got good production
you got a story
when richard dawkins was asked about the
origin of life meaning if life exists
outside our universe and if so have
aliens made contact with us
one time we were fish
what is the evidence for this we're
climbing trees this is not something
based on scientific evidence this is in
the world of apes monkeys
the first person to actually say that
darwinism was a religion and here you go
and this is uh
here on the dean's show
go ahead and subscribe right now hit
that notification bell help us get our
numbers back up did you know that
many years ago the dean show when we
started 2006 we used to broadcast for
many years on the khalifa clothing
channel currently known as digital
minbot so we're trying to get our
numbers back up because the channel at
that time got closed then we started the
official d show channel we're trying to
get our numbers back up to where they
should be
and that's this number here 855 combined
what we currently have 442 we should be
over a million subscribers help us to
get our numbers back to where they
should be with that small setback that
we had many years ago you guys can help
us by subscribing right now and hitting
that notification bell thank you very
much enjoy the rest of this show
and don't forget to support us on our
patreon page
[Music]
if you haven't already my next guest
sabur ahmed is the author of the
forthcoming book a failed hypothesis he
is part of the sapience institute team
he is a public speaker debater and
writer he focused on
engaging with new the new atheism
and has also traveled extensively across
the globe teaching muslims how to
articulate islam to non-muslims
support specializes in the philosophy of
science with the focus on darwin's
theory of evolution he has debated many
prominent atheists over the years
including professors atheists activists
and internet personalities on the topics
of science god's existence and darwinism
he has given talks across north america
latin america australia africa the list
goes on support has a m a in philosophy
from birkbeck college university of
london he is currently a phd candidate
specializing in the philosophy of
biology you got to know him a little bit
now you're going to get to know him a
little bit more as we talk about
evolution and also this new religion
there's so many man-made religions
another one's been added to the bunch
called scientism
so let's
enjoy this week's show with our brother
our guest
for ahmed salam alaykum
thank you for inviting me on the show
alhamdulillah so you heard me uh talk
about this new religion there's so many
man-made religions it seems like there's
a new one added to the bunch have you
heard of it scientism
yeah scientism is a very interesting one
um as you know eddie that you know
you've been you've been on the internet
long enough to know that every couple of
years something becomes more popular
than others and you get these uh you
know new age beliefs you get all these
different types of things so scientism
is one of those things that's always
been there in the background but the
last couple of years has really come to
the fore
so scientism is essentially
using the cloak of science
to push out a religious ideology a
philosophy so it's it's using the word
science and and the language of science
and the if you like the status of uh
scientists to actually push out
something which is nothing to do with
science so we can define it
in the following way
it is
an excessive belief in the scientific
method and at a popular level this leads
to some very false claims by by people
who uh subscribe to scientism so the
thing is
firstly no one will call themselves
a scientism uh proponent right they will
not say i believe in scientism they'll
just say things like and i'm going to
ask you whether you've heard this before
i don't believe in god i believe in
science um there's no scientific proof
for that so i cannot believe it for
anything to be believable it has to be
scientific have you ever heard anything
like this before you hear this a lot
yeah absolutely i've heard it definitely
yes that is scientific person a lot of
times who's you know just repeating this
is just somebody a lot of times who has
no idea really what true science is you
know what i mean has probably even taken
a science class
absolutely i mean usually uh what it's
like is it it's a get out of jail card
right it's like okay well okay i don't
really have a way of responding to you
okay so
you know give me scientific evidence
like forgot right
so what we need to do is we actually
need to break down this
worldview did this actual philosophy
this actual religion of scientism so the
first thing to note about these people
is that they say
for something to be knowledge
it has to have scientific evidence
and if something does not have
scientific evidence therefore it cannot
be knowledge right
and
later on uh in the discussions they
would say things like well since there
is no scientific evidence for god there
is no god because they consider the only
type of evidence to be
scientific evidence so that's the first
claim we're going to break down
inshallah
so that's what we're going to start with
okay go ahead let's break that down
okay so we can ask a series of questions
to the person we can ask them
so you've said that you only believe in
knowledge if it can be scientifically
verified
and the person would obviously yes
because that's what they were alluding
to earlier
you can ask them a series of questions
you can ask them
okay my my friend
do you have
a great great great great going back 50
60 generations a grandfather do you do
you actually have
um a grandfather going back 50 60
generations what were they gonna say yes
they're gonna say yes
and
let's just say i was to push it a bit
and say are you sure about that are you
like certain you have knowledge of this
no doubt they say no doubt no doubt
exactly
then i'll say to them well
can you give me any scientific evidence
for the existence of your 50th
generation going back grandfather what
scientific evidence is there they'll say
i got some pictures of me and grandpa
okay good now the problem there is
if the pictures did exist how do we know
that's actually your grandpa it could
just be your great uncle it could be
some other guy but going back 50
generations obviously there were no
pictures back then yeah but what other
sort of evidence could they use
so
they're gonna they're gonna go ahead and
pretty much uh testify testifiable as
evidence you know said because it's come
down from my my
uh my mother my father my grandfather et
cetera yep exactly so they're gonna say
well
this i know because my mom told me and
my dad told me and they were told by
their parents that so going back
this must have happened there's also
something else right so that what you
just referred to correctly is known as
testimony right that's a rule of
knowledge as well independent of science
so we know history to through testimony
how do we know for example um that
caesar existed or kangaskhan existed and
napoleon existed people that we do
believe existed it's not through science
it's actually true testimony
yeah if they're to turn around and say
well i could somehow find my
grandfather's grave and do a dna test
well even if you could find your
grandfather's
50 generations going back
his particular grave
you haven't done that test right now but
you believe right now that that is your
grandfather did exist going back 50
generations so that's testimonial
knowledge there's also something else
that they could respond with they could
say
well i exist
my father existed and going back
logically his father must have existed
and going back usually using logical
deduction
my 50th generation grandfather must have
existed that's just pure logic going
down so again that's another rule of
knowledge which is logic which has
nothing to do with
uh science so so far just by one
question we've got two sources of
knowledge which are independent of
science now i could ask um a third uh
sorry a second question uh to
the person asking so wait go ahead stop
so yeah testimony what was the other one
logic logic yes yeah so you're using
logic to come up with
um conclusions right that's nothing to
do with uh
science
okay so you can ask them another
question you could say to them okay
do you believe
that if you see a child being run over
deliberately that you see that happening
there's an evil person and they run over
a child and they kill a child you see
this horrific sight
do you feel that that is evil do you
feel that that is wrong
they what what would they say they're
gonna agree yeah they're gonna agree yes
and do you believe that if somebody ran
in front and saved the child just before
it got hit that that would be a good
thing it's a hero yes okay so these
feelings that you have these morals that
you have right
how passionate are you about these
things
very passionate very passionate in fact
eddie human history
is a history of
people rising up for moral reasons you
know you have you have the entire
history of humanity when you break it
down you find that there are moral
movements throughout history even today
we get massive moral social movements so
someone says i only believe in something
if it can be scientifically demonstrated
or verified or proved then we could
simply say then we could simply say to
them well
that child being saved or that child
horrifically being killed
there is no scientific evidence for
right and wrong but you believe in it
and you believe it to be true
so if you're to deny
knowledge that does not uh knowledge
that um does not come through science
you are to deny good and bad and duties
and you're to deny morality and in fact
civilization in fact you are denying
what makes us human right
so so far we have
logic we have testimony and we have
morality our belief in morals so
just by asking a few questions we can
actually show that scientism's falling
apart now i'm going to ask another
question to the person i'm going to say
to them
do you believe
that the world is real that you and i
are talking right now and the world is
real
yeah
absolutely okay well if this world is
real then what is the scientific
evidence that the world is real
there is actually no argument you can
make that using science that
this world is real all you could simply
say is well for science to even work for
anything to even make sense
the world being real is something we
axiomatically all accept we all accept
it it's something for which we don't
need to give scientific evidence for but
it's knowledge we all have so now we
have self-evident truths things that we
know to be true
but we don't actually
uh we can't actually prove those things
scientifically so so far we've had um
you know a few
roots of knowledge there's also um
something else that we could speak about
which is mathematics we could ask them
you know a squared plus b squared is c
squared right you do this in school you
know you solve all these things are
those things scientific knowledge no
those are mathematical knowledge so
using these different
types of thought experiments we can show
them that your scientism worldview
actually completely falls apart just by
asking a few surface level questions
so what's the difference now between
scientism
and science
good so science is the application of
reason to the natural world it is a way
of understanding
explaining analyzing making predictions
and so on and so forth so science is a
beautiful thing we love science we don't
have a problem with science science is a
method of trying to gain knowledge about
the real world
now we have no problem with someone that
believes in science because we believe
in science when someone
takes science and says no this
rule of knowledge is the only root of
knowledge
everything else is irrelevant
that is scientism where they've taken
the garb of science and they've actually
excessively applied it to other domains
of knowledge and and tried to monopolize
them and said no the only type of
knowledge is scientific knowledge so
that's the difference between scientism
and science what are the main claim
claims of scientism
so we
covered
uh their claim about monopolizing
knowledge
another thing that we see
is that
usually the proponents of scientism
in in the popular culture and i don't
want to get into the academic discussion
about scientism and the academic
definitions because those are
different to what we face in the public
but one of the things that proponents
usually and you get this a lot at
colleges universities you you get this a
lot um in terms of uh the internet
atheist
is they will make claims of science
being certain
science giving absolute knowledge you
know that science is there to give you
knowledge which is not going to change
which is absolutely certain and that's a
claim that we can actually challenge
through you know again
asking a few questions
so what we could do about this claim is
we could ask them
is it not true that a scientific theory
that we have today
we are basing it upon the knowledge that
we have gained so that's something that
we all agree about
however isn't it also true that we
haven't
got all of the information that's in the
world
so tomorrow
we could gain
a novel piece of data or novel uh
you know observation which could
challenge our previous theory that
that's a very simple point you don't
have all the knowledge in the world
tomorrow you can come up with something
that you haven't seen before that can
contradict your previous theory this in
the philosophy of science
is known as the problem of induction
that you cannot be certain of a theory
that you've come up with today because
tomorrow you can come up with an
observation or a piece of data that will
contradict your previous theory so
that's the first point that we can make
and it's known as a problem
of induction
the second point is
under determination
under determination so under
determination
is that
using the same data
we can come up with many different types
of inferences we can come up with many
different types
of ways of looking at
the ways of looking at the conclusion
so i'll ask you a question on this
say i give you five dollars
right
and i tell you to go down to downtown
chicago
and i want you to use up the five
dollars and to buy
apples and oranges so you have to come
back both with apples and oranges okay
and say the apple costs one dollar
and the orange costs one dollar
so both of those items are one dollar
and i sent you away with this you have
to spend the full five dollars
and when you come back i want you to
bring apples and oranges
and both of them are one dollar each
okay
now
what are you going to come back with
when you when you come back
from shopping apples and oranges and no
money
apples and oranges no money exactly now
here's the problem eddie right you could
get
three oranges and two apples
that's a possibility
or you can get four oranges and one
apple
so you get the point there's many
different combinations using the data
that you have to use five dollars using
the data is one dollar each and you have
to get both apples and oranges just
those three pieces of data
you can come back with a lot of
combinations yeah
likewise
a theory is inferred from the data but
the data we can use to infer other
theories
okay this is known as under
determination now
a lot of the time
these people who believe in scientism
and are using the garb of scientism as
you rightly pointed out they probably
haven't even done a science class uh at
a graduate level right so they'll
usually run away by the time you've
highlighted just one or two problems but
just just for the sake of it i'll just
quickly go over some more
we also have theory-ladenness in which
the theory colors the data uh we also
have um
a problem of unconceived alternatives
where there are
solutions to
the data that we have but we can't think
of them because we haven't actually
conceived on them this happened during
the time that we can see between newton
and einstein and then there's another
issue of methodological naturalism and
philosophical naturalism
you know eddie even before you get to
these points you usually find that you
don't need to go that far
they realize that they try to hoodwink
you and you know you're not having it
it's over yeah it's over basically yeah
yeah so there's other there's one claim
i think this is the most preposterous is
that science disproves the creator god
yep
yeah i think this is the most ridiculous
one
yeah so what you got because because
haven't there been i mean there are so
many scientists and i want to get into
this uh
in a few
that now the institution has been pretty
much set up that it's an atheist secular
institution these secular institutions
atheism is the religion pretty much and
now all these people who who fight for
creationism you know they've kind of
been blacklisted you know they're the
ones who are not invited to the parties
they're like it's like they don't even
exist yeah so they're scientists also
they're also academics who went to the
same schools
absolutely and look
i think the first point to note here
is they're using an argument and their
argument is this hey look guys look at
all these scientists you know all of
them today or most of them or a large
percentage of them they happen to be
agnostic or atheist so
therefore
agnosticism or atheism must be coming
from science that's their basic argument
right and they'll throw out all sorts of
statistics like 90 something percent in
the american association of scientists
or whatever
do not believe in a personal god and all
this type of stuff
and you find
people like richard dawkins who are
quite well known
popularizing these arguments in their
books
now the problem with this argument is
let's just
not break down why this argument's wrong
let's actually use this argument against
them so their argument is
oh wow
look at all these scientists today and
they all
must be um you know
they all
doubt the existence of a personal god so
therefore we should all basically become
atheists
um the problem with this argument is
this is a very small snapshot of history
if we actually
go back and we look at the entire
scientific enterprise over hundreds of
years
we'll find that the majority of the
scientists were theists they were people
who believed in god so if we're to use
this argument for the
19th century 20th century uh 21st
century going back all all the way to
the 10th century and if we're to do that
then we would say the vast majority of
scientists throughout history were
theists that's why we should all become
theists so the problem with the argument
is it can work against them the second
thing is it's not actually a valid
argument if all the sign if all the
scientists in the world today
decided uh
something that they believed in right
does that mean that we should all like
sheep without thinking start following
them
that that's not true at all what we need
to understand is that the atheism and
agnosticism of today which generally
dominates uh the scientific domain in
terms of the western world this has
cultural um
origins
more than
anything to do with science itself so we
have to understand that this argument is
not valid it works against them and two
it's trying to invoke this type of
sheepish behavior from us but the fact
is we shouldn't actually fall for those
types of arguments there is nothing
absolutely nothing that science can do
to undermine god's existence the issue
they have is scientism they say
because there is no scientific evidence
of god
therefore there is no god and we're
gonna we're gonna turn around and say to
them
we never said there has to be scientific
evidence for god we can come up with
rational arguments for god the problem
with you guys is you think rationality
and science is the same thing which is
the problem of scientism
that takes me back to what you you
mentioned a um prominent
i would say because you've instead
extensively
studied i mean um
debated and you've got a lot of
knowledge in this new atheism
what's the difference before i asked my
ads ask you my question atheism for
people i know and this
when you put the term new atheism what's
the difference now atheism and new
atheism and then i'll ask you my
question yeah that's a very good
question actually because it can get
confusing so
atheism is generally
a position in which you
do not believe there is a god or you are
um you know
we have agnostic atheism as well where
people are kind of like unsure but it's
just a position that somebody holds that
look i don't believe in god i'm good i'm
an atheist right
new atheism is actually a social
movement or a
we can say it was a social movement it's
really dying down now so this movement
was really spearheaded after um 911
by the likes of richard dawkins sam
harris daniel denney and christopher
hitchens who are known as the four
horsemen of atheism and their ideas
collectively came out so you had the god
delusion coming out by richard dawkins
you had the end of faith you had god is
not great um i forgot daniel dennis book
and all these guys started publishing
books they started doing conferences
they started doing debates
their view was okay we're going to
finish religion you know we're going to
kill religion we're going to do this
you can see this in their videos they're
openly saying this and it turned out to
be a really flat-footed assumption of
theirs that they could just you know
swipe away islam swipe away christianity
just wipe away faith from the hearts of
people because
you know
back in 2006 when they were making these
types of noises we're here in 2021
and what we find is that their movement
basically fell apart
it didn't really gain
as many followers as they actually
wanted to they even wanted to move into
politics some of them right
um i mean other new atheists started you
know rallying for these types of reason
rally in america and you know all this
type of stuff um but but that's that's
the actual difference that one is a
social contemporary movement and one is
just a position that someone holds so is
it safe to say these are like the
radical atheists like the isis atheists
well
the the thing which is very interesting
and i'm glad you get my point these are
the ones these are the ones who are kind
of uh the extreme atheists
well
what we what we would say is that
um
say when you come up with because then
sam harris wasn't he the one that said
i'd blow up mecca we should push it
actually actually one of the things he
wrote about was new king
the new new king uh
um and also what you find amongst them
is they openly talk about discriminating
against muslims and doing these types of
things um eddie i think it's very
important to understand that these
people
they don't they do not call for violence
so even when when samhaira says these
things he's saying them as a
hypothetical thing so you know they
wouldn't they wouldn't be violent
themselves or call for violence but what
we do need to understand is
they don't have power right they don't
actually have power they just have uh
the ability to write some books and and
so they're playing the system but if
like if they had the power be a
different story well i i wouldn't say if
these guys had the power they would
actually be violent what i would say is
let's look at what happened when
atheists did have power that's the point
yeah
for example uh you know communist russia
you know the hundreds of millions of
people not hundreds uh uh
what's it called uh
one of the stats is a hundred million
people died yeah in the century because
of communist uh you know how many died
during the reign of the bolsheviks yeah
exactly exactly you you get
you know horrific crimes against
religious uh communities you get you
know all these types of destruction of
religious property uh innocent people
get killed you know and we see this in
um for example uh not only uh when uh
these communist countries take over
um you know their own uh regions but
also when they take over central asian
countries uh like uzbekistan tajikistan
turkmenistan and all these places
so because you often hear you know the
cliche the argument the mantra that
people are like all religions are the
cause of all war right
when you get down to the nitty-gritty i
mean it's actually the people who are
godless who don't believe in a god
because there's no moral compass so they
can do whatever they want and and
historically this is what we see even
currently what's happening uh
modern day inquisition is happening what
right now with the uh with the uber
muslims right and that's a communist
party there's killing raping and the
world is like asleep
absolutely and the thing is
when these people say look we're
peaceful atheists but we're just you
know intellectually trying to challenge
you guys
we would return and say to them well
that's fine you know you're peaceful and
all of that you guys but look at what
the people who subscribe to your
worldview have done in the past so you
can't say this against the muslim
community oh muslims are violent because
this this this thing happened and those
people share your faith
and then when it comes to the people who
share your faith because atheism is a
faith that you don't need to answer for
them i mean we will openly condemn
terrorism we will openly condemn
extremism we'll openly condemn these
things but you guys you don't even
accept that they're part of your flock
when they clearly are stalin lenin
chairman mao who were these people they
weren't christians or muslims or jewish
people they were militant atheists and
they believed they actually believed and
uh reinforced this throughout their
territory that they wanted to basically
replace religion and have themselves and
their ideologies as the supreme things
because um if you don't believe in god
if you do not have any belief in god if
you uh
reject the hereafter
and you have ultimate uh power you know
in their minds at least the the the sort
of power that they thought they had then
what's to stop that evil that they have
within themselves right and that's why
you find mass atrocities committed by
these atheists in the 20th century so
you can take a you can make a good guess
that the people that you mention these
are like the modern-day prophets for the
new atheism these militant
atheists
now the new who follow this new atheism
i mean you could just take a good guess
like what side would they be on where
would they kind of like fit in if they
had the power
well why why it's it's not a far stretch
what the imagination where someone is
talking about you know oh we should nuke
it but you know if they had the power
why wouldn't they press the button
well
this is quite interesting because i
think
a lot of these people would never want
atheists to have that much political
power and you know it's very interesting
i've actually been seeing um
among some of these atheists that they
see a utility in religion as long as
someone else does the believing right
because they know themselves they know
themselves deep down that they would
rather be in a society in which you have
you know you have uh many different
religions many different systems many
different things going on then be in a
state like communist russia or you know
these states which are you know where
there's only one ideology and they have
all this type of power but i mean
definitely uh with people like uh uh sam
harris and and you know these like who
who openly advocate uh you know these
types of ideas one can only guess what's
going through their head and what would
happen if they actually had power yeah
it's crazy so let's go back to uh
because it's intertwined
all together
scientism and then how would you fit in
evolution
with scientism
that's a good
doesn't that kick it off
yeah i mean
it it it's like um
once they get the first assumption wrong
once they you know the first assumption
wrong yes
once they step into the arena with the
wrong lens then everything else starts
messing up so if they go into um
evolutionary theory
with the idea that science is the only
root of knowledge
with the idea that uh science is certain
and with the idea that science
undermines god which are the three main
claims uh that you you hear these uh
popularizers uh talk about
then you'll come up with really absurd
conclusions so one of the things
that these guys do
is they say
evolutionary theory
undermines darwinian theory undermines
the existence of god it does away with
god's existence there is no need for
god's existence
now this is one of the most
popular ideas out there that somehow
darwin came along and he absolutely
destroyed
intellectually the any idea of of there
being a divine being
now what's interesting about this is
although you find people like richard
dawkins lawrence krauss and all these
people
saying this
they themselves
deep down know this
is not the case
darwin was never an atheist this is
something very interesting hold on see
this is a lot of people don't know this
i mean this is something that is just
for someone listening to you right now
please repeat that yeah so darwin
was never an atheist in fact darwin did
not like his theory being used to
buttress atheism
in fact he said in my wildest
fluctuations i was never an atheist
when he published his book in 1859
he was what we would call a deist
according to his own words a deist
a deist is somebody who believes in god
but does not believe in religion so when
he published the origin of species he
believed in god prior to that some
decades back he was a christian near the
end of his life he became an agnostic
because of the problem of evil and
suffering now what they do is they only
take
what fits their narrative so when darwin
openly says
that you know someone can be a theist
and believe in his theory they'll ignore
that part but what they will do is when
darwin is for example being attacked by
like he was attacked by some christians
when he was alive they would use and say
look they were suppressing him and you
know he was being mocked and this and
that so they try and create this false
dichotomy here's darwin versus theism
darwin versus god when darwin was a lot
more sophisticated in his thinking and
he was a lot more respectful to the
belief in god and a lot more respectful
in fact to uh christianity as well
most people don't know they hear the
term evolution they ascribe that it's
scientific it's golden this is the new
discoveries we're
we're in the modern day uh so i wanna
i'm gonna share this video with you and
let's just kind of you know um look
through it real quickly and then get
your thoughts on it
see notice one thing i want to show you
got good production
you got a story and you got a lot of
funds
so i kind of go through this quickly
you're familiar your biologists you're
familiar with all these right
okay keep going keep going
at one time we were fish
[Music]
this is the evolution process they're
explaining correct yep
okay
so
now we're about to take a big jump now
now we're out of the water
and we're climbing trees
[Music]
now we're in the world of apes monkeys
[Music]
and here you go
and this is uh
support here on the dean show
okay is that pretty accurate that's like
the mainstream
yeah i mean this is uh this is the
traditional view of the tree of life and
how life evolved
and stuff however i just want to point
out some things just within the few
seconds of the opening there's a huge
huge
um
statement that was there with absolutely
no evidence today right there
so what they'll say is okay so in the
beginning there was the cell
right
there was the cell and that cell came
from primordial soup or whatever right
you have all these all these different
ideas that they have
now they call this abiogenesis they call
this from non-life to life right
now
we need to simply ask them what is the
evidence for this
and just by that question you will
rattle them
you you will actually
repeat the question and simply ask them
what is the evidence for abiogenesis
what is the evidence that
life came from non-life and also what is
the evidence that there was one
origin of life that there was one
self-replicating molecule cell whatever
just ask them this question
and see what their response is because
you know you know you can get into all
sorts of uh
deep uh technical analysis of all these
models that they have a great uh
scientist to look at this is dr james
tall uh he blows out of the water all of
these you know pathetic claims that
they've worked out a biogenesis they
worked out how life came from non-life
but you can simply ask them okay so you
just made this claim and this supposedly
happened four billion years ago um can
you explain to us what's the evidence
for this
i wouldn't be surprised if they even
give you an answer yeah that's that's
deep i mean so that goes back to is it a
belief or is it fact because you have to
take a a big
leap of faith what they usually again
attribute to religion and god
so because so you're is it synonymous
what you're saying as if you're asking
for observable testable evidence
yeah so you know i think this is where
um
it's very important for us to talk about
it is way more than just a scientific
claim
they have faith in this this is if you
like the atheist genesis story this is
their origin story
they
have absolutely no evidence that there
was one cell right and and four billion
years ago these things happened but
since they believe there is no god
then they have to come up with some sort
of story and that is the story that they
actually come up with now i have respect
for
those
uh evolutionary biologists and those uh
philosophers who openly speak up and
criticize
these issues so what we'll find is that
and here i'm going to speak about
atheists and agnostics i'm not talking
about christians or muslims or jewish
people or anybody with some sort of uh
belief in religion so we have people
like um
the atheist philosopher thomas nagel who
wrote the book
mind in cosmos um
which is published by oxford university
and he mentions this he actually
mentions that you know the idea that
life came from non-life and all of this
naturalistically evolved this is not
something based on scientific evidence
this is some uh
a paradigm which they have and it's just
you know difficult to actually question
and anybody that tries to question it is
is actually you know ridiculed then you
get people like uh jerry foda who you
know when he tried to question uh
darwinism he was called a secular
creationist they couldn't call him a
creationist because he was an atheist
then you get people like james shapiro
uh master tashinai lin margulis you get
these biologists who openly say
that um you know darwinian evolution is
is essentially a religion right in fact
lynn margulis says something very
interesting she was the late wife of
carl sagan the famous
uh physicist right so although she was
an atheist she said you know history
will judge neo-darwinism to be an
anglo-sax
anglo-saxon religion right so the
problem here is
that there is
a huge
pressure in academia to suppress
information which goes against
uh darwin's theory and and you know the
the
uh the worry about creationism and you
know these these guys coming in there's
a fantastic documentary uh creationist
what do you say back to them when they
say you're a creationist
did i hit it is that the one yeah yeah
yeah unguided and undesigned way the
theory of evolution excuse me
yes
ben how did life begin in the first
place
mr stein you have the same question
every time well you never answered sir
it developed this we are just
you you know we've been through this so
many times you haven't been an
intelligent designer
[Music]
sorry i cut you off but uh
did i hit it right it's like
is that the one that's the one and that
documentary is amazing we didn't plan we
didn't plan this see
this is an amazing documentary what the
first person you showed was actually
uh dr jonathan wells right
um so you find him in there you find
stephen meyer you you find michael b
paul uh nelson and some of these people
alhamdulillah they've come on to my
channel and i've actually interviewed
them as well the fact is that these are
people who are academically
given the freedom to express their views
because they were coming up with
information going against you know
darwinian theory the contemporary ideas
that we actually have so these are guys
associated with the intelligent design
movement
the movement which is
there to not just say okay let's just um
take uh you know darwinian evolution
throw it out and let's just start
teaching religion no these are people
who are saying no let's have a
discussion you can have your darwinian
evolution we can have our intelligent
design hypothesis let's have a
scientific discussion and they're being
denied that
so you know no free and no intelligence
allowed is the name of the documentary
and right near the end of the
documentary when it comes to the origin
of life remember i told you eddie they
don't really have an answer
when richard dawkins was asked about the
origin of life
he actually said it's possible
that life originated from aliens who
sent down life on earth
i don't know if you've seen go ahead
finish that's crazy i always say that
whenever i'm talking about the topic of
atheism i always mention that they
always and this is the lay person they
come out and they start talk they won't
believe in the creator but they'll start
talking about aliens yeah and you know
what's what's interesting is
they'll try and label in a very
fancy way so for example the actual term
for this
is called panspermia panspermia and
francis crick uh the one who discovered
the
double helix shape of the dna he's the
one who proposed this idea he was an
atheist and he couldn't explain the
complexity of life so he had this idea
that life was sent to earth
via rockets from you know
extraterrestrials living some place else
and you know when richard dawkins was
because you know obviously he's a fan of
crick and
when he was asked by
um
by the interviewer in this particular
documentary near the end that okay so
if
life was sent down by these aliens um to
earth
where did the aliens come from and he
said they evolved from darwinian
evolution
but basically it's just passing on the
buck it's laughable at this point but
but it's it's crazy people can still
keep buying their books people still
keep you know still in line to get more
of the stories but like i said when i uh
showed you this um clip
as a story
it's good production and it's well
funded
let me get into the clip
that's part of the documentary that i
wanted to show you well i usually don't
get the opportunity
what's at stake for you personally here
first of all i love science i think
the way darwinism corrupts the evidence
distorts the evidence is bad for science
uh well the other scientists would tell
you to just shut up if you love science
okay
because you're sort of you're sort of
being a bomb thrower into science
i am upsetting the apple cart and i
think i think it deserves to be upset in
this case why because the evidence is
being distorted to prop up a theory that
i think doesn't fit it
was darwinism really that bad
perhaps a change of scenery would give
me a fresh perspective
[Music]
so that it could be correct that's a
very different question one of one of my
um prevailing doctrines about darwinian
theory is man that that thing is just a
mess it's like looking into a room full
of smoke
um nothing nothing in the theory is
precisely clearly carefully defined or
delineated it lacks all of the rigor one
expects from mathematical physics and
mathematical physics lacks all the rigor
one expects from mathematics so we're
talking about a gradual descent down the
level of intelligibility until we reach
evolutionary biology we don't even know
what a species is for heaven's sakes so
his theory is
smoke but elegant smoke
there's a certain elegance to it but you
know i think einstein had the
appropriate remark he preferred to leave
elegance to his tailor a room full of
smoke
that certainly wasn't what i was hearing
from prominent darwinists like richard
dawkins evolution is a fact it's a fact
which is established as securely as
essentially any other fact that we have
in science richard dawkins is so
confident that evolution is a fact and
that therefore god doesn't exist that he
has devoted his entire life to spreading
the evolution gospel i'm an atheist with
respect to the judeo-christian god
because there is not a shred of evidence
in favor of the judeo-christian god it
is it is completely right to say that
since the evidence for evolution is so
absolutely totally overwhelming nobody
who looks at it could possibly doubt
that if they were saying
uh and not stupid so the only remaining
possibility is that they're ignorant and
the most and most people who don't
believe in evolution are indeed ignorant
but the people i spoke with weren't
ignorant they were highly credentialed
scientists so there had to be something
else going on here so you think the
whole
theory of evolution is false or just
certain parts of it
well again evolution is a slippery word
i would say minor changes within species
happen
but darwin didn't write a book called
how species how existing species change
over time he wrote a book called the
origin of species
he purported to show how
this same process i say leads to new
species in fact every species
and the evidence for that grand claim is
in my opinion almost totally lacking how
does darwin or or darwinism say life
began well he didn't know and in fact
nobody knows so
darwinism strictly defined starts after
the origin of life
from the back to the front nobody knows
but we know
it's in the quran
it's
it's there but we're talking about from
the academic circles here they don't
know
but
you have um in the beginning he talks
about these scientists are talking about
it's like a room of smoke
elegant smoke
yeah i mean this is where you know we
can give people a very good solution we
can say to them look when you are
working within the field of science when
you're at university or any of these
things you can accept
any scientific theory even darwinian
evolution as a valid scientific theory
paradigm model
but you don't accept it to be literally
true because the real issue here eddie
is that people don't understand the
philosophy of science and nor do they
understand the science itself when it
comes to evolutionary theory they don't
understand the alternatives to darwinian
evolution like intelligent design
because intelligent design is not
allowed to be taught in fact critic
critics of darwin who themselves are not
even christian or muslim or have any
faith they themselves have also been
you know sidelined so if a theory is you
know so robust then why are they afraid
of a bit of criticism why are they
afraid of actually having a dialogue
like these guys that you just
showed in this documentary
rather than cancelling them wasn't it
better to actually bring them into a
room ask them where's your argument
where's my argument okay let's have it
and it's a natural selection of ideas
until someone wins
but we don't have that and uh you know
it's quite sad
they want to shut down the debate i mean
they haven't sorry they have shut down
the debate in academia
if you say intelligent design like if
you try and publish a paper if you
you cannot
there is no debate in academia on this
right now in a significant way because
they are cancelling people left right
and center in fact people are scared of
actually
saying that they're planning on writing
stuff on this
wow that is deep if you think about it i
mean this just takes you down to just
you know um
you know you can just
go in so many directions here
if you think about this now we're a
freedom of speech we're in america right
we should be able to talk ideas
now i think everyone should watch this
documentary i've you just recommended i
recommended it also before expel no
intelligence allowed because it shows
these are academic scientists who
believe
in a creator
and now they're being silenced they're
being blacklisted they cannot come out
freely and talk about this
why
because it goes against what the
religion of
of of
um
of secularism yeah i mean i i i think
there's a there's something very
important i think this is a good point
to wrap up um
the this whole segment on you let me
just add one more thing and this is what
the our youth this is what the muslims
are getting and christians and everyone
they're getting exposed to they're
getting and this religion is pushed on
you now scientism evolution this you
know this so again not denying evolution
you know to you can go ahead and you
know the parts that uh the the
difference between micro and macro and
whatnot
you know
yeah i mean the thing is look generally
the idea of evolution was known before
darwin um so we're not talking about the
general observation of evolution we're
talking about darwin's particular claims
about could you call it adaptation
yeah i mean you could call it adaptation
but the real issue here is
darwin's twin claims of universal common
ancestry and all of this happening
naturally
right without um you know uh
well neo-darwinism today which is
obviously moved away from darwin
becoming a lot militantly atheistic you
know how uh as richard dawkins calls it
the blind watchmaker you know there is
no god so that's the real issue here now
what's very interesting is
we
are not the people muslims or christians
or people of faith we are not the people
who said darwinian evolution is a
religion we're not the first person to
actually say that darwinism was a
religion
that evolutionary humanism is a religion
is actually a darwinist
so julian huxley was a very important
figure in the early 20th century
he was somebody who was a philosopher an
atheist philosopher a biologist he
contributed significantly to
neo-darwinism the contemporary theory
that we actually have
and
he believed
that
darwinism what he termed evolutionary
humanism he believed it was a religion
he actually called it a religion now
he's written a book in the
1930s i believe or early 40s and it's
called
religion without revelation a religion
you can google it right now the book is
called religion without revelation
without revelation
yeah in this book that religion without
revelation is evolutionary humanism in
his book um new bottles for new wine
which i i was just reading uh just two
days ago
again he makes uh claims about you know
darwinian evolution you can see for him
it's something way more than than just
that and i just want to highlight
something about julian huxley julian
huxley believed that
in in the in the same way today
in his time in the 40s nobody believed
that the earth
everyone accepted that the earth was not
flat right everyone accepted that you
know that the flat theory was wrong
he said in the same way in the future no
one will believe in god and he believed
that evolutionary humanism should be
evangelized to the entire world he
actually believed this now he wasn't
just a a lone wolf
he went on and eddie this is really
gonna send some shivers up your spine he
went on
to become the founding father of unesco
the united nations educational
scientific and cultural organization
unesco's first guy was julian huxley you
can go and google this and unesco has an
influence in terms of the entire world
so we need to understand this guy was an
ideologue he believed that this new
religion needed to be evangelized and he
had this very important political
position now in 2016
the most well-known darwinian author in
the world the most well-known darwinian
academic in the world the atheist
philosopher michael roos
he wrote a book
and this book i just want you to just
understand the significance of this book
this book was called
darwinism as religion
darwinism as religion and this was
published by none other than oxford
university right so you have an atheist
philosopher publishing a book
by oxford university how much more
credible can we get from their camp
right and he's far more uh he's far more
uh
greater in status than people like
richard dawkins in the field of
darwinian evolution now he in that book
he basically argues from the onset till
today darwinian evolution may be a
scientific theory but it has been more
than that
it has been a perspective beyond just a
scientific theory it has been a religion
right so what i want people to
understand
especially people who disagree with us
is we're not the ones saying that
darwinian evolution is a religion this
is your guys
and it's your ideologues who've been
behind this sociological movement to try
and evangelize the world towards a
darwinian perspective
and that goes back to what i was trying
to say was now you're going into a
university and if you're not equipped
knowing these things and now you see the
professor and he's following his prophet
who's richard dawkins and now this is
someone who is spewing beautiful you
know what you perceive as you know
a beautiful rhetoric and you're like wow
you're just amazed at the words he's
using and you're not well grounded in
your deen first of all and you don't
know many of these things that you just
uncovered this is so important that you
know these things you know that a lot of
the stuff that they
go ahead and teach this stuff is
baseless it's not on evidence like you
said you know this is a story
it's funded very well and then you end
up you know leaving your dean because of
this
absolutely and i would add to that eddie
that you have some very good professors
as well uh you have some people who are
although they're atheists
although they are darwinists themselves
they would not be ideologically driven
in the same way people like richard
dawkins are so
on youtube you will find a talk between
myself and a professor at the university
of birmingham uh professor jeremy
pritchard who is a specialist in his
field and we go over this right even
though he's on he's in a different camp
he's an atheist and i'm a muslim and
he's uh uh you know and um
we're not going to agree on everything
that discussion we had is called does
evolution undermine god and he agreed
that it doesn't and you get professors
like this who are open who say no
you know this is not true you know this
isn't something that undermines belief
in god and it is much more complex than
that much more sophisticated than that
much more nuanced than that but it's
people like richard dawkins who wants
this war
in the classroom between believers and
and atheists and and he wants to make it
look like you have to be one or the
other and you have to be at each other's
throats when we're actually trying to
give a much more um
academic type of discourse here yeah so
anybody's interested they can go watch
that talk as well as we wrap up now um
just a couple more points uh i want to
ask a couple more questions so really at
the end it's not
the bottom line is not truth in this in
these academic settings it's the bottom
line is not it should be ultimately if
it's science and you're following
science and you want to get to the truth
of the matter but at the end of the day
if you watch this documentary it's like
okay everything else can possibly you
know we can entertain it you know uh the
piggybacking of on the crystals you know
that theory we can entertain this but as
soon as it comes to intelligent design
no no no even if that's the truth we
won't accept that
yeah it doesn't make any sense
what we need to do as as uh especially
as muslims
is
you can have a large part of the world
believing something and we know this as
muslims but that doesn't mean that it's
true so you can have a large part of the
world which right after 9 11 believed
islam was a certain type of ideology but
all those ideas were wrong all of those
you know people churning out those
things
they were all wrong so just because a
lot of people are saying the same thing
sometimes we even we as muslims we think
man i don't want to be like the black
sheep uh you know sticking out in a
crowd um you know i i i wanna be
you know i just wanna be with you know
with everybody i wanna conform but
actually darwin himself stood out he was
like no this is you know like he didn't
agree with the people of his time so he
came up with his own theory so there's
nothing wrong with being that black
sheep there's nothing wrong with
standing up and saying no you know we
are gonna stand up uh to this we're
gonna i mean look at it from this
perspective
racism say
uh 60 years ago was completely
acceptable right in places like in
america then you had you know rosa parks
you know you had these people who stood
up and said no we're not going to accept
this and you find this in other parts of
the world you find this in indigenous
communities which are standing up to say
their spanish occupiers you get this you
get this in the indian subcontinent as
well so you know we shouldn't be shy
of going against the grain we shouldn't
be shy as muslims as believers as people
who believe
that we are upon the truth of going
against something that may be very
popular in society it shouldn't upset us
right shouldn't scare us we should
actually be at the forefront of this and
what i would say
is credit uh is due to the intelligent
design guys uh and obviously women as
well who are involved um that they've
they've stuck to their guns you know
they've really had this onslaught from
all across uh you know um
the atheist world and they've managed to
stick in there
yeah and uh it surprised me who was this
person again this is
that you said he claimed this
term that this evolution is actually a
religion and to go ahead and spread this
all over the world and
julian huxley
that had me thinking like what at the
end
are you spreading like what moral code
what moral compass what what are you
giving to the what do you have to offer
at the end you know and in contrast that
when we talk about you know islam for
instance submission to the creator not
the creation you're talking about
spreading justice in the world ending
injustice you're talking about ending
hunger feeding all of humanity you're
talking about free health care you're
talking about any everything that's good
out there
you know you're talking about spreading
peace your peace acquired by submitting
your will to god to the creator i mean
everything good pure this is what we're
talking about giving to the world uh
what are they talking about spreading at
the end of the day and you've raised a
very good point so i just want to
remind uh everybody of something
very important in terms of the history
of darwinism
after darwin's death
in fact while he was alive this movement
started that is known today as social
darwinism
now social darwinism
is essentially the ideas of darwin
applied to society now today this is
ridiculed as a pseudoscience and no one
takes it seriously however at the time
this was
the good stuff this was the stuff that
was being pumped out of even some
universities the nazis took it to
another level and they started
exterminating the weaker uh segments of
their society um and you know people
that they saw as uh you know racially
inferior so you know social darwinists
they would see
the you know the strong capitalists
surviving and the weaker the weaker ones
uh you know us not having a duty towards
them eugenics you know um yeah
all this stuff this this is historically
true
survival very much it's survival of the
fittest
in fact today right now
if you walk past a hospital that is the
survival of the unfittest and you're
paying for it with your tax dollars that
goes against darwinian theory human
behavior goes against darwin's theory so
um you know it's so important that we
need to understand ideas like the
selfish gene
you know they promoted this type of
capitalist culture
we can't deny these things now obviously
there's some evolutionary thinkers today
who are saying oh that's got nothing to
do with us that's fine but historically
we know these things happen and like you
said islam is there to teach you
you know i'll tell you something funny
eddie right
why are people kind to each other for
survival of the fittest
they don't have an answer
so they think oh the reason why you're
nice is because you expect something
back which they call reciprocal altruism
or you're you're nice to somebody
because they're related to you because
they hold your genes they call that kin
selection we as muslims say we're nice
to people because we deep down are nice
because we have a fitra we believe in
god right in fact human beings generally
right we have a lot of good within us we
have that good which islam is trying to
amplify right that's a much more
beautiful idea of human nature than the
selfish gene or social darwinism or
sociobiology all this stuff that they
try and uh color us with all right go
ahead and leave us with something
purpose that's the theme of the dean's
show trying to get people to reflect to
think about their purpose why they've
been created why are they here in this
life and where are they going when they
die so leave us with something that you
can have the university student
the person who follows scientism and now
he's questioning it leave us with
something to have people the light bulb
go on to have them think more about what
is the true purpose of life what do you
leave them with absolutely i mean i
would contrast two different
perspectives
so
one perspective is that we are created
to worship god what is worship
worship is that we have love hope fear
in the creator and everything we do we
do for god alone we call upon god alone
we make our lives not just a life in
which you need to work nine to five and
provide for your family and go out with
your friends and do these things but
actually there's a higher purpose of
life having that spiritual connection
with god having that connection with
other human beings and being good to
them for the sake of god you know all of
these altruistic higher
ethics that islam teaches this is the
purpose of life and what is what does
islam essentially teach nothing
is greater than the remembrance of god
so in this life as eddie we know through
your story right and and we know through
the stories of countless people uh you
know alive today that you know you can
have everything this dunya has to offer
but you will not have peace
ultimate peace comes through the
submission of the creator now let's
contrast this beautiful perspective with
what richard dawkins says in the selfish
gene he says the ultimate rationale of
life is survival and reproduction so
the fact is islam is there to elevate
you and from the other perspective how
different are you from a cow like
honestly in fact from our perspective
cows worship allah but from their
perspective if it's survived in
reproduction you might just go to the
field
like almost well the way i could put it
this has to be mandatory watching for
anyone in university about the gold
university they need to watch this
episode is a very very important episode
and inshallah god willing this can help
save some people who might end up you
know falling for the trap of shaytan
you know who's setting these traps and
misguiding people so inshallah this can
be a great benefit and thank you so much
for spending the time i can go on and on
i'm really enjoyed talking with you it
was a pleasure
always a pleasure with you eddie
inshallah we can do it again sometime
soon inshaallah may allah bless you
jesus thank you so much
allah