The Fundamental Fallacy of Evolutionary Arguments

Most of the arguments atheists use citing evolution to attack the fact of Divine creation are logically inconsistent or outright fallacious.

For example, atheists like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne argue that if all life on earth were created by God, why would He make it seem like all life is on the same family tree? Why would He make humans and chimps, for example, share so many anatomical features such as would indicate that they are biologically related exactly as evolutionary science predicts? In reality, they argue, all life looks like it comes from the same family tree because it is all descended from the same family tree and there was no Divine creation as some theists argue.

Why is this a fallacious argument?

Because the atheist will draw the same conclusion regardless. If life appeared completely unrelated and disparate, the atheist would attribute this to the random nature of evolutionary processes. If there were no animals in nature that resembled humans, atheists would point that out as the obvious result of a blind, purposeless, unconscious force of evolutionary change and perhaps all the intermediary forms were lost to the sands of time. Then they would ask, “Why would God create life in such a random, haphazard, uncoordinated way?”

No matter what, the atheist conclusion remains the same.

We see atheists use precisely this kind of “just so” argumentation all the time.

Example: Vestigial organs. These are organs or body parts that Darwinists claim have no function in current species but are simply remnants from past species. For example, the tail bone in humans or wisdom teeth. It is claimed that hypothesized evolutionary descendants of homo sapiens had a use for these structures while we do not. Atheists smugly remark, “Why would God create humans with such useless organs? He must not be such a good designer!”

But, of course, just because current science has not discovered a purpose for certain organs that does not mean that, in reality, there is no purpose. Organs that at one point were considered vestigial, like the appendix, are now assumed to serve important purposes.

Deeper still, who says the human mind is always in a position to understand the true purpose of something that God has created? God creates as He wills, and He is in no way limited by our sense of purpose and practical function.

Rather than invoke blind evolutionary forces which fall apart upon closer inspection, why don’t these atheists draw the more rational, obvious conclusion that life demonstrates such unbelievably, preternaturally high order and organization and mutual resemblance despite unfathomable complexity because it was created by a Designer who made it that way deliberately?

It is a complete lie that evolutionary theory provides an adequate or even coherent explanation for any of this. (And before anyone shouts “God of the gaps!” — the failure of evolution is not the reason we accept Divine creation. There are plenty of independent reasons to conclude purely from observing the world around us that Divine creation is the reality, reasons related to the sublime complexity and order of the universe.)

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
عبدالرحمان

Jazakallah khair but can you do a deeper article pleazzzzz

Md Talha Ansari

Allahu Akbar! This is so profound but also so obvious! Its like pointing out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes!

HASAN

Assalamu alaikum,

I am a physician and scientist, and every day at work, I encounter numerous issues that negative biological evolution as understood by Darwinists today. This is not the time or place for a comprehensive analysis of the empirical shortcomings of evolution, but even a brief search will demonstrate that multiple scientists have raised significant concerns about Darwinism, but that it is being concealed because of the liberal agenda (i.e. arguments about irreducible complexity, loss of genetic material leading to devolution, philosophical arguments against evolution–which most scientists are entirely woefully unaware of, etc).

It is a travesty that we have popular speakers like Yasir Kazi publicizing the view that we can harmonize between our din and evolution. Just another example of lazy, shoddy reviews by these speakers, in an attempt to pander to questionable contentions.

Truth and Facts

Yes, i wonder whenever i look at an academic book on Biology or any of its disciplines like Molecular Biology, Microbiology or Biochemistry that how can evolution explain such unfathomable complexity, and extramundane organization of life at it’s microscopic level?
I don’t understand that….

Mujahid

Most people don’t understand that Scientists have two different ways of addressing Darwinism. In public they talk as if it is a fact. However, within their own circle, they accept criticism of Darwinism without any difficulty.

“We can now assert with confidence that the theory that the Earth moves round the Sun not only is right for our time but will be right in all future times even if flat-Earthism happens to become revived and universally accepted in some new dark age of human history. We cannot quite say that Darwinism is in the same unassailable class. Respectable opposition to it can still be mounted, and it can be argued that the current high standing of Darwinism in educated minds may not last through all future generations. Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the twentieth century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.” ― Richard Dawkins, A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love