Hadith

Understanding the Hadith

Nothing historically has received more scathing attacks from the kuffaar than hadeeth literature, that is, the preserved body of narrations related to the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم sayings, actions and conduct. Originally, manykuffaar attempted to stir doubt in the genre of hadith literature by spreading dubious lies about the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and highlighting supposedly contradictoryahadeeth. Orientalists then took up the mantle of destroying the credibility of the Prophetic traditions by carrying out extensive research on the wholesale rejection of hadeeth as a historical source. This was initiated by Orientalists such as Goldziher and Schact, an attack that continues to this day at the hands of modern-day Orientalists.


There exist many misunderstandings about the reality of hadeeth even amongst the Muslim Ummah. Amongst some, there is an attitude that the Sunnah is of much less importance than the Qur'an. From this a mentality has emerged disregarding or neglecting legislation (ahkaam) simply because it is not found explicitly in the Qur'an. Unfortunately, many Muslims have criticised the use of ahadeeth (pl. Hadeeth) by using the very same arguments non-Muslims have used against the authenticity of the Sunnah. In 1977 Colonel Gaddafi, ruler of Libya, announced that the ahadeeth mentioned by the tongue of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم are of doubtful authenticity because they were compiled two hundred years after the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. He gave an example of a contradiction in the hadeeth by quoting ‘Aisha رضي الله عنها which says, "Aisha رضي الله عنهاis deficient in mind and Deen." He also mentioned another hadith were we read, "Take half your Deen from the mouth of ‘Aisha رضي الله عنها." Gaddafi concluded that it is not allowed to accept ahadeeth because one cannot be certain whether they are authentic or fabricated. He thus concluded that the Sunnah cannot be taken as a source of legislation.



Historical origins

At the time of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم questions of authenticity were never an issue since the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was living amongst Muslims and his companions were able to correct each other if any mistakes were made in narration. ‘Umar رضي الله عنه once narrated that the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "The deceased is punished due to the weeping of his family." ‘Aisha رضي الله عنها corrected him, saying, "The Prophet صلى الله عليهوسلم said this regarding a Jewess that she was punished whilst her family were crying for her," meaning that she was punished due to dying upon disbelief (kufr) whilst the family wept and not because the family was weeping for her. Due to their proximity to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, the Sahabah would check strange attributions and reports when they felt doubt.

The earliest record of fabrication of ahadeeth started after the first civil war between Ali رضي الله عنه and Mu'awiya from 35AH following the murder of Uthman رضي الله عنه. According to ibn Sirin (d.110AH), "They did not ask about the isnad (chain of narration) but when civil war (fitna) arose they said: Name to us your men; those who belong to Ahl al-Sunnah, their traditions were accepted and those who were innovators, their traditions were neglected."

After this time the fabrications increased with varying motivations. Initially the false attributions reflected political differences. According to ibn Abi al-Hadeed: "Lies were introduced in hadeeth on merits originally by Shi'ah. They in the beginning fabricated many ahadeeth in favour of their man, motivated by enmity towards their opponents. When the Bakriyya (i.e. supporters of Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه) found out what the Shi'ah had done they fabricated on their part ahadeeth in favour of their man."

From this problem arose the challenge to authenticate and verify the narrations being attributed to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. There were thousands of transmitters of ahadeeth scattered throughout the Islamic lands and an even greater number of reports to sift through. What was required was for the sound narrations to be separated from the weak and then to be compiled. This was all in the days when the best form of data storage was the human memory.



Understanding the Hadeeth methodology

The essential argument for the rejection of ahadeeth is that they were a human construct and not revelation. The discussion of the Shari'ah begins with its sources, which in origin is the Qur'an. The other legislative source is the recorded sayings, actions and conduct of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم which are termed ahadeeth. The ahadeeth are a collection of around 600,000 authenticated narrations comprised of the sayings, actions and consent of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. A hadeeth is always composed of two parts: the matn (text) and the isnaad(chain of reporters).

When one wants to authenticate any incident or statement one would look at those people narrating the incident and then look at their characters. It was out of this need that an entire science, known as 'ilm al-rijaal (knowledge of the men who transmitted ahadeeth) emerged and this science evolved into an extremely sophisticated discipline. This is because if one is characterised with lying, sin or memory loss, one cannot be considered trustworthy. One can also examine how close the narrators were to a reported incident in terms of whether they actually witnessed it or spoke to another person who narrated the event. This would require the specialist inhadeeth and the scholars of Islam to check accounts of a given narrators memory, eyesight, tendency to exaggerate etc. If the people narrating the event were small in number, then it must be asked if they could have colluded in their accounts. If the opposite were the case and the numbers of trustworthy individuals relating a similar account unknown to the others incredibly numerous, the possibility of collusion diminishes accordingly.

Since each narrator related narrations to others, and so on, chains of narrators develop and we must then examine the chains themselves as well as those within the chain. A tawaatur narration (a narration confirmed generation to generation) is a hadeeth which has been transmitted from one generation to another with each generation being composed of individuals so numerous that the possibility of fabrication or lying is effectively non-existent. It would be similar to taking into account the numerous different narrations from various generations and still claiming the Second World War never took place.

The chain of narration (isnaad) and its study is where the muhaditheen (scholars who collected and categorisedahadeeth) establish the continuity of the chain of narrators i.e. they ensure that there were no gaps, inconsistencies, distortions or errors in the chain. This was achieved by cataloguing the dates of birth and death of narrators and the towns they came from in order to establish the possibility that they had met and hence were actually able to transmit ahadeeth to one another.

The second issue that had to be ascertained was the probity or mendacity of transmitters. It is not sufficient to verify an unbroken continuous chain if even one of the transmitters was known to be of unsound character. Like any chain, all that is necessary for the whole sequence to collapse is simply one weak link that would allow it to fall apart quickly and easily. So one weak link, or in the case of hadeeth literation, a liar in the chain, will weaken or nullify the report respectively even if the rest of the chain features illustrious and trustworthy transmitters. It is for this reason that the Muslims at the time gathered information about the narrators ('ilm al-rijaal) which was a colossal accomplishment since it involved assessing the character, reputation and state of mind of thousands upon thousands of transmitters. This repository of biographical material would then be used to identify each and every transmitter in the chain to ensure a valid link back to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. It is as a result of this that the genre of biographical dictionaries emerged, a genre that went on to become one of the pillars of hadeethclassification with countless books being compiled on this subject. After the study of the chains the ahadeethwere classified into strong (sahih), good/sound (hasan), not sound (da'eef) and fabricated or spurious (maw-doo'). The ahadeeth came to be further categorised into topics such as purity, prayer, charity, partnership, marriage, trade, taxation, brokerage, ruling and deputation, amongst many others. This now meant that legislation could be deduced from this basis from the Sunnah, and Muslims have been doing this for the last fourteen centuries.

The ahadeeth is confirmed as a source of law by the Qur'an itself,

مَّنْ يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللّهَ

"He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed God." [TMQ An-Nisa: 80]

This method became the method of verifying what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did and said. This is why the science of ahadeeth developed and became a whole discipline itself. Thus a valid hadith is one whose chain is continuous by trustworthy and meticulous transmitters whose reports contained no abnormality or defects. Thus, the conditions in this definition can be listed as the following:

1. Ittisaal as-Sanad (continuity of the chain)
2. ‘Adaalatu Al-Ruwwaah (probity or trustworthiness of narrators)
3. DabT Al-Ruwaah (The precision and accuracy of narrators)
4. The absence of conflict with stronger narrations



Detecting forgery

A wide variety of techniques were developed to detect forgery and deception. There are techniques related to thesanad (chain) and also techniques relating to the matn (text). Such techniques were many in number and are beyond the scope of this article; two such techniques are reconciling facts with narrations and mukhtalaf al-Hadeeth, reconciling seemingly contradictory hadith.

An example of reconciling facts with narrations through textual analysis is the one quoted by ibn Qayyim in hiswork, Naqd al-Manqool. He quotes a report which says that an agreement was made with the people of Khaybarthat exempted them from the payment of Jizyah. This report was declared a fabrication due to the following indications in the Matn:

The text mentions Sa'd bin Mu'aadh رضي الله عنه but Sa'd had died before then in the Battle of Ahzab.

It mentions that Mu'aawiyah wrote the letter but Mu'aawiyah had not embraced Islam until the Conquest of Makkah which occurred after this incident.

The hadeeth mentioned Jizyah but the verses (aayaat) legalising Jizyah were not revealed until after the Battle ofTabuk.

Its text mentions that certain types of taxes were levied but these were known not to exist at the time of Khaybar.

The Jews of Khaybar fought the Messenger (saws) and his Companions. What did they do to deserve being granted such an exemption from the obligation of Jizyah, when other tribes equally bellicose had not been exempted?

Had the Prophet (saws) exempted the people of Khaybar from the Jizyah, he would not have stipulated that they be expelled when he صلى الله عليه وسلم willed. This does not fit with the ruling that the Ahl al-Dhimmah cannot be expelled as long as they abide by the rules of Islam.

If the Prophet had exempted them, why did none of his companions, the Sahaabah, ever exempt them?

In this way, established facts were utilised to ascertain the validity of the content in the various ahadeeth.

When presented with two sets of contradictory hadith, one of three options is possible. Either one can resort to reconciliation of the hadeeth by considering a whole host of issues such as textual indication or, if this is not possible, then the outweighing (tarjeeh) of one report over the other if the chronology is not known and finally, accepting abrogation if the chronology is known.

Thus, the means of removing conflicts are three:

a) Jam' a (reconciliation)
b) Tarjeeh (outweighing if the chronology is not known)
c) Naskh (abrogation if chronology is known)
d) If none of the above methods are possible, then the muhadditheen revert back to the original rule and assume the contradictory texts are non-existent.

The process of reconciliation succeeds by attempting to reconcile two conflicting texts due to certain linguistic and circumstantial considerations. Here, the textual indications can assist in the reconciliation between two texts. For example, in one hadeeth, we read, "Water is pure so nothing can make it impure." (Abu Dawud). In another, we read, "If the water is enough to fill two pots (qullatayn), it carries no impurity." (An-Nasaa`ee) The first text is ‘Aam (general) for all amounts of water except the wording of the second text indicates that water can become impure if its nature is changed. This is a specification (takhsees) of the first text by the meaning of the second.

Tarjeeh (outweighing) can occur in a number of ways; one such way is if one of the conflicting hadeeth accords with another authentic hadith. For example, one hadeeth reads, "There is no nikaah (marriage) without a wali (guardian)." (Abu Dawud) This hadeeth stipulates the presence of a wali but it seems to contradict anotherhadeeth which indicates that the wali is not stipulated. That hadith is as follows, "The matron has greater right than her guardians and the virgin her permission is sought. Her permission is her silence." (Saheeh Muslim) Yet the first hadith stipulating the presence of the wali agrees with another sound narration which says, "Any woman who gets married without the permission of her guardian (Wali), her marriage will be void, her marriage will be void, her marriage will be void." (al-Haakim) Therefore, the tarjeeh here will be that thehadeeth which says that there is no nikaah without a wali is outweighed and accepted because it is supported by another authentic narration.

As for abrogation, this happens when it is not possible to reconcile a hadeeth but abrogation is possible because the chronology is known. For example, one hadeeth reads, "The one who cups blood and is cupped has broken his fast" whereas another hadeeth reads, "...that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was cupped while he was fasting." If we scrutinize the circumstances of these ahadeeth, we find that first hadeeth took place in the 8th year after Hijrah during the Conquest of Makkah while the second hadeeth is in the Farewell Khutbah in the 10th year after Hijrah. Thus, Imaam Ash-Shaafi'ee رضي الله عنه took the view that the second hadeeth had abrogated the first, allowing the cupping of blood while fasting in Ramadaan.

The Muslim scholars and experts were able to amass a database of thousands of narrators, define rigorous criteria to assess authenticity, classify and adopt a grading system for chain narrators, devise techniques to detect and avert mistakes and fabrications and adopt a methodology to reconcile the differences within certain texts. The result was the remarkably robust and effective preservation of the Islamic ideology and its legislative capacity.

If we compare the system of hadeeth collection (Isnaad) to the modern system of historical analysis, we will find the former to be much more sophisticated and successful in establishing the authenticity of historical incidents and events. What the Muslims called a da'eef hadith is perhaps stronger in historicity, in some of its forms, than modern sources such as history textbooks, numismatics or historical criticism of literary texts. This is because da'eef does not mean fabrication but simple that it does not satisfy the stringent criteria developed by themuhadditheen.

Strangers

The Return of the Strangers

We live in a strange time. A time where many have been driven astray from the Deen of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by the enjoyments of this world. A time where even the wise become confused and puzzled from the contradictions that they see before them. This is the time where the truthful people are belied and the liars are said to speak the truth; the honest people are betrayed and the betrayers become ones who others trust. Indeed this is the time where most hardships and tests befall those who stand with the truth, whereas ease and comfort seem to be what those who practice immorality and injustice receive.

Yet amidst this bizarre world, a group of strangers emerge who are not even recognized by their own families and friends. Pain and suffering comes to them in many shapes and forms and their livelihoods are unjustly taken from them. But they are not strangers in the sights of the angels. Who are those strangers in these scary times?

The prophet Muhammed (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:

"Islam started strange and it will become strange once again as it started, so glad tidings to the strangers"

[Sahih Muslim]

When the message of Islam was first revealed to the world, the Kuffar of Makkah responded to it with anger and oppression to those who called for it. They knew that Islam was a challenge to their way of life and they were not willing to accept its message, even though they knew that it was the truth.

What happened with the Prophet Muhammed (sallAllahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and his companions in Makkah was not something new. This is the nature of any new message that comes to challenge an existing way of life. It will always be faced with hardships and pain. It is an attempt to weaken the carriers of the new message. It is an attempt to force them to compromise in their message. But this is not what the prophets and their companions did.

The prophet Muhammed (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:

"A time will come when Leaders will befall you. If you obey them they will lead you astray and if you disobey them they will kill you" The companions asked: "What do you order us to do then?" He responded: "Be like the companions of Isa (‘alayhi al salam) where they were chopped with saws and crucified on wood; for by the One who has my soul in His hand (Allah), death in the cause of Allah is better than a life of disobedience."

This is the expectation of the Dawah carriers, the callers of the Deen of Islam. They know the hardships that they are going to face and it does not slow them down from carrying the message of Islam unaltered and without compromise. They know that they only do this for the sake of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) alone and no other. Every feeling of pain or torture that they face increases their connection with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and makes them more convinced of the truth that they hold and carry to the world.

Muslims are on a mission on this Earth to present the message of Islam as a way of life. We know of the injustices that are taking place around us and the governments that support them. We know that the systems that currently exist in this world are not Islamic and do not serve the interests of the Muslims. Where is the Islamic system that is the beacon of light and justice for this world?

The carriers of this message will be tested in many ways. But a combination of patience and Iman is the only thing that keeps the believers going. We have Iman and trust that the fruit of this face-off between truth and falsehood is definite victory of the truth and its followers. After this journey of patience – this journey of hardships and tests – victory will come as it came to those before us. The prophets and their companions became strong after their initial weakness; they became leaders after being sidelined in society and being the odd ones out.

Allah's promise of victory and our belief in the truth is what the strangers of this time hold on to.

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says:

"And the Disbelievers said to their Messengers: "Be sure we shall drive you out of our land, or you shall return to our religion." But their Lord inspired (this Message) to them: "Verily We shall cause the wrong-doers to perish! And verily We shall cause you to abide in the land, and succeed them. This (reward) is for those who fear the standing before Me (on the Day of Judgement); this (reward) is for those who fear my threat."

[TMQ Ibrahim: 13-14]

Muharram and ‘Ashoora

The significance of Muharram and ‘Ashoora

The day of ‘Ashoora is approaching us on the tenth of the month of Muharram. This sacred month of Muharram is a blessed and important month for the Muslims.It is the first month of the Hijri calendar, and is one of the four sacred months concerning which Allah (swt) says in Surah al-Tawbah:

“Verily, the number of months with Allah is twelve months (in a year), so it was ordained by Allah on the Day when He created the heavens and the earth; of them, four are sacred. That is the right religion, so wrong not yourselves therein…” [TMQ al-Tawbah: 36]

In this ayah, Allah says, “so wrong not yourselves therein…” means do not wrong yourselves in these sacred months, because sin in these months is worse than in other months.It was reported that Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) said that this phrase, “so wrong not yourselves therein…” referred to all the months, then these four were singled out and made sacred, so that sin in these months is more serious and good deeds bring a greater reward.It was narrated by al-Bukhari (2958) that Abu Bakrah (ra) reported that the Prophet (saw) said:“The year is twelve months of which four are sacred, the three consecutive months of Dhu’l-Qa’dah, Dhu’ l-Hijjah and Muharram, and Rajab Mudar which comes between Jumaadil-akir and Sha’ baan.”In these days of Muharram the Prophet (saw) recommended for us to fast on the 9th and the 10th of this month.

Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) who said: “The Prophet (saw) came to Madinah and saw the Jews fasting on the day of ‘Ashoora’. He said, ‘What is this?’ They said, ‘This is a righteous day, it is the day when Allah saved the Children of Israel from their enemies, so Musa fasted on this day.’ He said, ‘We have more right to Musa than you,’ so he fasted on that day and commanded [the Muslims] to fast on that day.” [Bukhari, Hadith No: 1865].In a report narrated by Imam Muslim, that the Jews said, “This is a great day, on which Allah saved Musa and his people, and drowned Pharaoh and his people.”Muslim also reported that, “Musa fasted on this day in thanksgiving to Allah, so we fast on this day.”

Mu'awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan relates: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say, "It is the day of 'Ashoora. Allah (swt) has not made fasting obligatory for you. But I am fasting. He who likes to observe fast among you should do so, and he who likes not to observe it (does not have to) observe it." [Sahih Muslim] Abu Qatada (ra) relates that the Holy Prophet (saw) said that, “the fast on the 10th of Muharram atones for the sins of the preceding year.” [Sahih Muslim] Abu Huraira (ra) reports that the Holy Prophet (ra) said, “after Ramadan, the fasts of Muharram have the greatest excellence.” [Sahih Muslim] In addition to the keeping of the fast on the 10th of Muharram we should also aim to fast on the 9th as well as stipulated in the following ahadith:Ibn Abbas (ra) relates that when the Holy Prophet (saw) said, "If I survive till next year, I will definitely observe fast on the 9th of Muharram (as well)." [Sahih Muslim] Hakam ibn Al-Arat (ra) relates: I went to Ibn Abbas (ra). I said to him: Tell me about fasting on 'Ashura. He said, "When you seen the new moon of Muharram count the (days) and (begin to) observe fast on the 9th." I said to him: "Is it how the Messenger of Allah (saw) observed the fast?" He said, "Yes." [Sahih Muslim]

These days also remind us of the story of Musa (as) and his struggle against the Pharaoh. Allah (swt) said in Sura al-Qasas:“These are Verses of the Book that makes (things) clear. We rehearse to you some of the story of Musa and Firawn (Pharaoh) in Truth for people who believe. Truly Firawn elated himself in the land and broke up its people into sections depressing a small group among them: their sons he slew but he kept alive their females: for he was indeed a maker of mischief. And We wished to be gracious to those who were being depressed in the land to make them leaders and make them heirs. To establish a firm place for them in the land and to show Firawn and Haman and their hosts at their hands the very things against which they were taking precautions.” [TMQ 28:1-6]Indeed brothers the story of Musa (as) is a great story that Allah (swt) related to us in the Quran.

Allah (swt) told us of how the Firawn oppressed the people, how Firawn broke the people into sections depressing a small group among them, how Firawn killed the new born sons of the people and how he ruled the people with his tyranny and oppression.And we all know how Allah Azza wa Jal raised Musa (as) to liberate the people from this tyranny and oppression.Allah Ar-Rahman ar-Raheem mentioned in the in Surah al-Qasas how he protected Musa (as) from his campaign of killing the children. Allah (swt) tells us of how when Musa (as) was born Allah (swt) inspired his mother to cast him into the river. Look how she obeyed this command of Allah (swt) with no resistance, imagine casting your child into the river, this is the meaning of having Tawakkal in Allah (swt).

Firawn and his wife found Musa (as), upon seeing Musa (as) Firawn’s wife felt joy and convinced Firawn not to slay him. Allah (swt) reunited Musa (as) with his mother when he would not take the milk from others, so eventually the wife of Firawn employed Musa (as)’s mother as a maid to look after him. Allah (swt) explains this beautiful story,“And We ordained that he refused suck at first until (his sister came up and) said: "Shall I point out to you the people of a house that will nourish and bring him up for you and be sincerely attached to him?"...Thus did We restore him to his mother that her eye might be comforted that she might not grieve and that she might know that the promise of Allah is true: but most of them do not understand.” [TMQ al-Qasas: 12-13]When Musa (as) grew up he stood against Firawn and challenged his corruption and tyranny, he led the Children of Israel (Bani Israel) against the Firawn and made them disbelieve in him and his tyranny. Firawn believed he was a god and that he had the power of life and death in his hands.

Allah Azza wa Jal said in Surah Yunus:

“Firawn was an arrogant tyrant on the earth indeed he was one of the Musrifeen (transgressors)” [TMQ 10:83]

Brothers today we have many modern day Firawn’s, many Musrifeen (transgressors) and tyrants.Today Bush and his America is one of these modern day Pharaoh’s. We know America thinks it is the God of this world, how it bombed the Muslims in Iraq,Gaza,Afganistan, how it bombed the Muslims in Afghanistan and Sudan in the past for no reason and how it continues to impose it’s policies all over the Islamic lands. It is the arrogant tyrant of the world today. The arrogance of these people is apparent, as one Time magazine title put it 'America Rules: Thank God’.Brothers, America is not the only Firawn in this world today, America has many assistants in the world as Firawn had his assistants like Haman.

Today the rulers in the Muslim world are these assistants and Firawn’s who carve up the people as Firawn did and oppress them as Firawn did and kill them as Firawn did.Today brothers although there are many tyrannical agents of Firawn and the side of Baatil (falsehood) is clear, we must realise that the side of Haq (truth) is also clear and gaining momentum. The people on the side of truth, carrying the call of liberation from the rules of man to the rule of Allah (swt), from darkness of the Firawn’s to the light of the Khilafah, even if they face all types of persecutions and hardship in the pursuit of this.Brothers! Musa (as) liberated the Children of Israel from the Firawn, we to need to liberate the Muslim Ummah from the oppression of Capitalism. The method to achieve this is taken from the well known Hadith,

"Banu Israel used to be looked after by the Prophets; when one Prophet died, another one would succeed him, and there will be no more Prophets after me. There will be Khulafah and they will number many."

Firawn’s end came even though he believed he had all power in his hands. Indeed the time will come when America and its agents in the Muslim world will drown in the ocean of history as Firawn and his men were swallowed by the ocean and drowned.Musa (as) and all the other Prophet’s (as) relied upon non other than Allah (swt) to fulfil their mission. Musa (as) sought help and support from his Lord, Allah (swt) says in Surah Ta-Ha ,

"Musa said: 'O my Lord! Open for me my chest (grant me self-confidence, contentment, and boldness). And ease my task for me; And loosen the knot (the problem) from my tongue, (i.e. remove the impairment in my speech), that they understand my speech, And appoint for me a helper from my family, Haroon, my brother; Increase my strength with him, And let him share my task (of conveying Allah's message), That we may glorify You much, And remember You much, Verily! You are of us Ever a Well-Seer” [TMQ Ta-Ha: 25-35]

Today in our pursuit of re-establishing the Khilafah to dethrone the Firawn’s of this world we must rely on Allah (swt) alone, He is As-Samee’a, Al-Mujeeb.

Insha Allah talla, the Victory is near and all ocupplied Muslim Lands will be liberated [ by the hands of the Noble Ummah of Muhammad 'saw'.]

O Allah 'swt' May we be the worthy ones to unite this Ummah and establish Islam as a political entity. Ameen

Ramadhan

Salam'

Ramadhan starts on Monday 01/09/2008.

Many Allah swt accept our fast and reward us with Jannah al Ferdous.

Wa-Salam

Women

Women and Equality


The current debate on women's rights has until now been predominantly shaped by its progress in the west. Whilst attitudes towards women have changed significantly in the west through the endeavours of feminists and women's rights movements of different philosophical persuasions, Akmal Asghar questions some of the assumptions - and their universality - as well as the broader impact of their successes.The treatment of women in any society has become, without doubt, a key marker in evaluating its progress. The accepted framework of the debate on women's rights has centred around the need for 'equality', to redress a historic imbalance that has empowered men considerably more than it has women, and to undermine patriarchy and societies modelled on its assumptions. It is without doubt that the perception, treatment and rights of women are now dramatically different to those of even the last century. But alongside the rapid changes that followed the 'domestic revolution', as some term it, a number of very key questions remain unanswered. While historical prejudices and assumptions may be slowly eroding in areas of opportunity, employment conditions, political rights, and marriage-particularly in the West-it would be difficult to argue that the debate on women's rights is now over. Many feminists and women's rights activists, while welcoming the changes of the last century, believe that there are many battles still to be fought, although they remain deeply divided on which battles they are.These unanswered questions not only relate to the rights of women, but to the impact that the successes of women's movements have had on society as a whole. Their progress has fuelled increasingly complex dilemmas on issues such as the rights of children, relationships with the opposite sex, and the escalation of previously rare social problems. They have exposed shortcomings in the accepted framework and in its very assumptions, illustrated by the bitter divisions that plague post-feminist movements. Critically, one must ask if the discussions in the West-promoted as a template and international standard-have addressed the core issues of the debate. If, however, they have overlooked them we are in need of a new perspective.The contextThe currently accepted framework of debate on women's rights originated shortly after Europe's age of enlightenment. It was Mary Wollstonecroft, influenced by her company of liberal thinkers, who first applied the conclusions of the enlightenment to the issues of women in her 'Vindication of the Rights of Women' in 1792. It followed the publication of 'The Rights of Man' by her close friend Thomas Paine and challenged the 'domestic tyranny of men' as Paine had challenged the 'divine right of kings'. After nearly a century of campaigning, and through the turbulence of the French Revolution, another landmark work on the rights of women was the publication of 'The Subjugation of Women' by John Stuart Mill.'Modern' perspectives on the rights of women are largely based on the liberal conclusions first articulated by Wollstonecroft and Mill. Also termed 'constructivism', liberal positions assert that men and women are fundamentally-'perfectly' as Mill puts it-equal. Accepting anything less is to promote the oppression of one sex over the other, rendering the other subordinate. Observed differences between men and women, they asserted, are neither biological nor innate but the product of centuries of conditioning. This is why feminists are keen to differentiate between 'gender' as a social construct and 'sex'. Simone De Beauvoir, one of the most significant voices after Wollstonecroft, famously remarked in her book 'The Second Sex': "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". Equality translated to equal political, economic, and social rights and opportunities, such as those to independent education, employment and political representation. The 'division of labour', between housewife female and breadwinning male, was deplored as a symbol of subjugation and patriarchy (male dominated society) and a consequence of the growing injustices of the industrial revolution. Liberal individualism, therefore, was the bedrock on which classical theories of women's emancipation were founded and which now form the foundations of modern perceptions.The traditionalists, or essentialists, who maintained that the differences between men and women were a biological fact and not a social construct, are now less prominent in the debate on women's rights. Advocates such as James FitzJames Stephen, a contemporary of Mill, in his book 'Liberty, Equality and Fraternity' held that differing political, social and economic rights should follow from these determined differences. The Victorians held that men and women should operate in two separate spheres (with the women confined to the home) based on the long-established belief of the world as a naturally ordered whole, in which all was harmonious as long as things stayed in their ordained places. This is the division of labour feminists deplored. Although conservatives and traditionalists still maintain similar arguments, the liberals have the victory in the debate thus far.Equality: The European contextGreat significance and importance has been assigned to the discussion of 'equality', and to the specific meaning it has come to assume, by western writers. But its symbolism as a key tenet in the debate on women's rights, such that it has become the very prism through which emancipation is measured, is largely because of its European context. Movements who championed women's emancipation were defined by their struggle against a distinctly European mindset and the inconsistency with which it treated women in relation to men, particularly during its medieval to post-industrial period. It is events in Europe and post-revolution America-both of whom share a common European tradition-which have defined the accepted framework of the debate on women.A number of contributions forged the historical context in which equality between the sexes was first suggested in Europe. Christian theology, a pillar of Europe's medieval monarchies, played a pivotal role in forming Europe's confused perspectives on women. The Decretum Gratiani, which formed the basis of Church law for nearly eight hundred years between 1140 and 1917, assigned roles and duties on the basis that "sin came into the world through them [women]" and that "because of original sin they [women] must show themselves submissive".i Apart from blaming Eve for original sin, and so condemning women, the belief that Eve was created out of the bent rib of Adam popularised their secondary nature. Indeed, even after the Reformation, the works of theologians that asserted women possessed an innately evil capacity, and that even their humanity was questionable convinced monarchs and senior clergy. Pope Innocent VIII's endorsement of the book 'The Hammer of the Witches' in 1484, which asserts: "What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colours",ii resulted in thousands of women being burned at the stake.These theological traditions positioned women at the start of the industrial revolution. Industrialisation, however, did not liberate women from their historical treatment but merely compounded their subordination. The considerable wealth generated during the industrial age created a growing male middle class who increasingly disregarded women. Women either found themselves working for a pitiful wage in the large factories brought on by industrialisation or married to the expanding group of middle class industrialists to whom they deferred ownership of their property, control over wages they earned independently, and the major part of their marriage rights. Accompanying the increasing power middle class men enjoyed, was domestic abuse and violence. Women bemoaned their treatment at the hands of men, who justified their typically drunk and unruly behaviour on the pressures of increasing competition in commerce and industry and showed no interest in domestic matters other than to demand that their needs were met. Indeed, it was this situation in industrial Europe that formed the key notion of patriarchy, or male dominated societies, that feminists have opposed ever since.Even the enlightenment's most eminent thinkers spoke of the subject in a manner reflective of more traditional attitudes. Rousseau in 'Emile', his seminal work on education, wrote: "Men and women are made for each other, but their mutual dependencies are not equal. We could survive without them better than they could without us. They are dependent on our feelings, on the price we put on their merits, on the value we set on their attractions and on their virtues. Thus women's entire education should be planned in relation to men. To please men, to be useful to them to win their love and respect…"iiiIn this historical context, equality was significant and indeed very controversial when first suggested. The equality debate established the framework by which Europe dealt with the subjugation of its women, corrected perceptions of their inferiority and founded movements that worked for their emancipation. But if we separate the long history that formed the backdrop to the notion of equality, we find the assertion that neither men nor women are inferior to one another is a very simple, indeed obvious, truth. Correcting historical prejudice alone cannot be a basis for defining a relationship between people.Evaluating the idea of equalityThe simple assertion that men and women are equal-that women are not inferior to men-alone articulates very little if considered outside its historical context; it leaves a number of unanswered questions. It does not address how best men and women can cooperate to forge a socially cohesive society. In the wider context of human relationships, we are in need of more than just this simple assertion of equality to handle the disputes and organise the relationships that naturally arise between people. Indeed, we are in need of a body of additional ideas and principles.Liberal individualism, however, may regard this an irrelevant criticism; it considers men and women as individuals and the unanswered questions justified because they represent the personal freedom for both men and women to conduct their lives in the way they see fit. The issue of social cohesion may, therefore, be of marginal importance if it means restricting the choices of individuals in the name of the health of the collective.There are two important issues to consider in responding to liberal objections. Firstly, the need for a framework of additional ideas and principles arises from no more than human interactions that occur within families, social groups, and society as a whole. Liberal individualism, characterised sometimes as putting the 'individual before society', would articulate a deficient political theory if it were to ignore relationships that are often not a matter of much choice. Individuals could always choose to isolate themselves from family and society, but we are born with family and relatives and so naturally relate with them; we engage in social activity with friends, and relationships between men and women determine the very future of the human race through human reproduction. Some framework is needed to articulate rights, indeed responsibilities, that men, women and their offspring should be appropriated in order to produce a socially coherent society.Secondly, the issue of difference. Differences between men and women can lead to specific needs and complex disputes, whose management is a key element of ensuring social cohesion. Any failure to acknowledge or manage them effectively in the name of equality can be just as oppressive and detrimental as believing they symbolise the superiority of one sex over the other. A simple assertion of human equality provides limited guidance on the issue of difference and gives rise to a need for additional, more elaborate, ideas and principles.Differences between men and womenElaborating on each of these points, let us briefly consider the issue of difference. Often received with scepticism, liberal and feminist thinkers asserted that perceived differences between men and women were a social construct, not biological fact, and that the discussion of differences had been used historically as a tool for condemning women to subordinate roles. Historically in Europe, there have been some perceived differences between men and women (whether or not women possessed deficient intelligence, reduced capability for sound verdicts, and a lower capacity to learn and reason) which were assumptions, not facts, about women. The distinction between gender and sex therefore appears justifiable and a helpful way to separate social construct from biological fact. But rejecting all differences by attributing them to the product of social conditions may equally result in a dishonest account of human nature.There are observable differences between men and women, the nature of which have been the subject of many contemporary debates in science, indeed the themes of philosophical discourse over many millennia: from studies by evolutionary psychologists and neuroscientists, to the conclusions of Plato and Aristotle.iv In fact, among the increasingly fragmented post-feminist movements are those who assert, rather than deny, differences between men and women. They draw on differences between men and women to identify the uniqueness of women and refuse male assimilation that results from interpreting female characteristics in male terms. They assert femininity and characterise contemporary thinking in many ways.The ‘Poet Psyche’ attempted to understand the uniqueness of women through the use of Freudian, amongst other, psycho-analyses. The early eighties saw the emerging popularity of the 'difference feminists', after the publication of Carol Gilligan's 'In a Different Voice' in 1982, following conclusions by Nancy Chodorow published in 'The Reproduction of Mothering'. Gilligan attempted to assert that women possessed a different type of intelligence, a more caring and emotionally sophisticated psyche that was uniquely different-although some went on to assert it more superior-to that of men.The conclusions of these scientific and philosophical studies have been disparate and varied-some clearly disproved and erroneous, as have some of the methods used to understand them, particularly Freudian tools or Gilligan's surveys (as well as the questionable relevance of knowledge of the precise nature of differences in solving practical social problems). However, these discourses demonstrate that differences between men and women have been consistently observable and are not recent phenomena. It is crucial to note that unlike some conservative conclusions,v differences do not translate to the inferiority or superiority of either sex and must be considered in this context.Addressing differences and relationships between men and womenEquality alone appears an unsophisticated conclusion in dealing with differences. This is because they may result in a demand for different treatment, indeed additional rights under certain circumstances. For example, it is women that give birth and carry the physical impact of doing so during pregnancy and delivery, just as they carry the burden of doing what they can to give birth to a healthy child. This may require specific medical treatment and care arrangements during pregnancy and after the birth of the child, for both mother and child. These are requirements that men will never need as the difference in treatment arises from biological differences between men and women. In simple equality terms, this may appear an endorsement of unequal treatment, and so demanding equality alone can be misleading.Leaving aside simple differences due to biology, the issue is more complex when dealing with disputes. The issue of children is particularly divisive if not managed correctly, as they involve a collective group of individuals and the relationships between them. For example, if a couple decide to separate after the birth of their child, or even some time after that, who takes responsibility of the child if both want to do so? If one does take custody, what governs the relationship, access, the amount of time spent, financial assistance the mother or father have with that child if they are not the ones granted custody? Women may consider they have a greater right over the child because of the physical impact they endured carrying the child during pregnancy, a demand that asserts biology can justify different, indeed additional, rights. Such disputes have proven a challenge for western legislators, and lucrative for its legal profession; among other things, the increasing divorce rates present a number of complex scenarios. The failures of the current system (discussed in detail later) to deal with such situations have left both sexes, in different situations, complaining of unfair treatment. The 'Fathers for Justice' campaign in Britain is one public example of parents expressing their sense of anger at the unfairness with which they believe the system has treated them in relation to women. Such feelings of unfairness are unfortunate, as fairness rests at the heart of any pursuit for, or perception of, equality.Indeed, a number of problems naturally confront men and women, regardless of the precise nature or extent of differences between them, simply because of the fact that the continuation of the human species depends on their mutual coming together. Politicians and thinkers have not only been preoccupied with disputes, but also with the ideal setting for their convening and the impact that fractured relationships can have on both sexes and society as a whole.The need for a social frameworkA simple assertion of equality alone, therefore, has limited practical use; there is a need for something more detailed and sophisticated. It provides limited insight into the rights either sex should be appropriated in such disputes. As the philosopher J R Lucas points out: "It is clear that formal Equality by itself establishes very little… Many of these differences we may wish to rule out as not being relevant, but since the principle of formal Equality does not provide, of itself, any criteria of relevance, it does not, by itself, establish much. It gives a line of argument, but not any definite conclusion".vi The words of Peggy Antrobus resonate these limitations as she describes 'equality vs difference' being amongst the woman's movement's "paradoxes and dilemmas"vii in her book 'The Global Woman's Movement'.We are therefore in need of a social framework comprising additional, more elaborated, ideas and principles that tackle justice, rights and responsibilities, and how to administer them. Terms such as 'justice', 'equality', 'unequal', and 'fair' are closely associated, and do not always carry reciprocal meanings as has been briefly illustrated, but exactly how depends on this framework. Critics also point to the fact that a principle of equality provides insufficient guidance in, for example, arbitrating justice.viiiCriticising through the prism of equalityIndeed, feminist activists and thinkers implicitly acknowledge this. The meaning of 'equality' is heavily contested exactly because it has come to include perspectives on the ideal social framework, and how to attain it. For liberal feminists, it is largely correcting prejudices in the prevailing, western system; for some radical feminists it is primarily fighting patriarchy; for socialist feminists it is equalising economic conditions; for some it is even reasserting motherhood, and all these are among many others. These disagreements and disputes all centre on translating or 'practicalising' equality, which often results in fundamentally opposing conclusions. For example, the use of the women's body in advertising or pornography; whether to correct, undermine or replace the current system; whether or not to assert difference or to regard it as having no bearing in the appropriation of rights; whether or not the domestic mother is a subjugated role or a symbol of distinct femininity; whether or not the terms 'feminine' or 'femininity' themselves inherently depict subjugation and should be rejected, are just a few of the subjects that deeply divide contemporary feminist thought.But although termed 'equality', it is essential to separate it from opinions on social framework and policy. Asserting that neither men nor women are inferior to each other can be accepted as universal; current opinions on social policy are not. Therefore, approaching the subject of women's right through the term 'equality' can be ambiguous, if not misleading, as can criticising alternative perspectives on women's rights through its use. The substantive debate is thus over the social frameworks used to manage the relationships between men and women, and not the somewhat nebulous labels used to describe them.Failures of the current social frameworkThe predominant approach to social framework, labelled 'equality', in western liberal democracies has been to grant women the rights and opportunities that men have enjoyed historically. It has translated into a demand for equal employment, political, economic, and social rights and opportunities, and attempts to combat sexist prejudices. It is an approach that seeks to equalise rights and opportunities in the context of the existing system; not to replace it, but to equalise treatment under it.However, a policy that seeks simply to equalise treatment in an existing system may also be oppressive. In fact, a considerable segment of feminist thought rejects it as a counterproductive approach. It does not correct inherent errors in the values that form the existing system, but assimilates women into them. Particularly if the existing system is institutionally at the service of men, women continually refer to their rights in male terms as they play catch-up in a system that is accepted as preferential to and prejudicing men, therefore institutionalising their disadvantaged status.The issue of employment opportunities and rights has featured significantly in this approach. Feminist thinkers considered financial independence from men a key part of emancipation; that men's monopoly over earnings has meant that power has rested with the male half of humanity historically. Promoting economic independence, however, has led to difficulties of other kinds. For those couples, or single mothers, with children, liberation against domestication through pursuing paid employment has often made little financial sense, and has created concerns over relationships with children. Alongside increases in the number of women in paid employment has been an increase in demand for childcare, and with it substantial costs of hire, compounded by current shortages.ix The cost of day nurseries in the UK, nationally, is estimated to be nearly £7000 a year for a 2 year-old child, peaking to £168 per week in London,x and the cost for a nanny is estimated at averaging over £21,000 a year,xi above the national average wage. Even for most dual-income families this is a considerable financial burden, and says nothing of the mental and physical effort that is required to combine paid employment with responsibility for children. Indeed, the situation is rather ironic. A mother seeking employment creates an employment opportunity in doing so, through the need for someone to mind her child whilst at work; hiring the child-carer costs a considerable proportion of her own wage, and more often than not will hire a woman.xii Superficially, it appears a rather complicated reshuffle but with the same net effect-someone must care for the child. If the mother, or father, had remained at home it would not have considerably altered her, or the couple's, income or costs. But as current employment debate demonstrates, despite the financial paradox, employment has become an icon of empowerment and is demanding that women's child-bearing nature should not put them at any career disadvantage to men.It is not only financial pressures that women and couples have come to endure. The onset of a number of social dilemmas and problems can be traced back to confusion and a lack of guidance over social responsibilities, although liberal individualists may interpret such shortcomings as welcome freedom. Men and women may lead independent, indeed irresponsible, lives but the birth of a child brings with it a shared responsibility that needs to be managed. Working parents have a limited amount of time with their children, an issue of considerable regret as surveys indicatexiii and there is confusion over responsibilities towards children in respect of time, commitment, values, and whether or not to divide or share tasks between couples. While women increasingly confront the assumption that they are primarily responsible for the care of children, it appears that the popular perception among men is that they are not.xiv Some couples may share responsibilities but the numbers of single parent families are rising, as are children available for adoption, teenage pregnancies, abortions, and 'unintended' births. The impact has been to burden parents with numerous social and financial dilemmas and to burden society with the impact of their inevitable mistakes.A Great Disruption?In his book 'The Great Disruption', Francis Fukuyama points to the, "…negative social trends, which together reflect a weakening of social bonds and common values in Western societies…" understanding the causes of which he dedicates a book. He contends that the onset of service based industries and the independence provided by the invention of oral contraceptives in the 60s and 70s unleashed women to the labour markets, a trend which has subsequently compromised traditional family structures. The breakdown in family structures and the loss of 'social capital' in the west he asserts, has subsequently created crime, insecurity and moral decline. But the technological advances which delivered the computer and the pill were not the cause of women entering employment; but rather tools for advocates of women's liberation, as the Economist magazine points out.xv It is ironic, that while heralding the triumph of liberal democracies in 'The End of History and the Last Man', Fukuyama admits that individualism (which consequently led to the basis of feminism) now compromises social stability: "The tendency of contemporary liberal democracies to fall prey to excessive individualism is perhaps their greatest long-term vulnerability and is particularly visible in the most individualistic of all democracies, the United States".xviThis increasing confusion over social responsibility has prompted some to attempt to identify the most appropriate social setting for children, families and society as a whole. Indeed, none other than Jack Straw, when he was British home secretary, wrote in his introduction to 'Supporting Families': "The evidence is that children are best brought up where you have two natural parents and it is more likely to be a stable family if they are married. It plainly makes sense for the government to do what it can to strengthen the institution of marriage", a view fought vociferously by radical feminists in his own party.xvii But promoting 'stable' family structures in the context of expanding dual income families, as women seek empowerment in the labour markets, and the costs of childcare, is fraught with dilemmas, complications, and apparent paradoxes.The heart of the problem in the current framework lies in the paradox created by trading-off liberal individualism and the need for social cohesion; liberating women from traditional family settings and the need for stable homes; challenging men's monopoly on earnings and the disadvantage created by women's child-bearing nature; seeking equality with men and appropriating for human differences. The logic of each creates an impasse.Roles & ResponsibilitiesWestern societies have increasingly rejected the notion of different roles and responsibilities between men and women to handle their increasing social dilemmas, as part of a social construct of gender and a disadvantageous division of labour. However, the questioning of social construct, both social roles and policy, by feminist thinkers has largely been to undermine historically western assumptions about women. No right to vote; to own property or to dispose of income as one wishes; denied access to education and work; considered meaningless in political and intellectual circles; regarded as inferior to men-all these describe the condition of women in European history. It seems appropriate to undermine these assumptions, indeed to reject them, as it does challenge this subjugated feminine construct. But it would be short-sighted to reject all beliefs about social relationships between men and women on the back of European experience and the roles it appropriated its women.From the discussion on managing differences, it appears that even after deconstructing social roles and constructs, the reality of men and women lead us back to conclude that some social system is needed to regulate their relationships, to prevent subjugation, abuse of rights and manage disputes between them. A framework is needed to articulate responsibilities and rights that men, women and children have towards each other. Thus, should we reject the notion of a 'social construct' per se, or specifically those false 'social constructs' that lead to the subjugation of either sex?But in a secular framework, an answer is difficult as it is trapped in gender polarisation. Either it is men that decide roles and responsibilities, or women. Whoever decides, they will fuel accusations of bias, preference, and privilege towards the deciding sex, by strengthening either patriarchy or matriarchy. In the development of the debate in the West these are the accusations that arguably rendered the appropriation of roles irrelevant in the first place.Questioning the assumptions & presenting alternativesThe story of the modern woman is one of her journey through the history of Western Europe and North America. Whether the depiction of Mary Wollenstonecroft as the 'first feminist', the French revolution, Mill's work on the 'Subjugation of Women', the Pankhurst's and the suffragettes, or the 'successes' of 'second wave' feminism in the 60s and 70s; it is the European experience that has been taken as the global model for women's emancipation. It inspires, indeed defines, feminism in other parts of the world. But its European context has entrenched a number of Eurocentric assumptions.This is most apparent when considering alternatives, such as the Islamic social framework. It is true that in the industrial middle class, men translated economic prowess as power both in society and in family, and the domestic mother in the context of advent of liberalism and capitalism came to represent a subjugated role. However, a domestic mother in the Islamic social framework is in an empowered and honoured position. She is afforded rights to property, is encouraged to learn and gain scholarship, to be politically active-indeed is granted the vote-and is afforded a number of marriage rights including access to divorce. This Islamic framework does not measure worth in terms of wealth or access to it, as has increasingly been the case in the West since the advent of liberal Capitalism, and so motherhood is valued no less, and often more so, than a highly paid role.By the same token, Islam does not consider men predominating in the work place as representing patriarchy, or placing society at the service of men's needs. The Islamic framework is built on accepting that men and women are equally human, neither inferior to the other (indeed it did so well before Europe's enlightenment) and are judged equally before their Creator. Both men and women may choose to work and earn, and those earnings are measured by merit and not by sex; women will earn the same as men if undertaking the same work. Likewise, the validity of opinions is not measured by assumptions about the advocating sex, but as the product of human reasoning. It promotes different roles for men and women, but does not suffer from gender polarisation as it is not men or women who decide the preferred roles and responsibilities but their Creator.It is common to hear criticisms of Islam's treatment of women because of the difference in, for example, dress code. This is interpreted as representing inequality and subjugation to men, or even sexist. But as the discussion earlier demonstrates, criticising difference as inequality is an unsophisticated outlook and practical views on equality are actually views on social framework. And so labelling Islam's social framework as promoting inequality is to do no more than say it is different; alone it represents no universal criticism as views on social framework are particular to broader viewpoints of ideology and disputed among feminists themselves.

Evolution

Exposing the flaws in the Theory of Evolution

This article will describe and explore the Theory of Evolution. It will attempt to describe the theory, defining its main elements, and also take a brief look at the historical changes to the Theory – a kind of evolution of the Theory of Evolution! In addition, the article will seek to discuss the evidences used by the proponents of this theory and then provide a synopsis of the counter arguments.

Introduction

The Theory of Evolution has become the de facto standard used in the West, and indeed beyond, to explain the existence of creation and life. It is described as rational and scientific; many statements are made to demonstrate the strength of the Theory – such as the number of scientists who have given it their blessings and its widespread acceptance beyond the scientific community. Nonetheless, there is a strong perception existing in our day and age of the credibility of the Theory of Evolution. To some extent, it is discussed and taught in schools and educational establishments and promoted in the mainstream media. In stark contrast, other arguments that explain the existence of life are considered to be irrational, backward and steeped in ignorance borne out of belief in religion. In other words, there are essentially two clear camps: the ‘scientific’ and progressive camp which espouses the virtues of the Theory, and the apparently ‘unscientific’ contingent which clings to outmoded explanations such as the existence of a Creator. In recent times, thanks in no small part to various Christian elements in the U.S., the clashes between these two sides have become more visible and the tempo seems to have been raised. There have been calls for a restructuring to the way in which the Theory is taught to children, or at the very least provision for a balanced approach, so that the young are taught about other explanations as well. Many establishments have insisted on giving religious teaching the priority, leading to conflict with those who believe religion should have no such role in schools.

The Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is sometimes described using complex and convoluted language, which can be a significant source of confusion. What adds to the confusion is the fact that aspects of the theory do undergo change and revision. In this article I will try to explain the main points that constitute the theory, on which those who propose this theory are agreed, without getting bogged down in the finer details or indeed the many arguments and assumptions in relation to areas where there may be some difference of opinion and divergence of views. I have also tried to simplify the description so it can be understood without recourse to a dictionary and constant definition of scientific terminology.To understand the thrust of the theory, it is useful to have an idea of some of the concepts that are used and an appreciation of the context.

Firstly, the definition: biological evolution is defined as descent with modification from a common ancestor. In this context, descent means going down from one generation through to the following generations. Modification alludes to alterations in genetic make-up and changes in gene frequencies. This definition encompasses what is known as small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).Of course biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

Secondly, a key central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as our cousins and we share a common grandmother. It is argued that through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we are all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships. These relationships can be reconstructed and represented on a "family tree," called a phylogeny.

As a consequence of this ‘family tree’ understanding, it is important to remember that:

1. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.

2. Humans are not "higher" or "more evolved" than other living lineages. Since these lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own lineages.

Thirdly, another important aspect of evolution is the linking of speciation events to time i.e. trying to understand when different species evolved. Using various methods, such as radiometric dating, scientists are able to conclude that life began 3.8 billion years ago, and insects diversified 290 million years ago, but the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged only five million years ago.To give an analogy for this, imagine squeezing the billions of years of the history of life on Earth into a single minute. Then it would take about 50 seconds for multi-cellular life to evolve, another four seconds for vertebrates to invade the land, and another four seconds for flowers to evolve — and only in the last 0.002 seconds would "modern" humans arise.

So, the claim is made that evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is apparently responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life — but exactly how does it work?Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. These genetic differences are heritable and can be passed on to the next generation — which is what really matters in evolution: long term change. Therefore, we need to examine the actual mechanisms of evolution.In essence there are four basic processes, which constitute the mechanisms of evolution. These are mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection.

Mutation refers to the actual changes in the DNA within cells. The DNA affects how an organism looks, behaves and so on. Thus a change in the DNA can alter all aspects of its life.When cells divide the DNA is copied exactly as it is. However, on occasion, it is possible for they’re to be a discrepancy in the copying of the DNA. This difference is considered a mutation. It must be kept in mind that mutations are random – and so do not normally depend on external factors. That said, it is possible for there to be mutation as a result of exposure to radiation or chemicals, causing the DNA to break down. In this case, when the cells repair the DNA, the result is not a perfect repair – and so the resultant DNA is a mutation.Whether a particular mutation occurs is not related to how useful that mutation would be. The mutation in the genes can yield a beneficial, neutral or harmful change for the organism.

Although mutation can occur with any gene, it is the mutation that affects genes, which can be transmitted from one generation to the next that is of interest, since this is a form of evolution. If genes mutate and cannot be passed to future generations, then these mutations cannot be considered as having any relation to evolution. These are called Somatic Mutations and occur in non-reproductive cells. Hence the genes that are affected by mutation related to biological evolution are the reproductive cells, like eggs and sperm. Any mutations in the sex cells mean that potentially the change (the mutation) can be passed onto following generations. These mutations are labelled Germ Line Mutations.Migration is the flow of genes from one population to another. This Gene Flow can include various different events, such as pollen being blown to a new destination or people moving to new cities or countries. In a situation where genes are carried to a population where those genes previously did not exist, gene flow becomes a very important source of genetic variation.

Thus, as well as being mechanisms of evolution, Mutation and Migration also constitute sources of genetic variation. Another source of genetic variation is sex, which can introduce new gene combinations into a population.Genetic drift refers to the situation where, just ‘by chance’, some individuals leave behind a few more descendents and thus genes than other individuals. This happens to all populations since there can be no avoidance of chance. So for example, every time somebody steps on an insect with a certain characteristic, this reduces the number within that particular population and hence means there is one less insect remaining to pass on its genes to a new generation. Conversely, this also means that there are now more insects with different characteristics within the same population, who are able to pass on their genes. Clearly, this shows that genetic drift affects the genetic makeup of a population through entirely random means.Natural Selection is the fourth cog in the wheel of evolution. This in itself requires three components: variation in traits, differential reproduction and heredity. To understand this, consider a population of beetles. Some beetles are brown and others are green – this is a variation in a trait or a characteristic.

The environment is not able to support unlimited growth of the population and so not all individuals are able to reproduce to their full potential. For example, we could say that green beetles are easily visible on the ground and so tend to get eaten more by birds – so less survive to reproduce compared to brown beetles. In other words, we have differential reproduction.Finally, the brown beetles have brown baby beetles since this trait has a genetic basis i.e. they pass on a gene that determines the colour to be brown. This is what is meant by heredity. Putting these components together, evolution by natural selection is seen at work. The more advantageous trait of brown colour becomes more common in the population with time and if this process continues, then eventually all the beetles will be brown.

It is claimed that natural selection is also able to shape behaviour. The mating rituals that many birds have, the wiggle dance that bee’s do or the human capacity to learn language, have genetic components.In some cases, natural selection can be observed directly. Data shows that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands is related to weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented.

‘Fitness’ is a concept used to describe how good a particular organism is at leaving its set of genes in the next generation compared with others with a different set of genes. Going back to the example of beetles, if brown beetles were to consistently leave more off spring than green beetles, then they would be considered to have a higher fitness. Fitness however does depend on the environment in which an organism lives. Also, from this perspective, the fittest individual is not necessarily the strongest, fastest or biggest. What matters is leaving it’s genes in the next generation and so survival ability, finding a mate and producing off spring is more important. This sub-category of natural selection in relation to finding a mate and reproductive behaviour is labelled sexual selection.Another category of natural selection is artificial selection. This is where, instead of nature, humans consciously select for or against particular features in organisms. For example, the human may allow only organisms with the desired feature to reproduce or may provide more resources to the organisms with the desired feature. Historically, farmers and breeders have used this idea of selection to cause major changes in the features of their plants and animals.

One key aspect of natural selection is known as adaptation. An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it seems to provide an improved function. Adaptations can take many forms: a behaviour that allows better evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new resource — all of these might be adaptations. For example, mimicry of leaves by insects is an adaptation for evading predators or the use of echolocation by bats to help them catch insects. Similarly, the creosote bush is a desert-dwelling plant that produces toxins that prevent other plants from growing nearby, thus reducing competition for nutrients and water.To summarise, all of the mechanisms discussed above (mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection) can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, it is worth keeping in mind that natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation — that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others.

A historical perspective

Although Charles Darwin is synonymous with the Theory of Evolution, he was not the first naturalist to propose that species changed over time into new species i.e. that life evolves. In the eighteenth century, a naturalist called Buffon along with others began to introduce the idea that life might not have been fixed since creation. By the end of the 1700s, palaeontologists had swelled the fossil collections of Europe, offering a picture of the past at odds with an unchanging natural world. And in 1801, a French naturalist named Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet; Chevalier de Lamarck took a great conceptual step and proposed a full-blown theory of evolution.Lamarck was struck by the similarities of many of the animals he studied, and was impressed too by the burgeoning fossil record. It led him to argue that life was not fixed. When environments changed, organisms had to change their behaviour to survive. If they began to use an organ more than they had in the past, it would increase in its lifetime. If a giraffe stretched its neck for leaves, for example, a "nervous fluid" would flow into its neck and make it longer. Its offspring would inherit the longer neck, and continued stretching would make it longer still over several generations. Meanwhile organs that organisms stopped using would shrink (called vestigial structures).

Lamarck was mocked and attacked by many of his contemporary naturalists such as Cuvier. While they questioned him on scientific grounds, many of them were also disturbed by the theological implications of his work. Lamarck was proposing that life took on its current form through natural processes, not through miraculous interventions. For British naturalists in particular, steeped as they were in natural theology, this was appalling. They believed that nature was a reflection of God's benevolent design. To them, it seemed Lamarck was claiming that it was the result of blind primal forces. Shunned by the scientific community, Lamarck died in 1829 in poverty and obscurity.In many ways, Darwin's central argument was very different from Lamarck's. He argued that complexity evolved simply as a result of life adapting to its local conditions from one generation to the next. He also argued that species could go extinct rather than change into new forms. But Darwin relied on much the same evidence for evolution that Lamarck did and Darwin wrongly accepted that changes acquired during an organism's lifetime could be passed on to its offspring.

Lamarckian inheritance remained popular throughout the 1800s, in large part because scientists did not yet understand how heredity works. With the discovery of genes, it was finally abandoned for the most part. But Lamarck, whom Darwin described as "this justly celebrated naturalist," remains a major figure in the history of biology for envisioning evolutionary change for the first time.Throughout the nineteenth century, heredity remained a puzzle to scientists. How was it that children ended up looking similar to, but not exactly like, their parents? These questions fascinated and frustrated Charles Darwin deeply. After all, heredity lies at the heart of evolution.Ironically, it was just as Darwin was publishing the Origin of Species in 1859 that someone got the first real glimpse of the biological machinery behind heredity. In a secluded monastery in what is now the Czech Republic, a monk named Gregor Mendel was studying heredity in a garden of peas. Through his experiments, Mendel discovered what later scientists called "dominant" and "recessive" alleles i.e. part of genetics.

Darwin and a British biologist called Alfred Russel Wallace had independently conceived of a natural, even observable, way for life to change: a process Darwin called natural selection. Within a few decades, most scientists accepted that evolution and the descent of species from common ancestors were real. But natural selection had a harder time finding acceptance.Even in 1900, whilst many scientists were rediscovering Mendel's insights, they continued to remain opposed to natural selection. After all, Darwin had talked of natural selection gradually altering a species by working on tiny variations. But the Mendelist’s found major differences between traits encoded by alleles. In order to jump from one allele to another, evolution must make giant jumps—an idea that seemed to clash with Darwin.But in the 1920s geneticists began to recognize that natural selection could indeed act on genes. For one thing, it became clear that any given trait was usually the product of many genes rather than a single one. A mutation to any one of the genes involved could create small changes to the trait rather than some drastic transformation. Just as importantly, several scientists — foremost among them Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane and Sewall Wright — showed how natural selection could operate in a Mendelian world. They carried out breeding experiments like previous geneticists, but they also did something new: they built sophisticated mathematical models of evolution.

Known as "population genetics," their approach revealed how mutations arise and, if they are favoured by natural selection, can spread through a population. Even a slight advantage can let genes spread rapidly through a group of animals or plants and drive other forms extinct. Evolution, these population geneticists argued, is carried out mainly by small mutations, since drastic mutations would almost always be harmful rather than helpful.Thus, population genetics became one of the key elements of what would be called the Modern Synthesis.In 1937, a Soviet-born geneticist named Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote a landmark book called Genetics and the Origin of Species. Dobzhansky's ability to combine genetics and natural history attracted many other biologists to join him in the effort to find a unified explanation of how evolution happens. Their combined work known as "The Modern Synthesis" brought together genetics, palaeontology and many other sciences into one powerful explanation of evolution, showing how mutations and natural selection could produce large-scale evolutionary change.

While evolutionary biologists were fashioning the Modern Synthesis, geneticists around the world searched furiously for the molecules that carried genetic information. They knew that cells contained several different types of molecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids. But which had the capacity to bear information and be copied into new cells?The answer came through the discovery of DNA by Francis Crick and James Watson, which revolutionized evolutionary biology. Mutations, researchers realized, change the structure of the DNA. A single base pair may change, or a set of genes may be duplicated. Hence, those mutations that confer a selective advantage to an individual become more common over time, and ultimately these mutant genes could drive the older versions out of existence.

Evidences used by the proponents of the Theory

The mechanisms covered thus far are the basic building blocks of the theory of evolution. The next logical step is to look at the evidence that is given to claim these processes are responsible for both micro and macroevolution. In other words, what evidence is there that evolution has occurred and is responsible for the variety of life around us, and also is there evidence that demonstrates the mechanisms discussed in this article are indeed behind all these changes?

Those who support the theory of evolution present proofs that can loosely be gathered into a number of categories. We will examine these in turn.The primary source of proof for the theory comes from Fossil Evidence. The argument is that fossil records provide excellent snapshots of the past and when assembled they illustrate evolutionary change over many millions of years.As well as being actual remains of organisms, and thus giving an understanding as to the shape, appearance and skeletal structure, fossils can give additional clues. For example, they can indicate interactions that took place many years previously. A fossil may contain punctures or holes that could be teeth records of various animals, allowing scientists to extrapolate about what kind of organism may have been responsible, the shape of its jaws, and so on.Fossils can tell us about the growth patterns in ancient animals. For example, examining a cross section of a bone that has been found, it is possible to see the number of blood vessels; this in turn would indicate the speed of growth and so on.

An important section of fossil records are transitional forms. These are fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between ancient organisms and their descendents. Since scientists have found so many transitional forms, it is claimed there is an abundance of evidence for evolution. An example of this is the case of the beluga whale. The beluga whale has its nostrils at the top of its skull. A fossil record of an animal that is considered to be related to today’s whales and dolphins, called Pakicetus, had its nostrils at the front of its skull. This animal lived about 50 million years ago. So scientists would expect that there might be a transitional form i.e. an animal that had some variation in the position of its nostrils compared to Pakicetus and the beluga whale. In fact, fossil records have been discovered of a skull, about 25 million years old, where the nostrils are in the middle of the skull. This animal has been labelled Aetiocetus.So Aetiocetus could plausibly be the transitional form, linking Pakicetus to the beluga whale and demonstrating a steady evolution.

The second source of evidence is garnered from studying homologies. Evolutionary theory predicts that organisms that come from the same ancestor will share similarities. These similar characteristics are known as homologies. As mentioned earlier, the logic is essentially that historically every species shares a common ancestor. As we move forward in time, new species evolve, but since they share a number of common ancestors, so we would expect them to share some characteristics that exist or existed in those ancestors. A crude example would be that of humans and apes. At some stage, going back in time, there was a common ancestor from which both species evolved. So humans and chimpanzees would have similar characteristics, based on the fact that they share common ancestors. Another example of homology is that of leaves. If we were to examine the leaves of say the pitcher plant (which has leaves shaped to capture insects), the Venus Flytrap, the Poinsettia (which has bright red leaves) and the cactus plant (where its leaves are essentially spines) then we would see that each type of leave has a different shape and function. Yet they are all derived from a common ancestral form.

Yet another example of homology is the forelimb of tetrapods (vertebrates with legs). Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.Comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences and studying embryological development can reveal homologies.

Studying the embryological development of living things (i.e. prior to birth) provides clues to the evolution of present-day organisms. During some stages of development, organisms exhibit ancestral features in whole or incomplete form. For example, some species of living snakes have hind limb-buds as early embryos but rapidly lose the buds and develop into legless adults. The study of developmental stages of snakes, combined with fossil evidence of snakes with hind limbs, supports the hypothesis that snakes evolved from a limbed ancestor.Similarly, toothed whales have full sets of teeth throughout their lives. Baleen whales, however, only possess teeth in the early foetal stage and lose them before birth. The possession of teeth in foetal baleen whales provides evidence of common ancestry with toothed whales and other mammals. In addition, fossil evidence indicates that the late Oligocene whale Aetiocetus (the same Aetiocetus - our transitional friend with the nostrils in the middle of its skull), which is considered to be the earliest example of baleen whales, also bore a full set of teeth.

From a cellular and molecular level we find fundamental similarities between the cells of living things, which can be explained by the theory of evolution. All organisms are made of cells, which consist of membranes filled with water containing genetic material, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, salts and other substances. The cells of most living things use sugar for fuel while producing proteins as building blocks and messengers. Comparing a typical animal cell with that of a plant, there are only three structures unique to one or the other (these are the cell wall, the centriole and the chloroplast). All other aspects are similar, such as the nucleus, cytoplasm and the vacuole.Comparison of genes between species also reveals striking similarities – for example, even roundworms share 25% of their genes with humans. In many ways, DNA is itself a homology for all living things – i.e. everything has DNA and so this is a common trait that must have come from a common ancestor.

In a nutshell, homologies are used as proof for the theory, since the existence of similarities between groups of organisms is an indication of common ancestors and thus evolution.A third source of evidence for evolution is the fact that there has been sufficient time for this process to have produced the diversity we see. The age of the earth has been determined through both relative dating (i.e. examining the different layers of rocks on the surface of the earth) and numerical dating which relies on the decay of radioactive elements such as uranium and potassium. The conclusion made is that the timescales involved are adequate for evolution to take its course.Artificial selection, mentioned earlier, is also an evidence for evolution. This is because people have been using selective breeding with plants and animals for many hundreds of years, and this breeding has shown how species can change dramatically. It can be argued that artificial selection has the ability to modify the forms and behaviours of populations to the point they are seemingly very different to their ancestors. So artificial selection is a model that helps with understanding natural selection.

The variation in the environment and ecology is also a proof of sorts. As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.For example, house sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker coloured than those in the south. Darker colours absorb sunlight better than light colours and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss — both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing microevolution on a continental scale.

Finally, experiments also show that populations can evolve. As an example, John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with guppies (a type of fish) of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario is as follows: female guppies prefer colourful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colourful males, but for a less complimentary purpose — a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colourful. Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colourful.When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly coloured male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. So this demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change.

Arguments against the Theory of Evolution

The previous section outlined some of the proofs that are presented for the theory of evolution. We will now consider briefly a few of the arguments against the theory.1. The theory of evolution is usually described as fact, and many people see it like this due to a moulding of public opinion. Yet the trouble is that it is simply a theory. And like many theories it is wont to constantly chop and change. Indeed we can see on numerous occasions how it has changed over time and undergone revisions. For example, according to Darwin himself, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.

Another example is the proposition of a slightly different model in recent times. Called "punctuated equilibrium", this model rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous "jumps". This is because those who ascribe to it believe the fossil record does not support gradual evolution. Sadly for the proponents, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould (American palaeontologists) their own theory is bankrupt – since for one thing, it conflicts with the understanding that genes cannot undergo radical mutations.

2. The sources of proof given for the theory essentially rely on retro-fitting the supposed evidence to the theory i.e. the theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species – in fact this is more plausible. Thus fossils and homologies would just as much, if not more, support this ‘theory’ of a Creator.

3. Fossils are a record of what may have existed. They do not indicate anything more than this. By examining a fossil we could equally state that the organism was created as opposed to evolving from an ancestor. The fossil record is also very much incomplete – there are massive, gaping holes. This presents a staggering problem for proponents of the Theory. The somewhat weak argument is that the bulk of the fossil record may have been destroyed or is yet to be discovered. According to Neville George, a professor of Palaeontology at Glasgow University:

“There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…” Yet he goes on to say, “The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps”.

Contrary to what evolutionists claim, there are only limited (if any) transitional forms. Importantly, for example, we don’t see transitional forms that show the alleged evolution of apes to humans [and to try and explain the many loopholes regarding this, there is a current debate among evolutionists themselves about whether it occurred in steps or smoothly which we alluded to earlier i.e. punctuated equilibrium]. The fossil record back then (and still today) is nearly totally void of transitional species. If species are continually mutating, never constant, why do we find several of the same, certain prehistoric creatures, but never any that appear to be in transition? Why do palaeontologists find lots of dinosaurs but never where dinosaurs come from, nor what they turned into?

In Darwin's own words, 'Why, if species have descended by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?' It is an excellent question, which he answers himself, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.'Indeed British evolutionist Derek Ager admits, “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find - over and over again - not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another”.

Yet another problem in using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is that under closer examination, it appears to be a proof for exactly the opposite argument – i.e. creation. For example, one of the oldest strata of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period seemed to emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record – there appeared to be no ancestors, although in relatively recent times palaeontologists believe fossils have been found dating from the preceding Vendian (or Ediacaran) period. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.

“A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today”.And one of the most vociferous advocates for atheism and evolution in today’s age, Richard Dawkins, comments “the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”.

4. The basic mechanism for gene variation is mutation. And it is known that mutations are random and limited in their scope. We should note that what is not a point of debate here is the fact that genes undergo mutation; neither is there a point of conflict with the various biological processes within organisms. For example, we know that insects can build up resistance against forms of pesticide over time – in fact, in the same manner humans have long believed that taking poison in small quantities can help survive what would normally be a fatal dose. These observations do not really constitute evolution. However, even if we agreed to define these particular cases as examples of microevolution, the fact is that they can be explained by what we have come to know through scientific study and resulting conclusions. The argument for a Creator also accepts scientific facts and conclusions – it no more denies the laws of biology being created, than it denies the laws of physics being put in place by the Creator. Hence, change within the framework of the laws of biology is possible – and there is sufficient evidence for this. The main problem however is with macroevolution. To even begin to consider macroevolution, mutations would need to be dramatic – trying to get round this, it is claimed that there has been sufficient time for many small scale mutations to eventually yield the different species we see. But frankly this isn’t plausible – we have seen no evidence to support such a claim - and so this is again nothing more than a pure hypothesis.

In addition, there are many other problems with the mutation argument. If mutations occur, they actually cause harmful effects and not beneficial ones. We can witness the effects of mutations caused in humans following radiation poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl – that is, a litany of death, disability and illness.According to the evolutionist scientist Warren Weavers commenting in the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:“Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are necessary parts of the process of evolution. How can good effects - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?”

Similarly, another scientist B.G. Ranganathan states in his book ‘Origins?’ that “Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction”.Finally, mutations do not actually add any new information to an organisms DNA. During a mutation, the genetic information is either destroyed or rearranged, but since there is no new information, it is impossible for mutations to cause a new trait or organ within a living organism.

5. Artificial selection (breeding) and sexual selection do produce new combinations but these are limited in their scope. They are restricted to a finite set of possible gene combinations. So breeding cannot introduce a radically new species – it simply gives a result based on the limited pool of combined genes. It cannot give a result outside of this. E.g. Horse plus donkey gives a mule. Or an African married to a Caucasian can result in off spring described as half-cast. The latter cannot produce a human whose skin colour is red or purple, etc.

6. The odds are heavily stacked against evolution. Evolution cannot answer where the first cell came from. The best guess is that came about through a random coincidence. Fred Hoyle, a well-known English mathematician and astronomer, and someone who believes in evolution, made the analogy that the chances of the first cell forming in this manner were comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials present. And according to Professor of Applied Mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe:

“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence”. In other words the random formation of such a first cell is an impossibility.

But still let’s assume we suddenly have a cell. The first cell would then have to self-reproduce otherwise there would only ever be one cell. This becomes problematic for evolutionists so they suggest self-replication – i.e. the first cell has the ability to clone itself. However, organic matter can only self reproduces if it exists as a fully developed cell with existing support structures such as the particular environment and energy. This then requires more leaps of faith – so let’s make another assumption, this time that the cell does have a complex structure and the ability to reproduce. But, for evolution, mutation needs to happen. So firstly, since mutation is random, even given an absolute age, mutation might not occur. And secondly, mutation can only take place if the cell is forced to repair itself or if it makes a copy of itself. Thus, for a handful of cells, to copy and mutate successfully and form different cells and for this process to continue onwards to produce the complexity of life we see is something, which cannot happen. Leaving aside time, and the random nature of mutation, just the series of mutations necessary to produce even the simplest of species are impossible.

7. There is no actual hard evidence for the process of evolution itself. We don’t witness evolution. All that experiments (such as the one involving guppies) or observations in the field (such as the house sparrows example) demonstrate is a form of selection. But this is not real evolution – the fact that a population may change due to various factors (such as environment, predators, etc) or that it may become extinct is not a change from one species to another. So even if we can see natural selection of sorts, this is based on rational factors, and is not evolution.

8. Evolution cannot answer why only the human species has the clear faculty of intelligence, thought and reasoning that has allowed it to progress. It cannot explain the existence of emotions, except through an undefined notion such as chemicals within the body. And it is unable to offer any satisfactory explanation for issues such as the existence of the soul – indeed according to evolutionary theory, there cannot be a soul, rather life itself must be caused by the functioning of cells since after all everything has evolved from a single cell.

9. Adaptation is mentioned as a feature of evolution. That is, the manner in which organisms have evolved beneficial characteristics adapted to their environment, which help them survive. So one example we gave earlier was that of stick insects, where their body itself is a form of camouflage protecting them against predators. However, evolutionists themselves state that mutation is random and can lead to beneficial as well as harmful results. The environment cannot influence the occurrence or form of any mutation. So in this case, the evolutionary argument would have to be that today’s stick insects evolved from ancestors, which did randomly mutate to have this beneficial characteristic of camouflage. Those within the population that didn’t inherit this mutation would have died out due to their inability to survive. But once again, claiming that a series of mutations occurred, that lead to stick insects possessing characteristics that are suited to their environment, is nothing but conjecture. As before, we could equally state that a Creator has created various species and organisms of life with these inherent varying characteristics. So, organisms were in fact created with characteristics that we interpret as beneficial to them, instead of these traits evolving through time. Thus, the fact that many organisms seem well matched to their environments cannot be cited as any kind of proof or indication of evolution.

10. Let’s take a look at another argument that shows the fallacy of evolution. Many organisms and parts of organisms do not appear to have evolved from lesser things because they are 'irreducibly complex' life forms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been developed to describe something that is made of interacting parts that all work together. To understand this, take the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions.

Likewise, many biological structures are irreducibly complex. Bats are a well-known example. They are said to have evolved from a small rodent whose front toes became wings. This presents a multitude of problems. As the front toes grow skin between them, the creature has limbs that are too long to run, or even walk well, yet too short to help it fly. There is no plausible way that a bat wing can evolve from a rodent's front toes. In fact, the fossil record supports this, because the first time bats are seen in the fossil record, they have completely developed wings and are virtually identical to modern bats.Consider another example, that of the eye. Suppose that before animals had sight, one species decided it would be advantageous to be able to decrypt light rays. So, what is evolved first? The retina? The iris? The eye is made of many tiny parts, each totally useless without the others. The probability that a genetic mutation that would create each of these at the same time, in the same organism, is zero. If, however, one organism evolved just a retina, then the logic of Darwin suggests that the only solution is to rid oneself of useless traits replacing them with beneficial ones, so the idea of the eye evolving one segment at a time is also bogus.

Conclusion

In a time where the theory of evolution has been catapulted to the level of fact, it is useful for us to have a firm grasp of what this theory is, and with the emerging discussion gaining more and more profile (that between creationism on the one side and evolutionary thought on the other) it is vital that we are able to show the strength of the correct argument.

One big problem of presenting the topic of evolution is finding a reasonable balance: on the one hand, simplifying and leaving out some of the terminology risks not being able to convey the subject matter accurately; on the other, by not revising and simplifying at all, there is a distinct possibility that only those with a solid understanding of biology and science will grasp what is being presented. This article has attempted to run through the basic mechanics of the theory, proofs that are presented for it and some of the arguments against evolution. Many points are too elaborate and wide ranging to touch upon in this discussion. In any event, there is an abundance of material available regarding the theory and surrounding issues that discuss these aspects in much more detail and is worth exploring for those that are interested in doing so. The theory is often cloaked in scientific language and complex terminology, and presented as a solid and viable explanation for the existence of life. Although the focus and objective of the article was not to prove the fallacy of the theory, but rather to be informative with respect to the whole discussion regarding evolution as a concept, nevertheless it has hopefully been shown that evolutionary understanding, far from being fact, is nothing more than speculation and hypothesis.