Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Darwinism Refuted

Recommended Posts

Hello The Doc.


That's very impressive, thanks.  I shall look up Ibn Khaldun.  I suspect his/her observation was perhaps a rather fanciful guess, resulting from a fertile imagination; mixed with unusual (for its time) insight and a poetic touch: rather than a truly exhaustive scientific investigation, as it was Darwin.  I wonder now that why this is not part of Muslim currency.  Was/is Ibn considered a lunatic or heretic?  I shall investigate.  Thanks again for the tip.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Science changes as you know- it is not always and never can be 100%

Many things we believed before were put to bed once newer scientific investigations proved otherwise- that's the beauty of science but at the sametime, it shows its limitations.


We don't use science as a method to ascertain all truths- in our lives and daily going on.



But what scientists do is have different principles in using a ‘definition’ for their ideas.

Basically when something is highly likely or may be even extremely likely, they will call it… wait for it: a FACT!!… not highly likely theory, but a fact. so
even if evolution is not actually a FACT, but rather just a theory, they still  call it a FACT.

The reason why they consider ‘highly likely’ to be similar to fact is that they simply assume that after many many many … experiments, if the result is
still the same therefore it must be the same across the board.

So, they were able to prove evolution on so many species, so therefore it must be true for any NEXT species they will study, even if they actually haven’t
studied it or were unable to.

For humans, they have not been able to specifically prove it using physical  proof and tests, rather they just deducted it in this manner.

So Islam doesn’t deny evolution for all the million of species but rather only affirms that Adam was created differently. That’s it.

Reality is:

Millions of species that exist could come from evolution. but it doesn’t prove that humans did too.

Science will always be behind and flawed if scientist do not adopt more realistic principles rather than a process of deduction… after all how can they
study every single animal that ever exist?… actually we only know less than 10% of all animals that are on this planet, we are still discovering new ones every

It makes it even more ludicrous to adopt such a process of deduction and include every species under its umbrella!


Edited by The Doc

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a problem first fully illustrated by the philosopher David Hume, who was fascinated by the way in which ideas are constructed, grown, pruned and fed.


Deduction is the only tool we have to speculate anything, including any 'knowledge' of a god.

When we say that A causes B, we infer this causality thanks to each past experience of instance A, being followed by instance B.

Furthermore, for it to remain as 'FACT' that A causes B, we must find no past (or future) instance of A, that was not seen to be followed by B.


It is a matter of habit and association. And each and every one of our opinions is crafted by such inferences.

We have no intellectual grounds to state as 'FACT' that existence/life, will still 'be here' tomorrow.

Only an inference founded upon our perceived unlikelihood of it being otherwise.


There is no alternative method of forming an idea of something/anything, than to deduce what is expected to be, from what is not.

We cross the road with such 'matter of fact' inferences and ground our belief of an eternal afterlife, also on such inferences.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now