رحلة اليقين ٣٨: عَبَدَة الميكروبات

Peace be upon you. We hear of cow worshippers, fire worshippers, an

d devil worshippers, but have you ever heard of microbe worshippers

? Have you ever heard of people who have gone so far as to deify m

icrobes, attributing to them attributes of will, choice, knowledge,

and creative power? Peace be upon you. We hear of people who wor

ship microbes, attributing to them qualities of will, choice, knowl

edge, and creation. Let's see how pseudo-science leads its follower

s to this stage of ignorance. This episode, one of the most import

ant in the Journey of Certainty, is full of surprises. So stay with

us. In the previous episode, we saw how three pillars of the theo

ry of evolution fell at the hands of its own followers: 5- countle

ss transitional organisms 4- slowness 3- gradualism And two pillars

remain: Blind natural selection And random changes Let's tighten

the noose on "Blind natural selection." We ask you, followers of th

e theory of evolution: According to your evolutionary trees, are pl

acental and marsupial organisms related? They said, "No, their ori

gins diverged 160 million years ago." Then why are they so similar

in form despite their vast differences in genetic code and biologic

al systems? Is this the work of blindness and randomness? Or did a

Creator make them a sign of His power? They said, "Absolutely not

! This is a phenomenon called 'Convergent Evolution.' It means unin

tentional, chance changes, but their environments became similar, s

o natural selection acted on them in the same way, producing simila

r results in two unrelated organisms." Their environments were simi

lar, so natural selection acted in the same way. Aha! Okay, bats an

d whales, are they similar? Of course not. Baby bats weigh a singl

e gram, while a sperm whale weighs 50 tons. The more important que

stion is, are their environmental conditions similar? Of course no

t. Bats live on land, and whales live in the sea—completely differe

nt natural conditions. Aha! So your blind natural selection should

be working on bats and whales in completely different ways. Then wh

y do we see common systems between them? Why do we see that both ba

ts and whales have an echolocation system (sonar) that is very simi

lar? A system that emits and receives sound waves to determine the

direction of its prey? Why didn't this organ appear in other mamma

ls closer to bats, according to your tree systems? And closer to b

ats in terms of living on land? And consequently, the effect of you

r natural selection—doesn't this point to an all-knowing Creator, w

ho gave everything its form and then guided it? So He gave these t

wo creatures this organ they need. They said: No, rather this is an

other type of convergent evolution that works even under different

conditions of natural selection. So, fine, what about cichlids? The

same phenomenon that amazed you—fish in different lakes, yet there

are great similarities between them. You say that these fish in di

fferent lakes have the same origins, but separated into different l

akes. If the origin is one, how do we see that this origin diversi

fied in one lake into many forms, and in another lake into many for

ms, very similar to the first? We are not talking here about somet

hing like what happened between placental and marsupial animals—a p

lacental squirrel resembling a marsupial, for example. We are talki

ng about a single fish that diversified into many forms—according t

o your statement—in one lake, and a similar fish that diversified i

nto many similar forms in another lake. If you can convince someone

that randomness and blindness produced two similar organisms, then

who will you convince that they produce two almost identical group

s of organisms from a single organism? They said: "We will call thi

s phenomenon 'Parallel Evolution.'" But, folks, we're not asking wh

at new name you've given your myth. We're asking you for an explan

ation that a reasonable person would accept. But, this is their way

! All the facts of the universe refute your theory?! Fine, give ea

ch one a name, to make the listener feel that you are aware of thes

e facts and yet, you don't find any threat to your theory in them.

In fact, you've found a scientific explanation and modified the the

ory to accommodate this fact—and they are fully aware of this. The

y explain to you in detail the facts that undermine their myth, all

under the heading: (In English) Evolution from such-and-such spec

ies. The psychological message you receive is that if this fact pos

ed any threat to their theory, they would have noticed it. While th

e reality is that they covered up the blatant contradiction by mani

pulating names. Did you see our neighbor's white car? You mean th

e black one? Ah, I saw it. No, no, his white car. No, no, the black

one, and I recognized it as the black one. Yeah, it's white. Hey,

that's what it's called, "black and white." You can remove the word

"evolution" from all the comedic names for the theory and replace

it with "impossible." Parallel impossibility. Convergent impossibil

ity. Quantum impossibility. Discrete impossibility... and so on...

You'll find someone saying: This is an advantage of the theory of e

volution, that it's malleable, To accommodate modern discoveries. T

here's a big difference, my friends, between having a theory based

on something, On sound foundations, rationally, intuitively, and em

pirically, and then having an observation that contradicts some of

its details, So you modify these details, according to... It accomm

odates observations. Conversely, the theory might be mere conjectu

re, baseless, and all observations would dismantle its foundations

and empty it of its content. Yet you persist in this theory, merely

modifying names and proposing further assumptions without proof, j

ust as our friend did with his theory about the conspiracy of his n

eighbors. We return to ask the proponents of the theory: "We want a

scientific explanation, enough with the names. Did this phenomenon

of crustaceans, for example, arise from randomness and blind selec

tion?" They answer you in this paper from Nature, saying: "Explaini

ng this phenomenon through convergent evolution requires an extraor

dinary coincidence." "Extraordinary coincidence" And I—honestly—alm

ost laugh at this phrase. All of the above didn't require an extrao

rdinary coincidence in their view, but this particular phenomenon d

oes! When we told them: Living things are a complete and integrate

d system. Some are predators, and some are prey. Some birds feed on

flowers and return the favor by transferring their pollen so they

can reproduce. And tall flowers have long-mouthed bees to transport

their nectar. And the fig tree blossoms; A type of insect transfer

s its seeds to fig blossoms for pollination. This same insect bene

fits by laying its eggs in the blossoming figs. Each fig variety ha

s its own specific insect. Small marine creatures clean the gills a

nd teeth of large fish by consuming parasites and food scraps. Both

parties benefit. The human gut contains trillions of diverse bacte

ria from which humans benefit. And countless other complementary re

lationships exist. All this is the result of ordinary coincidences?

They say, "Yes, and we will call what happened 'co-evolution.'" Le

t's leave aside your names; our question is clear: Did randomness a

nd blindness produce all these creatures, male and female, and then

produce this integration between them, in this precise, well-order

ed, and harmonious system? They said: Yes, by chance. The scientist

who respects himself—my brothers—follows the evidence wherever it

leads, while the followers of superstition want to pull the chariot

of superstition against the hooves of evidence. In any case, they

finally admitted—with the phenomenon of crustaceans—that there is s

omething that requires an unusual coincidence. "Okay, and therefore

?" They said: "Therefore, it seems that selection Natural selection

is guided along specific routes. As other scientific papers state,

in essence: "It is true that natural selection has no specific goa

ls—that is, it is blind—but it seems that evolution proceeds within

certain trajectories." Other terms, even titles, are used, such as

"determinants of selection." These determinants are even described

as absolute or decisive. Determinants, determinations, determinati

ons. So, you are saying that blind selection is guided by something

, and therefore—thanks to this guidance, direction, and these deter

minants—it is no longer blind. Thus, their second stronghold—the st

ronghold of blind natural selection—has fallen. So, did they acknow

ledge the fall of the myth? No, they retreated to their last stron

ghold, saying: "Changes are random, even if selection has its const

raints." "And we will amend the theory to Evo-Devo." Hmm, let's tig

hten the noose around them; we have reached the first and last stro

nghold, the stronghold of random changes. Are changes, such as muta

tions, random? Here, my brothers, it is important to understand th

e intended meaning of the question; it has two parts: First: Is it

possible that organisms were formed through random mutations? Seco

nd: Are the changes that actually occur in an organism's genetic ma

terial, helping it adapt to a new environment or conditions, such a

s bacterial resistance to antibiotics, random changes? The weight

of truth has forced many adherents of the myth to abandon the idea

of random variation. Some have used terms like "evolutionary bias"

and "constraints on evolution." Others have stated that variation

is not random, starting with this famous and important paper in Nat

ure in 1988, titled "The Origin of Mutations." As in this 2014 Nat

ure paper, which reviewed numerous phenomena, it concluded: They s

how that variation is not random. Statements continued to emerge as

serting that mutations are not random but directed, and that this

contradicts a fundamental principle of neo-Darwinism. The terms "di

rected mutations" and "selected mutations" began to appear frequent

ly in research. Professor Denis Noble, a biology professor, made th

is significant statement at a 2013 international physiology confere

nce: So, Denis Noble says that it is difficult—if not impossible—t

o find random changes in genetic material, and that not all pattern

s of change are random. He reiterates this point: So, he reaffirms

that mutations are not random, and that cell proteins—or at least

some of them—did not evolve through the gradual accumulation of sup

posed mutations. Thus, the first and last bastion of the myth colla

psed. Neither organisms were formed through random mutations, nor

does the adaptation that occurs within them result from random chan

ges. The last bastion has fallen, revealing that these bastions wer

e made of cardboard. When we examine what lies within, we find it t

o be “like a mirage in a desert, which the thirsty one mistakes for

water until, when he comes to it, he finds it to be nothing.” [An-

Nur: 39] Nothing remains of the myth of evolution. There are no mor

e countless organisms, no more gradual evolution, no more evolution

itself, no more blind selection, and no more random changes. So, w

hat did the followers of this myth do? Did they acknowledge the col

lapse of their myth? Professor Denis Noble and others even proposed

extending the theory of evolution. Meanwhile, a Nature paper argu

ed that mutations are not random, under the title: "Does the Theory

of Evolution Need Revision?" Seriously?! This reminds me of two

doctors at a skeleton. One asks the other, "Does he need treatment

?" The other replies, "I see he's fine. The blood pressure is good,

the pulse is excellent, and the breathing is going well." So, thos

e who subscribe to superstition cannot escape the box. It has to be

evolution. But what do we put after the word "evolution"? This is

what we will disagree about. Nothing of evolution remains—yet—the p

redetermined doctrinal conclusion remains. The blind dogma that mus

t remain is: No creation. Notice, my brothers, the word "evolution"

in all these theories and modifications. Its literal meaning has b

ecome: No creation. No creation of beings through wisdom and will.

This is the true, literal meaning of the word "evolution." And this

meaning must remain with the priests of superstition at all costs.

And all roads must lead to superstition. Therefore, they conclude

their comical modifications of the theory by saying: "This modified

model of the theory solves Darwin's perplexing question without th

e need for an intelligent designer." Just as Hawking made his joke

about That gravity created everything, and that this negates the ne

ed for a creator This is the conclusion that must be maintained at

all costs The theory has been completely emptied of its content Its

foundations have utterly collapsed Yet, the conclusion must remain

, even if suspended in mid-air: That there is no intentional or del

iberate creation Very well, after they said: Changes are directed,

not random, and selection is guided, not blind The question must be

asked: Who performs this guidance and selection? Here, you see the

m attributing actions to anything material, no matter how absurd th

e attribution, rather than attributing them to the All-Knowing Cre

ator, whom no eyes can perceive, yet to whom everything points. The

y attribute guidance to evolution, as in this paper in Nature, wher

e it says: That evolution has been able to reduce harmful mutation