Islam and the search for truth are not mutually exclusive. This is the first part of a three-part long form piece
I would like to preface my piece with a strong and unreserved condemnation of the barbaric killings of atheistic-minded bloggers and authors in recent times, in Bangladesh. Specifically, this kind of violent response to people speaking their own minds is contrary to Islamic scripture and traditions. As the Qur’an says, the correct response is to “argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious” (Surah XVI Nahl v125).
In this spirit of respectful debate, I would like to address the root cause of the disagreement, namely the question: “Is there a God or not?” This is a perfectly admissible question which can, and needs, to be addressed. In fact, in my reading of the Qur’an, its “central purpose” is precisely to address this particular question — which had presumably just started being raised at the level of general human consciousness around about 500 AD.
Of course, the Qur’an, by marshalling the logic of historical and scientific arguments, the evidence of actual life experience and impassioned pleas to good sense, as well as, crucially, the very fact of its existence, intends to answer the question in the affirmative. Accordingly, there is a long history of disputation with the atheist viewpoint, and I am only grateful that I am able to take it up in light of the latest modern knowledge about the world. The intention is to convey the message to all, that there is absolutely no reason to suppress discussion on this topic by violence or any other means.
Charles Darwin’s findings and the role of natural selection
Most atheists and agnostics of today ground their views on the findings of science, which is, therefore, an excellent starting point for this discussion. I think it would be fair to say that the archstone of the modem atheistic viewpoint is the belief that the mechanism driving evolution is that of “natural selection” triggered by entirely random events. This implies that the richness and diversity of natural life has come about by happenstance and not, as could appear at first sight, because of the actions of any Benevolent Hand.
Let us look more closely at the thinking of Charles Darwin, the great man who first developed this concept. Darwin’s most startling idea was that of “universal common descent,” implying that all the animal species on Earth (including humans), despite their surface differences, were actually part of a single chain of being, that there was, in the felicitous phrase of the time, a “Tree of Life,” in which all species found their place and were connected with each other, in the way that the roots and branches of a tree can be said to be part of the same organism.
This kind of “organic thinking” was a major departure in Western philosophy, which normally deals in terms of rigid, discrete categories. It has been found to be largely justified as Earth does appear to feature a biological “Tree of Life,” but only in the broadest sense of this term. Crucially, the details of how, or even why, its various roots or branches emerged have never been established, as there are large gaps and oddities in the fossil record. At the same time, we should note that this part of Darwin’s thinking, which has largely stood the test of time, does not necessarily promote an atheistic conception. Rather, the “Tree of Life” concept immediately raises the question of what was at the origin of the Tree and, by showing that there may have been an uninterrupted chain of being, does not exclude the possibility of an interventionist moment of creation. This scenario is thus more akin to the Islamic precept that Allah’s command was “Be, and it is” than not.
Interestingly, even though his foundational book was called The Origin of Species, Darwin was never able really to explain why different species emerge, like self-enclosed nodes of organisation, and this remains a profound mystery to this day. A species is said to exist when its members can produce fertile offspring only by mating among themselves. There is, as yet, no known biological principle which determines what causes this impenetrable barrier to be set up between different entities, thereby defining each of the millions of different species on Earth.
Among the many profound mysteries enshrined in the fossil record is that of how and why the human species (homo sapiens) developed the massive brain capacity which sets it apart decisively from all other primates (ie apes, monkeys, etc) and all other mammals too. A fascinating and wide ranging recent book sets out the problem: “That evolution should select for larger brains may seem to us like, well, a no-brainer. We are so enamoured by our high intelligence that we assume that, when it comes to cerebral power, more must be better. But if that were the case, the feline family would also have produced cats who could do calculus, and frogs would by now have launched their own space program. Why are giant brains so rare in the animal kingdom?” (A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari.)
As Harari goes on to explain, maintaining a large brain exerts a huge drain on the organism’s energy resources, which is why most creatures do not bother to generate more brain capacity than is needed for their basic survival. Why did humans alone set about to produce a huge energy-expensive brain, in one geologically rapid jump, which even today with all our subtle philosophy and art and science, is often said to be using at only 5% of its potential?
There could not conceivably have been any direct survival advantage two million years ago for such an extravagant move. In the face of many such anomalies, I can’t help but allow myself to hypothesise freely that there could well have been successive divine interventions which have brought about the shape and content of the overall Tree of Life.
The available evidence neither proves nor disproves this possibility.
To summarise, it seems that an evolutionary process has, indeed, taken place on Earth over millennia, but the process responsible for it remains undecided, in view of objections of the kind discussed below.
Let us turn accordingly to that part of Darwin’s argument which has been undermined by modern science. This is the notion that it was “random accidents” that produced minuscule changes in the organism which then turned out to be useful, and so gave that organism an advantage. This in turn gave it and its successors greater survival chances and so, over great periods of time, produced the incredibly detailed specifications and near perfection that we see in most species which inhabit the Earth. Let us call this notion “natural selection.”
In Darwin’s time, it was not known how such changes emerge and how they could be propagated. It was only in the 20th century that, with the greater understanding of genes and ultimately DNA, a so-called neo-Darwinian synthesis emerged which proposed that successive “random mutations” in DNA each produced minute improvements in biological cells, which then, again, over great periods of time, produced the variety, beauty, and extreme efficiency which all plant and animal forms seem to show.
This is the general view that numerous popularisers of science, such as Richard Dawkins, have eloquently put forward to the general public, as a result of which “natural selection” seems to have become ingrained in the consciousness of most educated people, as the main driving force of evolution.
The second part of this long form will be published tomorrow.
Sal Imam has an art gallery at Radius Centre, which is currently housing an exceptional exhibition based around works originally presented at the Dhaka Art Summit by Saidul Haque Juise, Uttam Kumar Roy and Biswajit Gosami.