Tue, Jul
2 New Articles

368. Monkey not precursor to man. 

ஆங்கில விளக்கம்
  • Smaller Small Medium Big Bigger
  • Default Meera Catamaran Pavana

368. Monkey not precursor to man. 

These verses (2:21, 3:59, 4:1, 5:18, 6:2, 6:98, 7:189, 15:26, 15:28, 16:4, 18:37, 18:51, 19:67, 21:37, 22:5, 23:12, 25:54, 30:20, 32:7, 35:11, 36:77, 37:11, 38:71, 39:6, 40:57, 40:67, 49:13, 50:16, 51:56, 53:45, 55:3, 55:14, 70:19, 76:2, 86:5, 87:2, 90:4, 92:3, 95:4, 96:1) of the Quran say man is not the resultant product of evolutionary development from monkey, but a direct creation of God. These verses talk of the first human being made out of clay and the subsequent one from seminal fluid. 

No one can deny the fact that humanity multiplied by means of seminal fluid.

But rationalists argue the initial stages of mankind developed by evolutionary process.

They argue that unicellular organisms evolved to become multicellular ones ultimately resulting in monkeys that further developed into humans. This argument of theirs in refusing man was created by God stems from the fear that such belief would sound the death knell to atheism they believe in.

. But we do not get any response from them for the question, from where did the unicellular organism come from?

Some seem to support the theory that man came from monkeys, because they use it as a ruse to establish the ideology of atheism, and we do not find any scientific basis for their belief. It is just based on an assumption.

The ideology of Darwinism is, with the development of time, some organisms kept on evolving for a long period and the resultant species were known as monkeys which further evolved and developed into human beings.

Did any Darwinist conclude this theory after having observed a monkey evolving into a man? Not at all. It can be said, the reason for these people to come to such an assumption, is the similarities that are found in the appearance of man and monkey. To portray the theory of evolution as a real happening they have released imaginary pictures on theory of evolution as proof of evidence. These are imaginary portraits, and do not form the evidence to prove principles of evolution.

It is surprising to see people in these scientific modern days falling prey to such kind of blind beliefs. Like their counterparts did in those dark ages.

Maybe the out-ward appearance of man and monkey exhibit similarities but the inner structure is not that similar.

We are living at a time where blood transfusions are carried out from man to man.

At times when availability of human blood for transfusions became scarce, scientists tried to find an alternate source in other organisms, and found the blood of pig was the closest compatible.

In the future, if the scientists do or do not conclude that pig blood of pig can be transfused to man, it has been confirmed for now the blood of pig is close to that of man. 

If the belief, man evolved from a monkey is true, then blood of monkey should be found to be more compatible to that of man, whereas the same degree of incompatibility (that is seen between the blood of man and blood of other animals) is also found in the case of monkeys.

This discovery of the nature of blood between man and monkey is the strongest evidence to suggest man could never have evolved from monkey. It is better to conclude the origin of man based on the much more scientific methods than doing it on the basis of outward appearances.

Even today, when the appearances of a son and a father do not match, it is decided on the basis of a DNA test, and does not take into consideration the outward appearances.

We can forgive Darwin for the erroneous assumptions on evolution because, during his time he was unaware about the components of blood, but to continue the same fallacy even today is unforgivable. Man has progressed to a stage where heart transplants are the order of the day, and to an extent where artificial hearts are a reality.

Researches are being undertaken to study replacement of human heart with that of an animal, to rehabilitate many heart patients.

It was found that none of the hearts of animals including monkeys was incompatible.

Surprisingly the heart of a pig was found to be close to that of man. This is an established fact. And if the question of evolutionary developments of man needs to be decided based on an animal, a pig stands a better chance to take that place than a monkey. Relying on science to decide on the origins of humans based on internal organs is more appropriate.

Man has now made rapid advancements in the field of genetics and has decoded genomes.

We can believe in the theory of evolution to some extent, had there been a confirmation of similarities in the genome of monkey or any other animal and man, but no such things have been brought to light till now.

Furthermore, before genomes could be discovered, it was found out that the entire humankind was from a single pair of African parents.

Darwin did not say a particular pair of monkeys evolved into humans that multiplied into the present numbers. The philosophy of Darwin was that a particular group of monkeys at a particular period evolved into humans. The discovery that a single African couple gave rise to the present population demolishes the theory put forth by Darwin. 

 The concept, humans are from a single set of parents creates a philosophy of universal brotherhood, and would stop discriminations in humanity based on caste, clan, color etc. Holding on to Darwinism would spell disaster to mankind. 

Darwinism would justify discrimination in mankind based on class, creed, color, clan etc, by easily differentiating and citing origins of birth.

Another most important factor that needs to be taken note of here is that man does not earn pride through his bodily features but through his rationalistic ability.

Dawin cites only the changes in bodily features of man and completely ignores the necessity or the reason for a change from an irrational being to a rational human.

According to Darwinism, the giraffe was initially with a short neck that elongated gradually with its search for food that was available at a much higher reach on trees. Darwin’s theory postulates, as a result of reaching out to the trees in search of food the giraffe ended up with an elongated neck as we find them today. Taking into consideration the giraffe needed a long neck to survive, was there a compulsion for rationalism in living beings at any point of time for survival. There is no need for rationalism to survive in this world.

But was there a compulsion in living beings at any time of history that made them require rationalism for survival? There is no need for rationalism for one to survive in this world

Was there a compulsion that rationalism is a necessity for survival. There was no compulsion from any quarters at any point of time for a change from irrational being to a rational human.

When it is concluded rationalism is not required for survival of living beings, the result is there might be a change in the physical features of the beings, but does not change the being into a rational one.

We cannot accept the theory of evolution regarding the giraffe, because there is no explanation for the elongation of the elephant’s trunk, and the presence of a pouch in kangaroos. There is no answer in Darwin’s theory of evolution regarding the elephant’s trunk and the presence of an external pouch in kangaroos, are they going to explain that the trunk in elephants is the result of the elongation of its nostrils?

If the evolutionary development of monkeys is man, why did it stop? 

As per these people’s theory, every day in some part of the world a change from monkey to man should be taking place, or some monkeys on a regular basis are giving birth to human babies. It did not take place nor continue to take place. There is no explanation to this from Darwinists.

If as per the theory of evolution, man evolved from monkey, there should have been an intermediary between monkey and man with a few differences. But there should be thousands of creatures in between monkey and man with differences in a gradual manner, proving evolution. But the presence of thousands of differences between monkey and man proves man did not evolve from monkey. There is no explanation as to why man did not evolve to a better being.

And studies conducted on human blood, heart, liver, kidney, prove man is a unique being and did not evolve from any other creature. 

To know more about every one is equal by birth and only deeds differentiate one from the other and also to know about equality and brotherhood in Islam please refer to explanation points 11, 32, 49, 59, 141, 168, 182, 227, 290, 508.

You have no rights to post comments. Register and post your comments.

Don't have an account yet? Register Now!

Sign in to your account