The Pursuit of Success Qusai Al Shidi’s ideas, thoughts and achievements.

On Dr Zakir Naik’s Arguments Against Evolution

I haven’t written a blog post in quite a while. I miss blogging.

Today’s post will be about Dr. Zakir Naik’s arguments against evolution. He is a well-known Islamic scholar and public speaker in comparative religion (which is his strong part). He speaks mainly in India, but has been to other places around the globe, including my country Oman. I attended his lecture when he was here and as usual his last part of the lecture was the question and answer session. I was young and not as passionate about the things I am now to voice any questions at that time. I am sure if I went to his lectures now I would build the courage to ask him questions about the assertions I don’t agree with. I currently believe in evolution because of the many hypotheses that support it. I think Dr Naik did the theory of evolution injustice in the video. It’s disappointing to see an eloquent Muslim speaker like Dr Naik to make trivial arguments against a popular scientific theory like Evolution. I’m about to show you and I will, in this post, try to counter his arguments and claims.

I hope no one will use this post against me. Islam has taught me many things of which I am thankful of. This post is not arguing against Islam but the arguments Dr. Naik makes in his talk.

Without further ado, here is the video in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYmjLrzKNl8

I apologize for the sensationalism in the title and description of the video (seen if you clicked the external YouTube link). I just looked for the video in my browser history and pasted it over here.

Argument: “I have not come across any book which says ‘fact of evolution’, all the books say ‘theory of evolution’.”

At: 0:04 to 0:18

Fact vs Theory is a classic debate against evolution. He asserts that evolution maybe incorrect because it is considered to be a theory and not a fact. The word ‘theory’ means different things to scientists than it does to the layman. It’s usually mistaken to means hypothesis, which is distinguishable from theory. A hypothesis is a claim that is testable, it could be correct or incorrect through proper methods of testing. A theory on the other hand is an observation that is backed up by facts, hypotheses and evidence. Evolution is a theory, and so is gravitation. You can’t dismiss gravity as ‘just a theory’, because gravity can be readily observed by dropping an object. Evolution as a theory and not a fact seems to be the main point of his argument.

Agrument: [On The Origin of Species] “The beaks kept becoming long and short. This observation was made in the same species, not in different species.”

At: 0:20 to 0:45

I think he’s missing the point. Charles Darwin was domesticating pigeons to study variation and inheritance. Beak length variation was important to his study of variation, because it was evidence of the inheritance and mutation of characteristics. It’s important to note that this observation of beak sizes lead him to believe that the environmental reward those best able to adapt.  He also used methods of artificial selection to control beak sizes. He would later use this as an analogy to natural selection (The Origin of Species).

I don’t know how stating that it was done in the same species and not in different species refutes anything about Darwin’s study of pigeons. Naik’s argument showed no immediate logic in his reasoning. In fact, it supports Darwin’s method.

Argument: “Charles Darwin himself said there were missing links. He didn’t agree with it[evolution].”

At: 4:06 to 1:12

The theory of evolution wasn’t at its state now. These ‘missing links’ aren’t in excess as it was before. A good example is the amount of fossils found to model the evolution of humans.

As for the letter he wrote to Thomas Thompton, I googled and I didn’t find it. It did sound out of context though. He claims that Darwin says “I have no proof”. It’s encouraged for a scientist to be skeptical. Darwin was skeptical on his own work, this shows qualities of a good scientists. Darwin’s skepticism on his own work isn’t good evidence that evolution is untrue. It is likely that Darwin had to face his skepticism and strengthen his theory.

Claim: The reason evolution is taught in schools and has general scientist support is because it goes against the church.

At: 1:28 to 2:28

As a scientist this segment was insulting. Dr. Naik goes on to say “they didn’t want any proof” and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. To think that scientists would allow a theory into their body of knowledge just to anger a specific organization like the church insults the very ideology that science is about. Scientists have to face explanations and observations objectively. They must be impartial and give theories adequate scrutiny before allowing it to enter the body of knowledge. Our technological and medical advancements depend on scientists being impartial when making new hypotheses. Evolution being acceptable only to antagonize the church is absurd.

Evolution is taught in schools (or at least in my school) as an adequate introduction in explaining variations and speciation in genetics.

Claim: “There are no links at all between these stages [of human evolution].”

At: 2:29 to 3:00

We have many evidence of the stages (fossils). He claims that there is no evidence of a link. I am not an expert at human evolution but my research led me to believe Mitochondrial DNA tells us a lot about human evolution. If Mitochondrial DNA can tell us about our evolution, that would lead me to believe the link is established by our DNA.

Argument: ‘Hundreds’ of scientists disagree with Darwin’s theory

At: 3:00 to end

All I can say is: Of course hundreds of scientists disagree with Darwin’s theory! That’s how science works. Theories must be challenged by scientists and their challenges must addressed to validate any of the hypotheses that evolution entails. Science requires a communal agreement before accepting anything into the body of knowledge. Darwin can’t just theorize all he likes and declare it part of modern science and asked to be trusted by the rest of the scientific community, that’s just silly.

Fred Hoyle did criticize evolution, but countless counter-arguments have been made. Ian Musgrave refutes his reasoning and claims he makes logical mistakes. His fallacious reasoning has become common and now Hoyle’s fallacy is named after him. Dr. Naik himself started falling under Hoyle’s fallacy, he quoted probabilities of evolution from ape to human.

Dr. Naik goes on to name other scientists; my point still stands. Scientists’ skepticism is normal.

–

He ends his arguments against evolution somewhere around here. I’m not going to comment on his counter-claim that homosexuality is not genetic. He hasn’t named the alleged homosexual scientist that disproved it. And to be frank, I would need to read about both claims to make an opinion about which claim is better. Dr. Naik towards the end stated that the Quran claims that human beings have been created by one pair and then calls it a theory that could be established in the future. Again, he mistakes theory for hypothesis here.

I would love criticism, ideas or any of your thoughts. Please comment. If I’ve made any mistakes I would love to be corrected. I don’t want to have done any injustice to science or Dr. Zakir Naik. Thanks for reading.