Actually, if they believe that nature was created by God, they would acknowledge that there is no better evidences of the Creator than the presence of regularly organized objects in the universe. (Ibn Rushd)
About two weeks ago (I wrote this article on 5-7 November 2002), I was taking a walk to see computer exhibition at the Graha Saba building, Gajah Mada University (UGM). Outside the exhibition buliding some people sold books and VCDs. Among them are VCDs of Harun Yahya. Since I only wanted to take a walk, I didn’t bring a lot of money, just a few money for lunch. I thought I would back the next day to buy one or two VCDs. Unfortunately, the next day the peddler was not there. There were other peddlers, but his collection was not complete and the VCDs I looked for apparently already sold. I was reluctant to go back again for the third time. UGM is far enough from my home. And rainy season has just started. So the next day I went to the nearest internet cafe. (Internet data for home user here was still very very expensive in 2002, so internet cafe was the best option). Fortunately, the collection on the internet was quite complete even though it was written copies only. But, at least I knew Harun Yahya opinions about evolution. I could buy the VCDs later. The English version of his books can be downloaded for free. I copied them to a diskette and printed some pages at home. (Note: there is no flashdisk in 2002).
I have heard this pseudoname before, but it was only after seeing the cover of his VCDs I wanted to learn more. After reading his works, it seems that many of his opinions inspired by Henry Morris, the founder of ICR (Institute for Creation Research) who developed the idea of "scientific creationism". Many of his opinions were exactly the same because they were quoted from Morris works. For example in his opinion about Archeopteryx or Australopitechus. Or many others. Actually, their opinions had been denied by real scientists because their basis are very weak. You could read it in Darwinism defended by Michael Ruse, Chapter 14, "Creationism Considered". There is a copy of Ruse’s book in Yogya library and I also make it reference for my book. And I also could see on Harun Yahya’s website that he had held several meetings in Istanbul and one of the guest was Henry Morris. Their relationship was close enough. And there is also one website that called Harun Yahya as the pioneer of Islamic creationism. Of course, it doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in creation. I believe it, too. Unfortunately, I am not interested in their "scientific" ideas. No. I prefer to true scientific explanation.
For some reason Harun Yahya and his supporters bitterly opposed evolutionary theory. That's probably because they only look at the bad side of it. I think we're not supposed to think in black and white only. Harun Yahya is influenced heavily by Christian fundamentalists in America. I used to think that this "scientific" movement only exist in America, instead it is also proliferate in Istanbul and now apparently started to penetrate into Indonesia and other Islamic countries. If I read their website, their opposition to evolution, as usual, are because of various "standard" reasons. It bored me. Especially with a variety of flavored rhetoric that is “standard” as well.
Actually there are some things I want to respond. I had downloaded some books from www.harunyahya.com site. However, I just want to respond to some important issues. One of their reason to opposed the theory of evolution because it taught that living things evolve by chance, not by kun fayakun that they have believed for so long. Indeed, most Western evolutionists believe that living thing was evolve by chance. And many of them are atheists. Personally, I still believe in kun fayakun. However, this kun fayakun is not like theirs. I think God is not a magician. I think God created the universe through the eternal laws that have been exist in nature. If there people who are still grumbling, and oppose this theory because of religious reasons, please read once again Muhammad Abduh’s opinion on this issue in tafsir Al-Maraghi. In Al-Maraghi we could know that one of the most prominent Islamic reformers had not objected to the opinion that Adam was not the first man. You could read the quote I took from al-Maraghi in the article Eve was not created from Adam's rib. Actually, the Egyptian Islamic reformer thinkings was much inclined to rationalism. Unfortunately, it is not well known by most Muslims. Asyari'isme philosophical with its spirit of anti-rationalism, which has brought Muslims to the Dark Ages, still remains strong in many circles. We need to underline here that as long as we still adopts such philosophy, then we will never move from the Dark Ages.
Their objection usually because they think how random evolution could produce such complex and various living things, even produce creatures as smart as human beings? When we hear the word “by chance”, we usually imagine that it is a completely random and blind process. Indeed most evolutionists think so. However, I don’t agree with such opinion. And I have a good reason. Therefore, read and consider my opinion here. This topic is important enough. You could read it more than once. Okay, please read my opinion below.
At a glance, evolutionary process would seem blind and random. Actually it was not the case. If we look more closely, the evolutionary process is a process that runs by a natural law that always fixed and unchanging. Not a blind and chaotic process. Not just by chance. There are fixed laws as well. The natural laws that govern the process of evolution is a law which stipulates that: evolution is a process that always PROGRESSIVE. That is the formula. Not just evolved randomly. Not a blind and chaotic process.
Throughout the history of the evolution of every living things, we can see this progress. Lamarck also said the same, always toward progession. Because this evolutionary process is progressive, eventually it could produce the best creature, an ahsani takwim. The word progress, if we look at the Oxford dictionary means: advance toward completion or development, betterment, etc; improvement. From protozoa evolved into an ancient fish, the amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals. In the end human beings was born, the ahsani takwim, the culmination of all the progression process. Or in a smaller scale and we could see more clearly in the process of hominid evolution. It indicated progression, too. And the mechanisms that regulate the progression is what we usually call natural selection. Natural selection ultimately bring the best and most durable creatures. Survival of the fittest. Always presents a progression. We would never see Homo erectus evolved into Neanderthals and afterward into Homo erectus again, then into Homo sapiens, into Australopithecus and then turned back into fishes or reptiles. It's never happened that way. Because everything is already running under the laws of nature that are fixed, always be progressive. At a glance perhaps evolutionary process looks random and blind, but if we want to look more closely again, it was going according to natural laws that are regular and fixed. Always progressive and lead to progress. In this way it lead all living things to perfection.
There are some things that are less progressive, such as the stagnation for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years in some species, a living fossil, or maybe some things that seem degraded. However, it is actually because evolution was vary highly in each living creature. Evolution was depended on the environment occupied by each species. Depended on the environmental conditions they live. (See my article Gradualism or Punctuated Equilibria). We know that all kinds of living things that exist and survive now are more durable and fit than all previous species. Otherwise they would have long become extinct. And though evolution of each living thing have different levels and variations, in general evolution is still a process that is progressive. Changes from protozoa to mammals is a progression, isn’t it? Moreover when it comes to the evolution of hominids during five or four million years. We can clearly see the progression. When it comes to human evolution perhaps it is too progressive. From Homo habilis who lived in savannah and scavenged carcasses with bones and stones, we now become Homo sapiens who cook rice using rice cookers and keep meat in refrigerators. And we obviously do need to give an emphasis to human evolution. We debate this issue bitterly for so long because humans included in the process, don’t we? If it do not included humans certainly it would not become a protracted debate.
We are now discussing what seem as degradations. In evolutionary processes, there are some animals who have lost their ability in some way. At first glance it may seem like degradation. However, when they experienced a degradation in one ability, then it would be offseted with a progression in another ability. If not the case, then the species would become extinct. For example, men lose their ability to climb and jumping on trees as our ancestors. Indeed many of us are afraid of heights. This is a degradation, isn’t it? However, on the other hand, we are developing great progress in our intelligence. And we know that intelligence is far more important to survive than climbing the tree. The ability to climb trees just serve to run away from lions and hyenas. But, with intelligence we able to hunt lions and eat hyenas. Therefore, in general we still make a progression. This also happens in various other living things. They may also lose the ability in one or two things, but there are progressions and developments in another thing. And overall, they still can be called make progression. Therefore, they can still survive, or even win the competition to dominate a particular environment. So, they certainly are the best kind in their environment. And progression certainly measured by the environment they live and with whom they compete. Also must be measured by how far it is beneficial for the survival of a species. If a change brought a species to extinction, then it is certainly not a progression.
That is my progressive theory. And I really prefer it to Blind Watchmaker. I think it is reasonable enough for you to consider it. If someone do not agree, it's okay. I remain open to differences of opinion. However, as far as I know, protozoa evolved into mammals is a progression. Homo habilis evolved into Homo sapiens is a progression. If anyone says it's not a progression so be it, but I think most of you will agree with my opinion that it is a progression. Hence, I argue that evolutionary process is a process in which natural laws always lead to a progress or advancement. It is not random and blind, then go forward and backward at will. Not like that. And the mechanisms that regulate the progress, is a mechanism that we call natural selection. Selection is basically a mechanism to choose the best, right? As in every sports competition, always choose champion who has the highest record. And mankind is certainly the best species and have highest among record among the hominids. Therefore, he become the champion, survive until today and dominate every niche on earth. Meanwhile, other hominids, who had less satisfactory record, they had long since become extinct. Only the best type can survive. Thus, the creation of man was not the result of blind and accidental processes. We evolve through a mechanism of natural selection that always choose the best. Therefore, in the end of this process it produce the best living thing ever, an ahsani takwiim. And also produces a variety of other amazing creatures that are very complex and really amazing, too. What I mean by the word "best" is not the absolute best, i.e. superman, superanimal or superplant. The best I mean here is relative. The best when compared with their predecessors. Fittest when compared to the creatures that had extinct before. And the word most, always indicate a comparison, right? Compared with whom, compared with what? Without a comparison, the word most, best would not have any meaning.
Of course, after reading the above description the creationists will be dissappointed because the wonders of living things that exist in nature were not because of special creation. All living things became so amazing because they all are the best results of natural selection that lasted millions of years. Thus, the image "giraffe butt", :D :D which became creationists mascot and always on their website, better to get removed soon. The creationists better show their own butts. :D
After reading explanations above, we now may question Richard Dawkins theory Blind Watchmaker because we now know that evolutionary process have a certain direction, that is always toward progression. It is not blind and random process as believed by most evolutionists today. Natural selection has provided direction in the evolution of all living things on this earth and nature constantly presents more advanced and complex living things. So, if God created man by kun fayakun, it does not mean humans exist suddenly, but through natural processes. Through the laws of nature that had been established by God himself. And God will not break the law He has stipulated because God is Oft-Keeping His Promise. And as we know, seconds or minutes for God, it could mean millions of years for humans. (I have written this in my book Chapter VI sub-chapter "Kun Fayakun and Relativity Theory").
And finally, to end this article I would like to quote once again what Averroes said: "Actually, if they believe that nature was created by God, they will admit that there is no better evidences of the Creator presence than neatly organized objects in the universe. "Or if I may add here, the presence of natural laws which are always regular, fixed and neat. Not random and chaotic laws.
Yogyakarta-Central Java, 7 November 2002
