is not indisputable;
This is like a half-truth depending on what the author meant by the statement if he meant that the theory of evolution is can still be improved/modified to new evidence that we discover then he is correct. However if he meant the ladder as in the theory of evolution can be disproved or certain parts of it erased due to a lack evidence, as most creationists try to do, then he is wrong.

2) The 2 types of evolution;
There is no "2 types of evolution" Darwin got many thing wrong about evolution, and now over 160 years later the theory has been massively improved, however this doesn't mean there 2 theory`s of evolution as Darwin`s inaccuracy`s have been ruled out. Additionally, many key ideas of Darwin have been consistently shown to be true
the centre of this section being "natural selection " a concept that is undoubtedly true, backed up by consistent evidence. To sum this paragraph up there is only one accepted theory of evolution.

3) Homology;
Homology isn't an assumption, it legitimate evidence for evolution the sim-miler bone structure across a large variety animals is evidence for a common ancestor. The idea of a common ancestor is quiet complex and is something that i wish to learn about in the future, so i wont be disguising it in this comment, however the fossil
record provides concrete evidence for evolution, so it surprising that it was only brought up for only a breath second.

4) Gradualism;
Gradualism is how evolution works as by definition evolution is "any change in heritable traits across generations"
this would be a process that would happen gradually, as an organism must survive long enough to reproduce
and pass on there allies (allies are variations in genes) and in a natural environment certain traits like skin/fur
colour, speed, strength, etc will increase survivable chances and/or reproduce efficiently. And for the breath mention of the fossil record, fossils are incredibly rare as the remains of an animal to fossilises as the conditions must perfect, making it seem that there is rapid change, when we find a fossil odds are there were a lot of that organism in that area.

5) selfishness;

Well this is just stupid, what Darwin means is that an organism in its environment wants to survive long enough
to have offspring, this means the organism is willing to fight and kill other organisms for there survival and /or offspring. This doesn't mean that humans don`t care about other people or wont donate to charity after all humans are complex social animals

6) Darwin the religion;

Nope, this is just a lie that creationists made up.

7) Other theory's of evolution;

Just not true, there is only one evolution that is accepted by academics, this whole point is just pointless and stupid.




Thank you for reading, let me know if theirs any inaccuracy with anything i said.

[tradehut]

I dont think that the current scientific community believes in what darwin said word by word.. I thinks many of his views have been corrected and replaced with better understanding.
This video can mislead people

[raif]

I like the Kurzgesagt type of animation

[TalkIslam]

This is incredible quality. Amazing work! 💯

[lamiyatarannum]

But you know what, whenever any question pops into my head which has the potential to harm my iman, Allah always shows me a path. SubhanAllah! This video is one of the proofs

[darrylelam]

Here is a Muslim showing that he doesn't understand evolution. claiming that there are two type of evolution proves that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Biological change over time is evolution. When this change causes some bacteria become more resistance to medicine and therefore that bacteria keeps living while other bacteria dies, that is natural selection. Of course he fails to understand that's natural selection. And of course when one type of bacteria lives in two different places isolated by distance or some other kind of barrier, those groups will evolve in two different directions, that's what we call the tree of life. Its really sad that he agrees with the very concepts that he is claiming are wrong because he has so little knowledge about this subject.

[biuhfqq]

I was so tired and done by studing evolution for my upcoming exam, and I was just done with it and then I open my phone to see this notification Subhan'Allah. I needed this .

[tamanwar]

Science does not lead to certainty, yet it is the best tool to approach it. Darwin's views on evolution are not indisputable, that is true, but the biologists' explaination outside of any supernatural intrusion into the natural world works better than every single other alternative.

The visual example shown to demonstrate how homoplasy could disprove the tree of life is extremely misleading. Researchers don't merely focus on one single element of the body, such as an arm, to claim an ancestry.

In the case of our own ancestry, in regards to the common ancestor we share with chimps, for example, there are opposite thumbs, fingerprints, the same numbe of fingers, the lack of tail, rounded ears, the nose, partial bipedy among many other physical similarities we share with our chimp cousins. Then, there are behavioral similarities, including the ability to laugh, communicate an extremely varied range of expression with the face, superior solving problem capabilities compared to other terrestrial mammals, etc.

Now, keep in mind some of these traits can be found among other animals, but nowhere near as much.

The second step is to look at the dna. Given a certain amount of genetic mutuations per generation (175 for humans, if I remember correctly), you can go back in time and see when the chimp line and the human line diverged, millions of years ago. In this case, given our DNA is very close (98.8% similarity), the divergeance is rather close to us.

If this hypothesis was false, we would never have been able to find transitional forms between chimp-like ancestors and us, yet we did. Australopithecus, Homo habilis, homo erectus and homo heidelbergensis all share common traits (in varying proportions) to both a chimp-like ancestor and us.

Given this data, it is blatant misinformation to say the fossil record does not point towards very gradual change. Of course, you will never find a complete fossil record. This would mean every single generation would have been preserved, and that is absurd. But you have many transitional forms, and this for a humongus amount of animals, not just for humans (the transition from fish-like to amphibian-like is particularly well documented. The skeletal structure really shows a very smooth, progressive seperation from the first to the latter).

Altruism really isn't an issue to naturalists. The selfish species have much more trouble adaptating to a hostile environment than collaborative species. Even most non eusocial species show a form of altruism towards their offsprings, because that is how genes pass on. Altruism towards other animals, objects and even concepts is also explainable through the selfish need of psychological well-being, which is itself a necessary trait of natural selection.

Though, I do appreciate the conclusion stating the theory of evolution by natural selection is the main scientific theory right now. That's an intellectually honest take. However, a creator hardly fits in it given the great perfectability of how life behaves : just as if it eliminated some of its characteristics and developed others only due to the pressure of natural selection. But as long as the subject barely survives, the errors it contains remain and very rarely comes up with new incredible features.

[raafat.gilani]

Literally never clicked on a Smile2Jannah video this fast.

[jyxiaa]

i'm a muslim, reverted a year ago, and i came to islam for its logic, my heart is still craving to know, i got to prove myself by science that adam as was the first human, and he didn't evolved from apes, but i'm really wondering still why there was human looking apes so long ago, maybe allah created them as to deceive disbelievers and keep them disbelievers (2 ayah in the qur'an confirms that allah has created disbelievers as a test for us) which means that he intentionally keeps them disbelievers, maybe by providing all this science that could make them believe god doesn't exist, but in fact it's the opposite that it proves

[joelk]

1:35
A scientific theory can always change. Yes. This is why science is so good, and why you can know it’s trustworthy.
Instead of 1, 000 religions claiming objective truth, we drop our egos, and work together, usually all humankind, to find as close to truly objective as we can all agree on. It doesn’t solve anything if we just fight with our supposed objective beliefs.
The fact that science can and will be proven wrong in the future doesn’t mean you cannot accept it now. There is no objective best way that we know to heal someone with severe frostbite, but we do have science, which has given us the best solution that we can come to. If you were suffering from severe, fourth-degree frostbite, are you going to deny an amputation?
An amputation is not the objective correct solution, so are you going to pass up on it?
Or are you going to accept that the doctors are doing the best they can with the knowledge they have, and therefore accept the amputation, likely saving your life?
The choice is obvious.
We cannot 100% objectively prove the earth orbits the sun, or that ‘basic evolution’ is true, yet you believe those.
There is no objective best way to be entertained as a person in the western world, but YouTube is a pretty good choice. So that’s what we all do. We don’t all just wait for the truth to be revealed. We look for the best choice with the knowledge we have.
Not accepting evolution because it’s not objectively the correct way to explain how complex organisms arise is like refusing to watch YouTube because it isn’t objectively the best way to be entertained.

2:38
Evolution can happen very fast or very slow. How is this a reason to not acknowledge evolution?
Evolution DOES take part in small, slight steps. But this depends on many factors, and Darwin never specified exactly how much time. Also, Darwin lived 150+ years ago - our knowledge is far superior to his. If he was wrong, so what?

2:44
Everyone acts out of selfishness, whether you acknowledge it or not. No one does anything if they think it doesn’t help them. People that give to charity anonymously expect a feeling of pride and happiness in return, or to increase the well-being of the society in general, so they can live in a better society. If they don’t receive anything in return, they would not give to charity. It’s impossible to not receive something in return. Government collect taxes for hospitals because they know it will increase their popularity, and therefore keep them in office longer. Again, people care about animals because they receive something in return. People don’t hurt animals because they know it’s not in the best interest of us or the animal, not because they aren’t selfish. Dying for your values and ideals is literally the definition of how selfishness works. You are dying to carry on YOUR OWN ideology. You are going to remove yourself from this planet, so that your ideas can live on. How is this different from dying for your child? It is selfishness. It’s not a bad thing, it’s natural.

3:10
Science can be used in every way imaginable. It can be propaganda, it can be used to justify racism, it can be used to kill huge amount of people. Anyone can use science to do whatever they choose. Just as people will use religion to do the same. It is not science’s fault that people have used it maliciously.
Some people who acknowledge science go too far in coercing others to accept their beliefs, but there is no idea on this earth with more evidence than evolution. You accept scientific theories with less evidence than evolution, only because of your holy book says ‘no’ to evolution. Otherwise you would undoubtedly accept it.

3:34
Yes, there are multiple theories. It’s science, what do you expect? We are trying to find the truth, no matter what theory. Maybe it is difficult for religious people to accept that many different types of people, religious or not, can all work together to find a truth they can all agree on

4:04
Science isn’t claiming to be eternal truth. That’s why it’s superior to religion for finding the truth. It knows its faults. Instead of just claiming truth based on an assumption that God exists in this one particular state, it brings us all together to actually find out what’s happening, and it improves our lives.

Muslim countries don’t arm themselves with prayer, they arms themselves with machinery and bombs and weaponry and other scientific achievements. The same with every single country on earth, no matter how much they claim their God is the correct one. If you trust your God, leave science behind. Get rid of the locks on your cars and doors, get rid of modern technology, get rid of all these things and tell me how life is with just God. Get rid of the nuclear bombs, the weaponry, machinery, ships, everything. Have these Islamic states rely solely on their faith in God to protect them. If they believe hard enough, God will rain down fire on their enemies, destroying them. Why does no one do this? Because they know God is not there. They know science is how to protect themselves, and so do you. Science is what progresses humanity, Islam tries to undo all of that.

Islam will eventually acknowledge evolution, just as it eventually banned slavery and child marriage (almost), and armed itself with science.

[TheEasyConcepts]

I thought he is going to show how theory of Evolution matches with Islam's theory or how Islam answers theory of evolution but he talked about why Darwin is wrong with his illogical reasonings.

[courage]

as a muslim (I don't believe in Darwinian evolution), i must say that the problem of "survival" is not a very sound argument against evolution, because one can say that ethics themselves are an evolutionary advantage, individual animals within a population will sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the community, this trait helped certain species survive better than the ones who were selfish, and thus are now able to propagate their "ethical" genes.

[flash]

You forgot to mention that Darwin’s thesis was, “Women are intellectually deficient, ” and he used his “theory” to prove it.

[KrishnarajRaoUrbanNaxal]

Extremely feeble reasoning to uphold Islam against the onslaught of scientific quest for verifiable truths. The video animation and equivocation of the speaker seeks to mask the feeble reasoning.

[mubestvideos]

Remember, Allah only chose some information to reveal in the Quran, and that too wisely. If he had revealed evolution, the polytheists would think the Prophet is mad and never convert. And besides, some verses do hint that mankind was “made in different stages”.