On Dr Zakir Naik’s Arguments Against Evolution
Jun/0925
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.
Leave a comment
No trackbacks yet.
19:37 on June 4th, 2009
Hey Q,
Dr. Naik seems to me to be just like a lot of the people over here in the US who criticize evolution. The most egregious has always been “It’s only a theory” because any scientist worth his salt knows what “theory” truly means.
His argument about there being gaps in the fossil record is true. Of course there are gaps! Every time we find another fossil, we split one gap into two gaps! That’s TWICE the number of gaps we had before!
It’s a classic case of “moving the goalpost,” where when a criteria for something has been met, you say “no it hasn’t, because X hasn’t happened yet too!” Pretty much every pseudoscience is guilty of that one.
I think what he was meaning when he talked about the finches beaks being only the same species vs different species is the question of micro-evolution or macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is when a species changes over time, and macro-evolution is when a species becomes a new species aka unable to breed and produce viable offspring. Pretty much nobody argues against micro-evolution anymore because it’s been pretty definitively proven (at least, as proven as it could probably ever be). But macro-evolution has never been shown in a controlled study, probably because it takes millions of years!
I’ve never heard the “it goes against the church, that’s why it’s been accepted” line before. Probably because it’s patently ridiculous. What about all the religious scientists who are also well-respected in their fields? If there’s a conspiracy that large, covering every corner of the scientific establishment, don’t you think at least one scientist would pipe up about it? It’s not as though the scientific community has a military that can shut someone up by force. Granted, the scientific community can be very harsh on those that attempt to publish things that go against current understanding of things like evolution. However, this is only because the body of evidence supporting evolution is so strong that a paper that does not offer direct refutation of its major tenants with major evidence backing it is extremely feeble in comparison.
As far as hundreds of scientists saying that darwin was wrong, there’s now a list of ONLY SCIENTISTS NAMED STEVE that currently numbers 1089 who support evolution:http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve. There’s bound to be a few scientists that disagree. What’s important is that the vast majority of scientists who have relevant experience agree that evolution is well supported. I wonder how many of the scientists who disagree with evolution have degrees in things like molecular biology, biochemistry, or evolutionary biology?
Ape DNA never became Human DNA, btw. We both evolved from a common ancestor. It’s another classic straw man against evolution. And the odds of the DNA of one Ancestor becoming the DNA of a human is extremely low. Of course it is! Out of the literally hundred and hundreds of billions of molecular possibilities, human beings were the ones that emerged. It also took several million years, going through generation after generation. Variations add up over time. So of course the odds that it would just happen to form humans is low! The odds of lightning striking a particular spot over the course of a single thunderstorm are extremely low. That doesn’t mean that lightning never strikes the ground though, or that it can’t hit that specific spot given enough time.
2:36 on July 16th, 2009
Dear Mr.Shidi,
Leave Dr.Naik, he is an orator. Read Dr.Michael Denton’s book EVOLUTION;A THEORY IN CRISIS. Denton is not a creationist.You are actally brainwashed by Darwinism, a modern superstition. Think yourself that variations and natural selection can create a new organ or an entirely different species?
6:54 on July 25th, 2009
beak and other limbs may differ in size like man ,cow ,hen etc that does not confirm evolution theory.
1:58 on August 15th, 2009
Naik is not a evolutionary biologist nor geneticist. He must not deal with so advanced scientific concepts which he can’t understand. We have alot of “missing links” viz. Homo (neandertaal, habilis, erectus, ergaster, antecessor) and many other and we are homo sapiens sapiens, a sub-specie of homo sapiens. Naik should also believe that we are not mammals and even animals. Which means he’s an ignorant fanatic!
6:08 on September 1st, 2009
From wikipedia –
The scientific community considers the book (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) to contain incorrect claims and is not taken seriously by mainstream scientists….
….Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton “details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin’s theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other ‘problems’” and that “much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points”
Sources must always be taken with a grain of salt.
6:22 on October 2nd, 2009
Zakir naik is right.
1:03 on January 17th, 2010
Like Wikipedia is a source!
9:26 on January 25th, 2010
What’s wrong with people? Evolution is a FACT. Try picking up and actually reading ANY evolutionary book. I love the way Zakir discredits an obscene amount of evolutionary evidence because of a word ‘theory’ – is that the best argument?? I like to see a shred of supported evidence for the existence of GOD (or is this limited to‘ you have to believe? Get real people!) To all those fanatics out there trying to discredit evolution and killing innocents, how about trying a different route and actually try to prove the existence of GOD, more over that islam is the ONOE TRUE RELIGION. if this is proved then there will be no need to even have this discussion about evolution! No, no but that would involve using your brains….and possibly science – which is beyond the capacity of religious people.
I agree with Haider Ali Zakir Naik IS NOT a geneticist, biologist or any other kind of scientist he is a religious fanatic with absolutely no understanding of evolution (otherwise he would see how blatantly clear the overwhelming amount of evidence is to support evolution) I even wonder what his PhD is in? Religious studies? He is not in a position to be discrediting evolution based on a book complied some 1400 years ago – lol. He is a primitive man who lives his life by 1 book (which has the answer to everything btw).
What I REALLY want to know is how people can blindly conform to a ANY religion in such a day an age without any evidence for which there is a plethora for evolution?? Doesn’t it make you wonder that there are so many religions…Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism amongst others…and some have followers in excess of 1 billion people? Who is right? Who shall we kill?.
EVOUTION should be taught in ALL schools especially Muslim countries then maybe some progress can made in these countries instead of them bombing there own people for the sake of a religion
I have been buying and burning Quaran’s for some 5 years now and am happier, healthier, wealthier and more intelligent than I have ever been – and I have not been struck down by the Almighty! Try it. Its quite exhilarating.
P.s Mullahs are ALL uneducated, paedophilic idiots who should all be lined up and shot.
9:40 on January 25th, 2010
Response to Ahem – like the Koran is a source!
9:49 on January 25th, 2010
Hussain, you were brainwashed a long time ago – im actually willing to bet you havnt even read the Koran, you only know what your parents have told you. And you take that as fact! At least WE are aware of the different religions AND the arguments against religion and are thus able to make up OUR OWN MINDS based on evidence. Is santa real?
Also did you know Muhammad married a girl aged 9 (engaged from the age of 7), he killed thousands in the name of religion – what a great role model. A PHAEDO WARLORD. All hail mohammed! P.S behead those who insult Islam – a real peaceful religion!
ZIA – read a book.
Zakir Naik – good argument.
12:43 on January 27th, 2010
Brothers i just want to say one thing (lol may b more) … in Koran every thing is written considering different situations ….. like do this if that nd that if that ….. i guess everyone is sane enough to know what i mean …… but its a common tendency found in a remarkably high percentage of people to quote or find something out of the book leaving the other parts and upholding it in a bad sense …. say what ever u may like but r u truthful to yourselves ….
About the marriages …. brothers do u know what really happened ….i beg u to read the whole life if u want to comment on him rightfully…. not absurdly……. ppl used to collect the water that our prophet used to wash his face with …. nd even the dust over which he walked ….
brothers about violence its also written in Koran ….. pls read b4 u comment ….. pls know ……
@Waseem brother have you read the koran ????
9:25 on January 28th, 2010
Anil – I HAVE READ THE KORAN and various other books relating to how Islam ‘evolved’ and also the life of the prophet muhammed. AND BY NO MEANS DOES THE KORAN HOLD THE ANSWERS TO EVERTHING (infact it tells us nothing!) Do you not feel it is outdated? – Surely this book (word of god) should be universal and be able to applied to all socieites and time periods?
How do you feel about the treatment of women in islam? is this still valid? Your Allah is a very mean GOD, to name 1 example.
Tell me what the Koran says about eating at the same table as people who believe in other religions – i.e Jews?
In so many ways the koran is morally incorrect. Why create Jews – only to kill them?
Now i ask you. Have you ever read a scientific book?
Your coments-
About the marriages …. brothers do u know what really happened / brothers about violence its also written in Koran – PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME, instead of saying read the koran – TELL me what it says if you have truelly read the Koran. Or did you not understand it or were you just told the stories by your parents??
14:13 on February 1st, 2010
mr. waseem i really wonder if u r a muslim…cz there is already a lot of propaganda against ISlam….ur name mite be a muslim but i dont think u are even a born muslim. if u are then u fit into the category of those mentioned in quran ……..a muslim just by name……………did u read that in glorious quran.
its not necessary that a born muslim wud die in the state of IMAN…………. means as a muslim………after all satan is also with him. u said u r more healthier etc………….remember pharaoh/feron…………..he too was wealthiest, healthiest…….when he aked people to worship him……and he was so for quite a long time.but when he died he realised the truth and he was ready to accept ISLAM…..but it was rejected..the evidence(his mummy) is still there ……for the world to see….but they dont unfortuantely. it is proved he died coz of drowning.
MAY ALLAH GIVES U HIDAYA.
15:58 on March 16th, 2010
@waseem: you really need to change your surrounding atmosphere, the people you hang around with and the people that have “brainwashed” you. The sad thing is that people like you who want to fit into a society or culture will easily take sides against someone or something and be happy, you say you have read everything and done your research well then it’s funny because last time I heard Islam was the fastest growing religion and not because guns were put to peoples heads and forced them to accept and oh yes the converts include popular scientists too!. Just like another person mentioned above you are the sort who would pin point one verse from the Quran and use it out of context like you did. And regarding the point of whether or not the Quran is outdated then mate I don’t think you have read it recently because whatever problem you are going through right now it will definitely help you out and just remember its never too late to ask for forgiveness for the sins we have committed.
13:57 on March 27th, 2010
Zakir Naik is uninformed on the subject of evolution. He probably knows nothing of any of the sciences. He is just another shamefully uneducated Muslim that embarasses himself making ignorant statements. The man is worthy only of being mocked and laughed at, until he gets a proper education in biology.
17:40 on April 3rd, 2010
As a Muslim myself, I can say that I am in partial (if not full) agreement with the theory of evolution and it does NOT go against our religion, depite what many of my brothers/sister may say.
Firstly, as mentioned above, ‘theory’ does not mean that it has not been proven… as somebody above said, we, as scientists, consider theory to be kind of like ‘hypothesis/proven fact/etc.’ Secondly, I’m curious to know if there is anybody who read Darwin’s book, Origins of Species cover-to-cover? I (being me a bookworm!) have read the book. True, Darwin, at the time of writing his letter, did not fully belive his theory (in the real sense of the word here), but now as more evidence has been discovered, his (initial) theory, may now be deemed fact. In addition, Darwin did not state that ‘humans evolved from apes’; this is an overly-simplistic idea of what he first proposed. The time he publicised his theory was a ‘religious’ period, thus many elitists of the time (i.e. definitely not Darwin) would have mocked his theory – by saying things like ‘humans came from apes’ – only because it appeared to go against what they already knew. Those who were superior figures, didn’t want to lose their power over the people and did the only thing they could do to maintain their status (mocking/turning people away from the the theory…)
Now going back to the very possible truth of evolution. In contrary to Dr. Naik (who I really do respect very much, although this has been his weakest argument yet), natural selection and survival-of-the-fittest do actually come under the terms of evolution. Like all forms of science, the idea of evolution has progressed over years of study, therefore, our knowledge of the theory has greatly increased. These years of study may have proven the ‘illogical’ nature of the theory, but, in fact, have done quite the opposite.
A part of Darwin’s theory included that species adapt/evolve in order to be able to ’survive.’ Survival is what any creature is best at – an example (of the top of my head) if we are out of breath, our hearts beat faster in order to ensure that we don’t die that very moment. Another and very basic example to consider is this: people who live in Africa or Asia have darker skin than those in Europe. Now think, our skin darkens when more melanin is produced. The melanin surrounds our nucleus of the cell in order to prevent damage to the DNA….. in other words, to prevent damage to our skin/body as a whole, only so that we may survive for longer. Those in Africa or the Carribean generally have darker skin than the Indians… why, because they are exposed to more sunlight, therefore need to protect themselves more. As aforementioned, this is a very basic idea, but it still falls under the category of evolution.
When people travel to hot destinations, they cannot bear the heat. Yet, after weeks/months/years of ‘adapting’ (or should I say evolving) to the conditions, a person will be able to live normally in such a place…
Another (very weird) example is this. An old neighbour always tells me of how ‘in the good old days’ the fish he bought were large and last for weeks. Now the fish he buys are small. Again, natural selection and survival-of-the-fittest are introduced here. The continuous fishing for big, large fish has meant that only the fish with the genes for being ‘small’ are left, thus these fishes reproduce in hope that the offspring’s will not be fished out because of their size.
I forgot to mention above that evolution is: the ‘gradual’ change of allele frequency over many generations/long periods of time – not the best definition, but this definitely makes a huge bulk of it. If more, (and I have to say this) narrow-minded individuals actually acknowledged this, then maybe they could see that it does necessarily not mean one species develops into a completely new one (although this definitely happens in some animal, due to environmental/behavioural/physiological differences… that’s a whole new topic, way too long to go into now).
Yes, I am a Muslim, for those who either don’t believe it or have forgotten. (For my Muslim brothers/sisters mainly)…. Evolution does not go against Islam, unless you make it. We, as humans have ALWAYS been humans, despite the few adaptations we have to make in order to survive. I’m not, and never will, say that we humans came from apes, because that does go against Islam. Who’s to say that Allah did not choose his creations to ‘be’ in this way? I advise you to read and expand your knowledge, only because there are many people of the Ummah who speak without gathering this required knowledge. They do not choose to educate themselves, only because those around them have told them to believe in such way. Yes, follow the Quran and the teachings of Islam, but at the same time it is not prohibited for us to research things outside of religion. I still have not made my mind up of what to believe; there are times I’m strong on evolution, other times not. Allah knows best…
Finally… fine, many may disagree with what I have just said, but please just say (without rude comments please.) A lot of the things that I may have said may be incorrect and are my own personal views after researching the topic myself – I’m only 17, but I’m smart as hell (and I am honestly not saying this out of vanity!) I don’t want there to be major disputes over this – correct me if I am wrong and erm… that’s about it…
8:10 on July 2nd, 2010
you fukin dick head waseem and fatima you do not know shit so shut up and go back to sleep. May God punish you both IDIOTS
8:15 on July 2nd, 2010
Zakir naik we love you and as for Waseem haven’t you got anything better to do with your time you tramp than sit and burn the Quran. May you go to the fire of hell. And Fatima dont act as if you are all dat there is loads of islamic educated people so shut up! Dr Zakir Naik is a very intelligent man who i admire and he inspires me. Evolution is stupid we were not once chimpanzees
8:17 on July 2nd, 2010
learn how to spell the Quran you idiot
8:48 on July 6th, 2010
well
all u i diots … who discussing .there evolution…failk to realize…
that the person who give evolution ….himself not agree with his theory….
according to hansic cric…. evolution is a myth….
8:51 on July 6th, 2010
and one more thing………
i am doing time pass as.. u all are doing here … actually i am a student of biotech….and my research is darwin theory as well….
ok
3:37 on August 18th, 2010
I guess Zishan wanted to show us the “superior morals of muslems”?
Anyway, did anyone find Darwin’s letter to Thomas Thompton yet?
23:32 on August 23rd, 2010
Thanks for the blog post. I saw this video earlier, and found it to be very insulting to anyone with the slightest knowledge of Evolution.
I became agnostic a long time ago but being born in a muslim family, I’m always interested learning about Islam. ( Dr. ?) Zakir is only a fanatic…I do not understand how a sane muslim can consider his failed logic and fallacies.
22:41 on August 24th, 2010
you all should not consider only darvin’s evolution,to decide on islam.more things to explore.however,i will pray for waseem to give the correct path before his death,as a muhmin.burning the quran,wealthier person etc.,shows that you r very much of a ego person.allah should save you.as u r young,you have still time insha allah..
11:54 on September 6th, 2010
the writer actually googles stuff to go against Dr. Naik?…You think google is an authentic source…dont be lazy…do some true research…