Rendition of an episode of the TV Program “Ghamidi:”
Anchorperson: Welcome to the show,
Ghamidi:. Viewers, we initiated a discussion on the theory of
evolution in the previous episode. Today we shall continue the
discussion with the Participants: and respected Mr. Javed Ahmad
Ghamidi:. We shall try to see why the Muslim scholars of the
past opposed the theory of evolution while some contemporary
Muslim scholars don’t think it goes against Islamic teachings.
If God has not created anything without purpose then what is
the function of the appendix in the human body? If God has
granted His creations the power to survive then why did
dinosaurs and many other creatures became extinct? Did the
elements of life appear in an accidental order or were they
determined by the will of God? This is the discussion we are
going to undertake today.
Your questions please!
Participants:: How did life proceed from
Adam and Eve? Was marriage with one’s siblings allowed at that
Ghamidi:: This is what people generally
say. But the Qur’an has not discussed this issue. Nor does any
sahih riwayah shed light on the matter. But generally people
think that a man could marry the sister born after the
immediate next sister. The question of sanctity of blood
relations proceeded with progress in human culture. The basic
objective is to give man a family. Some relations in the
family should have sanctity. Man should adopt a different
approach to such sanctified relations. So this consciousness
has increased and decreased with progress in human culture.
For example, marriage with certain women relations was allowed
in the shari‘ah of the Israelites. In our law those relations
are prohibited for marriage. This too relates to changes in
culture. Let us assume that in a certain period of human
culture marriage with an alternate sibling was adopted that is
not objectionable. But it is only one opinion upheld by some
people. It has not been mentioned in the Qur’an. Nor does it
appear in the sahih hadiths.
Participants:: But sir, even if it has
not been mentioned in the Qur’an yet reproduction cannot be
possible without this method. Incestual relationships are
strictly forbidden in Islam. Right? Did God not tell Adam that
it would later on be prohibited? Was a different religion
given to Adam and his children?
Ghamidi:: You have a raised a very good
question. We need to appreciate one thing fully. Religion
originally consists of two parts: iman and ethics. The law and
the shari‘ah have been changed with time. They must change.
The reason is that with changes in culture laws also accept
change. The nature of relationships in the tribal system was
different. In tribal systems, man needed as many children as
possible in order to live. Therefore, you would encourage a
large family in such a social system. People would contract
many marriages. Without dozens of children an honourable life
was not possible. Today it becomes hard even to bring up two
children. So such changes have been witnessed. This is why God
Almighty has been changing His law. The Qur’an has explicated
that iman and ethics are eternal realities. The shari‘ah,
however, accepts changes overtime. Therefore, there has been a
change in the law. I have mentioned the example of prohibition
of some relations among the Israelites which are no more
prohibited for us. Some relations were allowed to them which
are no more allowable in our law.
Participants:: Sir, this is too much
change; we have been strictly forbidden a practice that was
going on daily in those times. One would marry day by day.
Ghamidi:: Look, you have been strictly
forbidden to eat anything while fasting in Ramadan. But the
fasts were obligatory for the previous ummahs as well. But
they were not required to fast Ramadan. So due to this the
expression “strictly” would mean that a new law of God has
been implemented. What is the purpose of the shari‘ah? Take
punishments for example. Some punishments prescribed by the
Torah are different to the one’s Islam prescribes. This means
that in a tribal system the punishment methods would be
different. The sentence would be established on different
bases. Today we would adopt different methods. Suppose, in one
time in history, the law called for two witnesses in order to
convict a criminal. Now finger prints fulfill that purpose.
Would you insist calling two witnesses today? So with changes
in culture laws change. This change has been witnessed. I have
just presented a principle. What has happened in fact? In
fact, I have told you that neither the Qur’an nor any sahih
hadith says that. It is only a qiyas (analogy) people have
chosen. There is no apparent point of objection in that.
Participants:: Mr. Ghamidi:, I beg to
differ with you on your explanation of the theory of
evolution. You hold that Darwin’s theory is not correct. You
hold that the evolution mentioned by the Qur’an is better or
is a reality. Darwin’s theory, as you say, rests on fossil
records. You say that it is nothing but imagination
constructed on a bone for example. Such were the assumptions
they followed. The reality is that Darwin’s theory of
evolution does not rest entirely on fossils alone. Later
discoveries, like the ones in embryology and genetics, offer
more evidence. This gave rise to New Darwinism. This is how
the theory became an established fact. When this fact was
discovered some people had claimed that it can be that way.
But Darwin was a humble man. He did very careful research for
six years and the book was published in 1859. How do the
fossils which are studied in science form? This is a complete
scientific method and approach. It is not a gossip that
someone just throws a theory.
Ghamidi:: (interrupting): It is a science
to study fossil records. But what is the result? The result
proves creation (instead of evolution). Genetics also affirm
the religious stance and creation. It has come to light that
the life cell is not as simple as it was considered during the
time of Darwin. We have learnt that it is not possible that
ears and eyes could function in a deficient form. When
feathers and bones were studied we learnt how the air is
pumped in them and flying becomes possible. How the function
of lungs in birds changes came to light. So these were the
discoveries that caused the death of the theory. In fact your
claim that the theory has become a scientific fact is itself a
discovery. The appearance of new facts, in genetics, in other
branches of biology, and in fossil records contradicts it. I
just cited an example to say that much has been written on the
issue. Now one thing is proven that the creation theory upheld
by religion is growing as a great reality and the theory of
evolution is losing worth. Every second evidence is negating
It is claimed, for example, here a star
fish fossil from four and a half million years ago. Suddenly
we come to learn that the same star fish exists even today.
There are in fact many types of star fish. It was held that it
was the way life forms proceeded from a fish. But now we learn
that the same fish exists even now in the seas. We are told
that that fish always remains 180 feet below water. It belongs
to water and can’t be expected to survive on land. The
question that arises is that if it came out of water to go
through a further evolutionary process how could it live
without water in the first phase?
Participants:: Mr. Ghamidi:, your
explanation of evolution maintains that man was first raised
from the womb of the earth. It came out as an egg that was
formed in the mud. Sir, man is born as a baby. It is very weak
when born. It cannot look after itself. In the theory of
Darwin man evolved from apes. When he assumed the form nearer
to the present human form he had someone to look after him. If
we accept that there was a common ancestry we have more
evidence. Not mere analogies. Fossils are direct evidence. Why
the researchers working on genes are embracing atheism a
survey in the media proves that. It is not supporting
creationism. Only the big bang theory supports creationism.
Ghamidi:: (interrupting). I would invite
you to study all these disciplines and see what they have
revealed. What did we learn when we observed DNA? What came
out of the studies in human genes? What complexities came to
the fore as a result of our study of the life cell? All of
these things have fully clarified that it is hard to believe
that this complete process has passed through different
evolutionary phases. This idea is no more than imagination and
Participants:: (interrupting): Sir the
designer theories going against evolution have been presented
by science itself not religion.
Ghamidi:: (interrupting) I have not
mentioned that theory. …
Participants:: (interrupting) That is
Ghamidi:: (interrupting). I have not
mentioned the designer theory.
Participants:: (interrupting). Ok….
Ghamidi:: (continues) I am only telling
you that the evidence needed to establish the theory has not
been found. Look, it is a very simple thing. You say that a
complete evolution process has occurred. That is why I
Participants:: That is alright.
Ghamidi:: How is it possible that a
creation be found in fossil as well as in perfect form? The
question is if you point towards a horse cart and tell us that
it turned into a buggy which went through an evolutionary
process and culminated in a motor car. But where are the
intermediary forms? If those phases really elapsed then why is
there no fossil record? Any fossil records that have appeared
are now becoming science fiction. What happens is that we are
told a story. Then this story is propagated for half a
century. Then suddenly we learn that it is baseless.
Participants:: This means that religion
has nothing to do but to oppose any discovery that comes to
light. But when a theory proves to be an established fact they
say that the Qur’an told us exactly the same. Your point is
that there are missing links that must have an explanation.
Ghamidi:: (interrupting). Why do you call
it a religions debate? What I am saying is that we are
criticizing scientism; don’t present fiction as a scientific
Participants:: (interrupting) Sir, I
believe that your objection is not directed against the
Darwinian Theory but to the atheism related to it. It is not
directed at the theory of evolution itself. Therefore, your
explanation of evolution……
Ghamidi:: (interrupting) Please listen. I
have no objection to anything. My point is restricted to the
stress that you should present reality and you must not
present unsubstantiated things as facts; something that has
been disproved. Honesty demands that you present things as
Participants:: (interrupting): Sir, I
don’t think that…
Ghamidi:: (continues) why do you present
it as a doctrine?
Participants:: Sir, is the disproving
evidences that much? Sir, both the viewpoints exist. That is
another point of view. That too has a potential favoring the
theory. As for the critics of evolution, they too have
Ghamidi:: Why send anything to the
dustbin? It is only the attitude which is being criticized.
Theory is one thing. Theory should be taken as a theory. When
evidence appears supporting it that should be honestly
presented. But the evidence going against it should also be
presented. When you show bias in favour of a theory then you
will be criticized.
Participants:: It is the opponents of
evolution who show bias not the ones who uphold this theory;
they support it in the light of the different disciplines. My
second question is that the evolution you seek to derive from
the Qur’an …
Ghamidi:: (interrupting): Since you are
discussing knowledge, may I ask the name of any such scholar
who has shown bias? The fact of the matter is that putting
aside the rest of the religions the majority of Islamic
scholars, during the last seventy to eighty years, have
accepted this theory. Where was the partiality?
Participants:: They only started
accepting the theory because they could not help accepting it
Ghamidi:: To be biased…. No. Initially a
thing fascinates you. What do you mean? Something shall only
be acknowledged when it becomes a reality. I mean there are
thousands of questions challenging it which still have to be
answered. What has yet appeared? Everything has created
further complications regarding the theory and exposed the
Presently I am not saying what is
correct and what is incorrect. I only intend to stress keeping
things where they belong. Also study what the Qur’an has
offered on this issue. What you have said about the birth of a
child. …. I had responded to this question. That is,
apparently it seems that he was not born as a baby; rather he
was sent as grown up. The process of birth of babies started
in the second phase. Every creature, it apparently seems, when
created out of the womb of the earth, was born such that it
could handle itself to a great degree.
Participants:: Correct. Sir this is an
analogy you are drawing on the basis of the Qur’an. I have
Ghamidi:: (interrupting). You have said
something very good. Let me comment on it. I am drawing
analogies on the basis of the Qur’an and you are doing the
same about some facts. The question is…
Participants:: (interrupting) But I have
evidence to support myself; fossils, genes…..
Ghamidi:: Please tell us about the
evidence based on fossils; enlighten the world; inform the
world that we have this evidence in the fossil records.
Brother, this issue has already been criticized.
Participants:: Yes. It has been attacked.
Ghamidi:: (Continues). Now there remains
nothing (to establish it).
Participants:: Sir you tell us that there
is a theory of evolution in the Qur’an. Sir, I want to ask did
the Arab society of the time, when the Qur’an was revealed to
the Holy Prophet (sws) and the Companions, know about this
Qur’anic theory? Or the explanation you are giving today has
developed in the present time in response to the Darwinism?
Was it there among the Arabs?
Ghamidi:: The fact is that when you
explain something you adopt the language of your time. The
Qur’an has not been revealed to give a theory. The Qur’an
explains the power of God. While describing the power of God
it has referred to the process of the creation of man. It is
only the allusion to the fact that we are trying to explain
according to our understanding. Nobody insists on that. Every
man has his understanding which he expresses. The Qur’an has
mentioned a simple fact. It tells us that the process of human
creation has gone through these two phases. We are just
inviting you. Study it. Ponder over it. It is a viewpoint.
Discuss this viewpoint too. Why should we be biased in favour
of something? If you have been studying Darwin’s theory of
evolution for the last century and a half, trying to find
evidence supporting it, why not discuss the idea of evolution
referred to by the Qur’an. Please give it the same reading and
the same method of analysis. If you have found an eye from
four hundred million years ago no less developed than the ones
found in the present day creatures it should invite your mind
and reason. Also please think over the evidence for a while.
And if the evidence you have presented and the estimates based
on them are proving meaningless, then please tell the world
that you have been wrong on this issue.
Participants:: Mr. Ghamidi: you have not
yet agreed to the fact that man has evolved from chimpanzees.
Even if we accept it for a while that humans issued from Adam
and Eve then why are there differences in the different human
races; differences of form and colour. If you turn to Africa
you face an entirely different race. If you come to this part
of the world you find humans with an entirely different form.
Why is there this much difference? If only one….
Ghamidi:: (interrupting). Face and figure
is an external thing. This kind of difference is still going
on and results in great changes. Notice how Darwin has been
misled by faces and figures. The changes in the external form
of man may result from man’s circumstances, they may be caused
by the environment of man and they may be due to the
profession of man. The climate in which one lives also has a
part in this. How does this relate to evolution? What
difference can you find in mental abilities, thoughts,
consciousness and human nature of a black man and a European?
This theory of evolution, a deep analysis would show, is based
on racism. It leads to the superiority of the white nations
which is passed on in the garb of the theory. What is its
reality? The way you demand from the religious folks that when
a new research comes to light….
Ghamidi:: (continues) …. They should
study it impartially. Similarly, we demand that that the
Qur’an should be studied without bias. Ponder over this
viewpoint. It is a new view. To what I have drawn the
attention of the people is that there is a story about the
Qur’an; people believe that the Qur’an says that the Almighty
created a human form out of clay and then blew spirit in it.
This is a man made story. The Qur’an on the other hand is
saying something very scientific. It says that the same
process was initiated in the womb of the earth. The same
process has been condensed and put in the human body and the
creation is going on accordingly. Why is this idea not worth
consideration? One should study it, ponder over it and then
try to collect evidence in its support.
Anchorperson: Mr. Ghamidi:, before the
advent of the evolution theory the Muslim, Jewish and
Christian scholars considered creationism as perfect. But now
some scholars of Islam and even the Pope have declared that
theory of evolution is in line with the religious stance. Why
do religious circles change their viewpoint whenever science
changes its stance? The religious schools never faced the
issue of evolution before the appearance of the theory of
Ghamidi:: The reality is that we can only
start deliberating over a viewpoint once it has appeared. It
is only then we make a positive or negative judgment about it.
The Qur’an is not a book of science for the Muslims to base
themselves on it and then conclude a scientific view. Science
is a completely different discipline. It studies biology and
physics. These are human sciences. Human knowledge has great
importance. Muslims were studying the Qur’an for religious
guidance. It takes up the issue of human death and guides men
about it. When this issue shall be discussed we will see if it
goes against the Qur’an. We will see it contains something
that affects the Qur’anic view and philosophy. We shall
analyze everything in its light. When you invent something we
will see whether it contains some moral problem. When you play
a drama or write fiction we will again see whether there is a
moral issue with it not. So when something comes before us we
respond to it and analyze it.
Anchorperson: Sir, at one place the
Qur’an says that the heavens and the earth were joined
together in the beginning. Then the Almighty set them apart.
At another place the Qur’an says that God created the earth.
Then He turned to the heavens and established seven heavens.
It seems that the earth was created before the creation of the
heavens. How do you reconcile these things?
Ghamidi:: When you build a house you
start with erecting the structure. Then you turn to one room
at one time and to another later on. The Qur’an is telling us
something of the sort. At one place it has mentioned all these
things in a set order. At other occasions it says how the
creation process was completed. In these different phases of
creation we see that at one time work is under process on the
heavens and at another time it is the earth that is under
creation. This is what the Qur’an highlights in relation with
the explanation of the power of God. It does not broach these
topics in order to reveal a scientific fact. The Qur’an does
not take up these issues primarily. We must fully appreciate
what is the real subject matter of the Qur’an. It is however
absolutely correct that when the Qur’an presents something it
uses such lofty diction that you get a brief picture of the
reality. But it is not the objective of the book or a subject
to detail things. For this you have to refer to human
knowledge; present theories and then offer supporting
Anchorperson: Mr. Ghamidi:, science tells
us that the modern man, Homo Sapiens, appeared about two
hundred thousand years ago. But, Mr. Ghamidi:, the first
monotheistic religion, Judaism, which we can trace in history,
appeared three thousand years ago. Why has been God at
distance not offering any guidance to His creation?
Ghamidi:: I am inclined to think that it
is the first phase of human creation which you extend to two
hundred thousand years. In this phase the human body was
Ghamidi:: Thenceforth, entered the second
phase in which spirit was blown into man which gave him human
consciousness and human personality. The history of religion,
rather the history of man, starts after the conclusion of that
Anchorperson: (interrupting). It means
Ghamidi:: (continues). When did it start?
It is not necessary that our estimates based on biblical
explanations are correct. It might possibly have started much
earlier. The genealogy mentioned in the Scripture follows the
primitive method. It involved naming only prominent figures in
the ancestry line.
Anchorperson: (Interrupts): That means…
Ghamidi:: (continues) So, on the basis of
the Bible we cannot determine the age of man on earth.
Anchorperson: Has man gone through
intellectual evolution along with physical evolution?
Ghamidi:: There are two phases. Look, the
fact of the matter is that one phase of man’s life is the one,
as I told you, when he was born of the womb of the earth. It
was there his body was set; his animal form was brought to
perfection. This is what the Qur’an has explicated. After the
completion of the physical body man entered the second phase.
In this phase man was given the ability to reproduce. About
this occasion the Qur’an says that God blew His soul in man
and granted him the honour of being man. Now how long the
first phase went on we can’t say. The Qur’an has not mentioned
the duration of the period. However, it has pointed out the
two phases clearly. That is, in one phase the human body was
prepared; it brought to perfection the animal existence. Even
now this continues to happen. The Qur’an tells us that human
body has life. Life is there even when the sperm begins
developing. But the Qur’an says that after passing through
different stages it is after about four months that spirit is
blown into it; it is given human personality. Thus, even today
human personality is given after four months of inception. In
the first stage it might have been given after thousands of
Anchorperson: Great. You ask please.
Participants:: Sir, we can take religion
as an intangible creation of God, study its process and try to
relate it to the theory of evolution. To me this would reveal
three things. First, there is the basic potential which God
granted man and that is the mind. The second thing is man’s
will power based on probabilities. It is through it that man
progressed in different fields of knowledge and became clear
on the idea of God to some extent. Third, God broke the
limitations of time and space and sent down his revelation to
man intending to control the evolution process through it. So
this is the process of the religion of God which started from
Adam (sws), gradually proceeded and culminated with Muhammad (sws).
If we apply this theory upon human physical form then can I
say that there was a primary matter in which God put potential
and it contained chances and accidents possibly leading to
different outcomes which God tested one after the other and
finally God broke the law of time and space and created him?
Ghamidi:: When you adopt a viewpoint you
must first see what the Book of God offers on the issue. The
Qur’an itself mentions a history of religion. It tells us from
where it started. It tells us that He granted the first man
prophet hood. Religion was, in its reality, put in the heart
and mind of man. The Qur’an tells us that man has been sent to
the earth with innate guidance about the basic teachings. It
tells us that men were firm in monotheism. They had absolutely
correct understanding of religion. Religious differences were
created later. When the differences occurred the Almighty
initiated a chain of prophets who would come and warn them
time and again. This exactly is the stance of the Qur’an. If
you analyze it in the light of knowledge we have today you
would find it very probable. A Messenger has appeared during
known history; the Prophet Muhammad (sws) stands in the light
of history. He is not a pre-historic personality. He presented
monotheism; propagated tawhid; presented the idea of an
afterlife. Even then the groups and sects arising in Islam
have gone down deep. What grave differences they have created?
This we are witnessing with our eyes happening in the last
century and a half. Why not see the early periods analogical
to it? Is this theory more probable or that one? We must
Participants:: Sir, supposing that the
first man was born as an infant and
had a relative consciousness, can you please tell the nature
of that consciousness? A man gets consciousness when he passes
childhood and enters maturity. Was he already mature enough?
Ghamidi:: Adam (sws) and Eve had full
consciousness. God Almighty talked to them, blessed them by
addressing them. He put them at a specific place and told them
their nature. They were given necessary teachings. Then the
life of the world was started. The Qur’an (4:1) tells that God
has created entire humankind from a single soul. It is Adam
and Eve whose progeny is there in the whole world. It was a
couple, a mother and a father, from whom issued all mankind
and spread in the world. This is what the Qur’an tells. No
evidence against this view appeared so far. Rather all the
evidence that appears supports and strengthens this viewpoint.
Participants:: If we generalize the
discussion going on here we can say that faith and reason are
under discussion. It is said that the Islamic faith is against
reason. It is proved by the fact that during the Abbasid
period Mu‘tazilahs were snubbed. It was actually murder of
rationalism. Due to this Muslims could never attain material
progress again. They regressed. My question is: Does Islam
snub reason in general? Or does it snub only that sort of
reasoning and science which are sought to apply to each other
and where Islam is proved by science and science is proved
through Islam? So what is the status of this issue in Islam?
Is use of reason not allowed in Islam? Or it is not allowed
where there is a question of mutual application of Islam and
Ghamidi:: When you study Islam don’t
study it with reference to the Abbasid or Umayyad or Ottoman
periods. Islam should be studied in the light of the Book of
God. You study the Qur’an. In every other verse it asks why
men do not use reason, why they don’t ponder over facts, why
they don’t think. We should therefore study Islam in the light
of the Qur’an. Reason and arguments are the final source of
judgment while accepting or rejecting something. If you
abandon reason and reasoning then what would you rely on while
deciding and judging issues? It is upon this principle the
Qur’an argues for the existence of God, establishes prophet
hood, and proves the Last Judgment. To what do those arguments
appeal? Certainly, to human reason. What is the mistake? The
mistake is that at times we get overwhelmed by a certain
discipline and take what it says to be reason itself. There
are many spheres of reason where it functions. Reason has
different stages in its functioning. Reason has different
sources upon which it bases its judgment. For example I find
there is a moral consciousness in me. There is an awareness of
good and evil. But it is only my reason that appreciates these
things. Yet it is not subject to logical reasoning. Logical
reasoning is a different thing. Reasoning is a completely
different thing. Both of these should be appreciated clear of
Religion cannot go against rational
reasoning. Nor has any such thing been said in the Qur’an.
However, what is iman which you refer to as faith? It shall be
explained by God Almighty. There are five beliefs; belief in
God, belief in Books, belief in angels, belief in Prophets and
belief in Hereafter. The Qur’an has argued for each one of
Participants:: Adam and Eve were humans?
I ask this because we are told that children were born to them
every day. Were they real humans? In relation to normal human
beings they can be called mutants; they are not human beings.
In this perspective they were not humans, as science says.
They were apes; another creature. Doesn’t it make that right?
Ghamidi:: Who told you that Adam (sws)
and Eve gave birth to children every day?
Participants:: Sir, it is mentioned
Ghamidi:: What do you mean by everywhere?
The Qur’an does not mention it anywhere.
Participants:: Sir, the gestation period
was less than nine months. Nine month gestation is normally
required in humans.
Ghamidi:: No. I say that there is the
Qur’an. It does not mention that. Then we can refer to the
Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sws). There is no such hadith
either. So the questions is about the stories; we read stories
in science; we read stories in religion. When we discuss
scientific knowledge we have to base ourselves on facts.
Theories are always many. Look, how does scientific knowledge
progress? Theories are presented as hypotheses. Then research
is carried out. You have to see the hypothesis as a
If we need to discuss religion we have
to see what the Qur’an says. What the Almighty has said in the
Qur’an completely negates what you said. Allah Almighty says
that humans were created from the womb of the earth in the
first phase. We can’t say anything whether it took thousands
or millions or billions of years. Concerning the second phase
of creation process too God has not determined a time period.
But our observations show that nine or ten month period is
taken in human reproduction process. If there is something
that goes against it then we shall accept that. However, in
absence of any such proof we shall take the fact for granted
that nine or ten month gestation has been the norm since then.
Any acceptable evidence should be brought from the word of God
or the historical proofs.
Anchorperson: That is ok.
Participants:: Sir, in response to his
question, you have just said that the religion has not
mentioned anything about the gestation period of the children
born to Adam and Eve. On the other hand you also say that we
must not believe in what science tells us and what research
reveals to us. Then how can we quench our thirst for knowledge
found in our thought and mind?
Ghamidi:: When have I asked you not to
rely on research? Do research. But present something as a fact
only when it is proven to be a fact. As long as it remains a
hypothesis and a theory present it as such. This is one thing.
Secondly, you may not accept what has been said in the Book of
God about certain matters but it is the viewpoint of God. That
viewpoint too should be given importance and accepted as such
in your research. I have drawn your attention to that which is
being compared. At one side there is a theory of evolution and
on the other side there is a story which tells you that a
human form was carved out of clay and then spirit was blown
into it. I pointed this out that the Qur’an is given a
different picture. Please consider that as well. It says that
evolution has happened. But such is the nature of evolution.
Man has been created in these two
phases. In the first phase this process of creation has been
followed and in the second phase that creation process has
been adopted. This is a very rational, very scientific and
very reasonable view. Please consider it too for a while.
Anchorperson: Evolutionists hold that
the appendix and many other vestigial organs in the human body
have lost relevance with time. Doesn’t this argument offer
evidence in support of Darwinian evolution?
Ghamidi:: It is the same thing which I
already said. It is a very insignificant thing upon which you
have not yet run a full research. It is possible that as time
passes you learn the use of these things. How many things are
there about whom man does not know much but may learn
Anchorperson: (interrupting): Mr.
Ghamidi:, if the appendix is cut off even then man lives a
perfectly healthy life.
Ghamidi:: Look, the fact of the matter
is that even the heart is transplanted, kidneys are changed,
one kidney is removed; even then man lives his life.
Anchorperson: (interrupting). No. Mr.
Ghamidi:. Medicine has to be taken in those cases. Whereas, in
case of the removal of appendix, one does not need any
Ghamidi:: (continues) No. What I am
saying is that why do you keep the concept of use to health
alone? There could be many aspects of usefulness. It is
possible that we have not yet discovered any of these. I mean
let life go on; let research continue. Merely the presence of
this gland does not necessarily prove that man has evolved
from apes; or man has been fish; or has grown out of a horse.
This is very insignificant evidence. You can at best say that
this warrants that the theory should be further pondered over.
I say that keep it in its original position. A crime has to be
considered a crime. You have to hang someone. You need
evidence. It is possible that at times you base yourself on
circumstantial evidence and feel that someone is a murderer.
Will you hang the man on the basis of
that feeling? What I mean is that both the sides are offering
evidence. The argument should be presented the way it is. The
argument in favour of creationism should be kept at its
original stead. What is being said in favour of evolution
should also be taken as it is. If evidence is found against
the evolution theory that too should be honestly presented to
the world. Today when I study scientists especially the
upholders of evolutionists I feel as if they are extremely
saddened when evidence appears against the theory of
evolution. We should at least study the theory of evolution
and creationism equally. What is this bias? You start
presenting a theory as a scientific fact. The other thing you
fully reject and are not ready to ponder over it a bit?
Anchorperson: Mr. Ghamidi: don’t you feel
that creationism is a very easy way to explain the universe.
We just say that God has created all the things this way.
Whereas, the theory of evolution is the inheritance of the
scientists of the whole world. It is a fruit of their combined
efforts. This is a more difficult path; a harder course is the
theory of evolution and not the theory of creationism.
Ghamidi:: You have oversimplified the
theory of creation very much. God has created. I have told you
that the Qur’an details the process of creation. It tells us
how the creation process unfolded. That should be pondered
over. A man just passing by offers a theory. You feel it is
probable and start researching it. God too has revealed some
facts. Why not do a little research on them too? At least put
both the ideas on equal stead and then research. What is the
reason to be biased? Bias is condemnable even if it is found
in the religious sphere. It is equally condemnable when shown
in sciences. You must study both at an equal level. That man
is a unique creation; that these creations we can see; they
contain an extraordinary wisdom; this too has unfathomable
meaningfulness. This too points to something. Is it not
something worth considering? Take this thing worth
appreciating as worth understanding and then discuss the
Participants:: They say that the mud
scrapper falls between fish and amphibian. The duckbill
platypus lies between mammals and fish. Don’t these types of
animals support the theory of evolution?
Ghamidi:: What do you mean by falling
between? If you mean to say that an animal is like this
species and also that one. Such likeness is the beauty of the
universe. What does it mean to fall between? The theory of
evolution demands that a creation should be seen travelling
from one form to another. There is no such thing. The
creatures you have mentioned have been proved to have existed
in the old times as well as in the present time. I submitted
that the upholders of the theory of evolution were presenting
facts claiming that those were the things which indicated
evolution. For example fossils of some animals having two
teeth were taken to indicate that perhaps they were about to
evolve into birds. But the same structure has now been
discovered in some existing fish species. This is how
evidence continues to come rendering the creation theory
stronger and reliable and making evolutionism more doubtful.
To be falling between two creations needs to be appreciated.
One can apparently say that the chimpanzee falls below humans
in form. But what does this mean? There is a gulf of
difference between man and chimpanzee. The chimpanzee is an
animal in every manner. Man is a conscious reasoning being. He
has a moral sense. He has the abilities to understand. See how
beautifully the Qur’an presents this fact. We created man out
of mud. In the second phase we put in him the ability to
reproduce. We proportioned him. Then we blew in him the spirit
which made him a knowing and understanding man and thus
reached the state of conscious reasoning.
Participants:: Scientists claim that the
DNA of man and chimpanzee is 95% similar. DNA of man and that
of a dog is 75% common. Based on this we can say that man
evolved from chimpanzees. This fact too supports evolution.
Ghamidi:: The only thing that would
support evolution is that you prove that there are fossil
records of the intermediary links just as there are fossils of
the two creatures in perfect form. The evolution theory
requires that just as there are perfect beings there must be
the ones that existed in intermediary forms. It is not
possible that the intermediaries are lost forever. You would
say that they got annihilated due to the principle of survival
of the fittest. But there must be fossils proving their
existence in the past. Therefore, evolution is a theory. It
should be presented as a theory. Keep researching it. But
present the theory as a theory. And please ponder over what
the Qur’an says in this regard. If the scientists are claiming
that they have established a scientific fact that is worth
consideration. But if they are presenting a theory then it
should be taken and studied as a theory alone.
Anchorperson: The scientific circles of
the entire world accept the evolution theory as a fact. The
religious circles of the world are not unanimous on the
question of evolution. Why are they not united?
Ghamidi:: Your first claim needs
evidence. Who is the scientist who says that it has turned
into a fact? What I am vociferously claiming is that none of
them is ready to claim that it is a fact. It is only presented
as a fact. It will turn into a fact when we have evidence
proving it demonstrable; able to be experienced and analyzed.
This is not the case. All the tests carried out in the
laboratory so far fully negate it. New information about the
things analyzed and studied so far has changed the whole
scenario. During Darwin’s time the microscope was not well
developed. During his time the study of the life cell was not
very detailed. How do we explain the complicated system
functioning as eyes and ears? Why are these faculties so
developed in the creatures which you consider so lower down in
the evolution process? Such are the questions that have
arisen. These questions should be analyzed. We must not apply
the term fact for evolution. It is only a theory. It should be
presented as it is. We claim that the Qur’an gives a counter
theory. Please consider that too.
Anchorperson: Viewers, an interesting
discussion on the theory of evolution between Mr. Ghamidi: and
the panel has concluded today. Mr. Ghamidi:’s argument that
religious scholars and scientists should not abandon honesty
needs to be appreciated and pondered. That is why opposing and
irreconcilable religious and scientific theories can co-exist
in a pluralistic society. This is a sign of life of a society.
Good bye from your host Awais Iqbal and the entire team of the
presentation, Ghamidi:. Khuda Hafiẓ.
(Translated by Tariq Mahmood Hashmi)