Who said evolutionists are liars?

Posted on 24th June, 2007 by

New Statesman - Time Out with Nick Cohen: Steve Jones

Nick Cohen interviews Steve Jones, professor of biology at University College, London (the same professor who did the anti-Creationism speech at Hay on Wye last year, which I commented on here). Cohen looks like an ideal interviewer for Steve Jones, because they share the same attitude of lofty derision for religion. Towards the end, he comes up with this pathetic straw man argument against his Muslim students who don’t agree with him about evolution:

Creationism, once an unthinkable mental deformation for educated men and women, is flourishing among his Muslim students, who are forbidden from accepting the basic premises of their subject. When the publishers of a Turkish edition of Almost Like a Whale flew him out, he was astonished when they told him that the Islamic government saw evolutionary theory as a challenge to its rule, and introduced him to his bodyguards. I ask how he copes with students who come to university with closed minds. “At the end of the course I ask, ‘Was I lying to you about chromosome structure?’ and they say no. Then I say, ‘Was I lying to you about cell structure?’ and they say no. So I ask why on earth they think I’m lying to them about evolution, and of course they can’t answer, because they’re not allowed to.”

I can’t speak for all Muslim biology students at UCL or anywhere else, but I’m sure most of them don’t think he’s actually lying to them about evolution - just that he believes something that’s wrong. Of course, we’ll believe straightforward facts such as chromosome or cell structure, because their existence is demonstrable with the use of the eye and common scientific instruments. This is not the case with evolution; isn’t the difference rather obvious?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Possibly Related Posts:


FacebookTwitterIdenti.caDeliciousDiggStumbleUponWordPressShare
EducationPermalink
  • http://leena.thejaffers.com/ Leena J.

    Wow, they don’t cease with their arrogant attitude, do they? “Mental deformation”… ahh…

    Although, to say you believe in one thing but not another because its “existence is demonstrable with the use of the eye and common scientific instruments” doesn’t really fit well for those of us who believe in God.

    We cannot see God or understand God using scientific instruments; isn’t that statement one that atheists use to prove there is no God?

  • thabet

    Actually, evolution is demonstrable and there is much evidence to show this.

    However, I do agree that this article is pathetic. Another anti-Muslim piece by Cohen. Unsurprising.

  • http://www.alex-parsons.co.uk Alex

    Umm…no, the difference isn’t obvious at all. Evolution is easily demonstrated in labs and I’d argue it’s readily apparent with the naked eye. This guy isn’t saying ‘Evolution exists, live with it’ to his students (which could be dismissed as just believing something different), he’s outlining the evidence and showing why this this leads to the theory of evolution. As the conclusions from this evidence are fairly solid, I don’t think it’s too unlikely (although doubtless not universal) that the students really do believe he’s lying about the evidence.

    If you take a bacteria, expose it to a lethal drug and then allow the survivors to reproduce as a drug-resistant strain, that’s as clear a demonstration of the principle of natural selection as anything. I’ll accept that we can’t go back and watch over millions of years the evolution of humans, but when we can see the principles at work in a petri dish in a matter of days, why not apply the principles to all life and start looking for the evidence that would support that? When we do, we find an amazing amount of evidence, fossil records that show the change in species over time, DNA in species today that suggest they branch off from common ancestry, This is not a wild theory on the outskirts of science, this is a hard, very well documented fact.

    With the naked eye I can see that I and my sister look alike, with scientific instruments I can see the reason why we look more alike than my neighbour and I because we share a greater amount of DNA. I can see with my naked eye than humans and apes are more alike than humans and squid, I can see with scientific instruments that the reason for this is we share a greater amount of DNA between us. Why would you say the principle of relation which is so patently obvious and provable amongst siblings breaks down as soon as you apply the same evidence and observations to species?

  • Thersites

    “Of course, we’ll believe straightforward facts such as chromosome or cell structure, because their existence is demonstrable with the use of the eye and common scientific instruments.” You’ve obviously got remarkably good eyesight. How can you tell, just by looking, that these are “chromosome or cell structure” and what their functions are? Those are far from straightforward facts and the theories about them are much more complex than the theory of evolution through natural selection.

    In fact, Leena J, evolution has been observed using the eye and scientific instruments. Chromosomes were found because evolutionary theory required such things to exist and so people looked for them. On the other hand, people have been looking for god either unsuccessfully or with completely contradictory reports for much longer.

  • http://leena.thejaffers.com/ Leena J.

    Actually, I do ‘believe’ in evolution. My statement was just pointing out that saying you will only believe in something if you have hard scientific evidence for it would kind of conflict with one’s ‘belief’ in God.

    We’re all full of conflicts anyway, but I was just saying.

  • Thersites

    Leena J: The thing is that creationists do not believe in something that has hard scientific evidence for it- evolution- because they believe in something which does not have scientific evidence for it- god. In their interpration god- at least as they perceive god- and evolution are mutually exclusive.

    Incidentally, Indigo Jo, I obviously don’t know about Dr Jones’s students, or even most muslims, but quite few cretaionist muslims on the net do seem to believe that evolutionists are consciously lying as part of some great conspiracy. Google a couple of chaps calling themselves Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya for examples. I don’t know how typical they are but they popped up pretty quickly as references when I googled “islam”.and “evolution”.

  • http://muslimmusings.blogspot.com Abu Dharr

    I think the Islamic position on ‘evolution’ is more nuanced than people realize. In part, that may be because our current understanding of evolutionairy mechanisms is still a work in progress.

    As far as the demonstrability of evolution, it depends on how you define your terms.

    Yes, we have clear evidence that bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance; that butterflies can modify wing color over generations to adapt to environmental pollution/changes - but these are all adaptations to environmental stressors.

    But when we talk about speciation - ie. changes profound enough to give rise to a new species over time, I think this is not demonstrable. So, evidence for ‘microevolution’ exists, but speciation is perhaps more in the realm of speculation, than actuality.

    The Islamic position on the creation of human beings is not merely, that it was a divine act, but that man is also a UNIQUE creation of God.

    Arguments made in favor of our genetic ascent from primates, usually are based on our genetic “similarity” with chimpanzees. But anyone with a basic knowledge of genes can confirm, that even a decimal fraction of genetic disparity, is HUGE on the scale of biological variation - even within species.

    As far as the fossil record being ‘sound evidence,’ this is an evolving branch of science where controversies and differences of opinion exist amongst scientists authorites themselves. Let’s not forget the historical hoaxes made in the name of scientific “discovery,” that sought to reinforce theories on evolution.

  • Thersites

    Abu Dharr: for observed speciation see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. I’ve come across muslim sites which argue that eolution could have happened for every species except man- that, as you say, man is so “unique” the same rules don’t apply there.

  • http://www.audioislam.com/index.php ardo

    MashAllah this is an interesting debate. I think the concept of evolution is often misunderstood. Muslims close their ears off and non-Muslims ramble about nonsense. When I was in high school my biology teacher kept insisting humans evolved from monkeys. This was ninth grade and it happened by chance that the entire class was just girls. The funny thing was there was a fundamentalist protestant girl in my class, whom I greatly admired; this girl came to class each day to challenge the teacher. The sad part was the teacher herself didn’t believe in this take on evolution, but she was instructed to teach evolution from this perspective, as it was part of the curriculum. To this day evolution is taught this from this perspective. When I went to university I took a biology course in my first year as an elective course and they were still teaching from this perspective, humans evolved from monkeys and when asked about the missing link, they had no idea. Luckily we had the opportunity not put up with this nonsense.

    I took a class on women, power and racism and I was stunned to learn that in the 1970s the Eugenics believed that African Americans were the “missing link”. I find it ironic how every statement made about Black people is always demeaning to their intellect.

  • Umm Ammara

    Assalamualaikum I find that people like Steve Jones are really very miliant and derisive about anyone who wants to raise questions about evolution. Have you seen the article on ummahpulse.co.uk titled ‘The New Fundamentalists’? It has an excellent photo that accompanies it. The link is below,- http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=122&Itemid=38

  • Thersites

    ” I was stunned to learn that in the 1970s the Eugenics believed that African Americans were the “missing link”. “

    If you were taught- or believe you were taught- taht you were remarkably badly taught at university.

  • ummabdulla

    Assalaamu alaikum,

    It’s very misleading to call what Muslims believe “creationism”. Biblical creationism (or “young earth creationism”) refers to the belief of some Christians that the universe was created about 6000 years ago, in six 24-hour periods… that the Grand Canyon got that way in a few thousand years, that dinosaur fossils were created in these past few thousand years, etc. Supposedly, almost half of Americans believe this.

    What the Quran says is completely different; there’s no reason for us not to believe that the earth has been around for billions of years, or that there might be life on other planets, for example.

    Ann

  • regatislam

    Hi!

    There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that evolution is a fact rather than a proposition. To read everything where there is nothing is not science. One can imagine, somewhere in the future, some peeps digging out the “fossil” of a zorse and laying claims to a new evidence in favor of evolution!

  • http://www.salafimanhaj.com AbdulHaq al-Ashanti

    Dialogue with an Evolutionist: http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/Dialogue.pdf

  • hassan

    One thing that we as Muslims must examine is not only at the level of evidence but that of how we perceive reality. For example, is their real randomness in Islamic thought of the universe? Does not seem so if we believe in an all powerful God who depends on none and everything/event in existence depend on. So how do we as Muslims view notions such as random mutations, a core piece of evolutionary biology. I personally found Sh. Nuh Keller’s fatwa to be very compelling in dealing with the fundamentals (Islam and Evolution): http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

  • Thersites

    Ummabdulla: The quran asserts that god created man ab novo. That is exactly the same claim made by christian creationists. Whether the rest of the universe was made millions of years ago or at the same time as man is irrelevant. Indeed, there is more logic to young-earth creationism as it requires only one creation, whereas according to your version there are two: earth and every other animal and then man at some later date.

    Regatislam: To read everything where there is nothing is not science. It is a much better description of religion. Nor is it what evolutionists do.

    hassan: Nuh Keller’s bibliography- if that is the term- shows that he has read nothing at all about evolution except a few creationists who are too stupid to be called dishonest.

  • regatislam

    @Thersites

    Hi there.

    I will quote from Darwin’s insufferable fiction “The Origin Of Species”:

    That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, — that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, — that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable, — and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.

    Ofcourse, being the author of the book he has been incommensurately kind to himself. But, nevertheless, even he can do little other than admit that his fiction stands upon the infallibility of some of his own propositions; none of which need be assumed, irrespective of what he himself thinks.

    Now, if Darwin is an evolutionist then that is what evolutionists do — live in their own little world of fiction, insulated from reality. Ofcourse, if they have disowned Darwin, then it’s another matter altogether.

    Affectionately.

  • hassan

    Thersites: I’m not sure what you mean by earth and every other animal so where does the special creation of animals comes from I don’t know. Although Sh. Nuh brings evidence of the flakiness of evolution in absolute terms he clearly states that only believing in that ultimate creative power is by random mutation and that humans evolved from apes are incompatible with Islam. Therefore, one can believe in macrolevel evolution (from species to new species)of all species except for human’s as the Qur’an clearly states the special creation of Man, so long as they also believe that God is in control of everything regardless of whether they seem random or have a pattern.

  • Judge Dredd

    This is a case of “I believe in……” at the end of the day.

    And of course where does evolution fit in with our belief in God.

    I notice that one poster above stated that chromosomes were required to exist because of Evolution. I am not sure I find the story in this as I think it was Mendelian genetics that probably pointed towards chromosomes, from what I know on this subject.

    The diversity of micro-organisms and their short life cycle coupled with ease of growth - especially on jelly agar plates does indeed result in visible, assayable “micro-organism evolution” from what I understand. They grow so fast that over numerous life cycles new traits can be acquired by selection. Mutations that occur to yield a particular outward trait may not necessarily be “random” but part of the design of God, or for the atheist, part of a “process” – a natural evolutionary process that ticks with the life span of an organism.

    Then there is the Darwinian evolution that we cannot observe and for which we are able to find as “evidence”, fossil records and missing links.

    As a Muslim, I have always believed in the evolution of microbes in plates but have complete uncertainty on Darwinian evolution. Despite the fact that it is a theory with lots of fossil records and it DOES point towards a pretty easy to believe story that seems to join the dots. But can I believe in the possibility that evolution within species is possible? Can I also believe that evolution between species MAY be possible? Can I also believe that God created humans as a distinct species without racial types? Can I believe in a combination of creationism (from the Islamic perspective) and evolution or will people start banging at my door at 3 am in the morning to say I have to be for or against?

    My take on evolution is a bit like the atheists views on belief in God. I guess they feel that with God, there are so many dots that are connected up by the person who is writing the story.

    For me the evidence for the existence of God is so clear that it is not even a case of joining the dots - the line is already drawn.

    I think that for the atheists the same is true of evolution.

    The way I view the dots of evolution is that….yes evolution did occur and possibly resulted in lots of species but Man was created by God.

    How man was created by God; I don’t know but as a Muslim I believe that God had a “process” of taking “clay” or mud and converting that to a Human.

  • Thersites

    “— that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, — that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable, — and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.”

    Which of these propositions do you dispute the truth of, Regatislam?

    Hassan: evolutionists don’t believe “that ultimate creative power is by random mutation “, Isn’t the muslim theory that man was created in Paradise and later put on Earth? That involves two separate creations, surely, which is even more improbable than the creationist chriatians’ doctrine of one creation?

  • hassan

    Well, natural selection needs genetic variation in a species for it to work. Random mutation is the source of genetic variation. Therefore, random mutation creates the players and natural selection picks the ones most fit for the current condition/environment. Whether they are aware of it or not, evolutionists do believe that. Without random mutation natural selections has nothing to work on and is useless.

    Muslims believe that the Earth was already created when Adam was being created (Qur’an 2:30-35). The world was created in six long periods so we have no problem in believing in a 4 billion year old Earth or the Big Bang theory.

    One thing to keep in mind is that Muslims have their unique heritage, so I wouldn’t assume them to have the same positions on scientific issues as conservative Christians or any other type of religious group. I don’t think Professors are lying to Muslims on evolution as that requires one to deliberately tell falsehood. Muslims just believe them to be wrong (as said be Indigo Jo). It would be naive for one to believe that Professors are not doing science within a cultural philosophical framework that is outside of science and that informs the conclusions made from data.

  • Thersites

    The most important aspect of evolution is selection by natural descent, Hassan. Even if there were no evolution there would still be genetic variation and spontaneous mutations within species. Certainly, some muslims- see Messrs Naik and Yahyah mentioned above- do believe that evolutionists are deliberately lying as part fo a conspiracy. I don’t know how influential they are but their opinions pop up pretty quickly when you look for info on islam and evolution, so they’re popular enough it seems.

  • Judge Dredd

    Good point Hassan. If it were not for genetic variation, then the variety pool would not exist to further any other subsequential “next step”.

    I believe that in molecular genetics terminology that would put genetic variation as the upstream important event. Block that and any downstream events become insignificant.