We will give a simple idea about the thought behind Charles Darwin Theory Evolution and when I heard about it the first time and what was the first impression, then we will discuss few unfair talks about Charles Darwin Evolution Theory.
The first time I heard about evolution was in secondary school where we were teached about it in biology and because of our strong Islamic belief in Egypt, we were underestimating what Charles Darwin theory evolution has to tell. Our teachers always told us to never consider what is said in this theory and that we should study it just for the sake of the exams. All of our teachers were telling us that this is a stupid theory and we can’t take what this Charles Darwin is saying in his theory evolution seriously and they were making fun of this theory. All due to our religious belief.
So, most of us -naturally- thought badly of this theory and made a big and deep belief that it is completely wrong theory and that Charles Darwin was some mad scientist. And now the biggest proportion of the people who say this is a stupid theory are the Muslim countries. Very very few Muslim say good things or a truth about evolution. Most of them say it is the most stupid thing without even reading the actual words of Charles Darwin theory evolution.
That was my background about evolution.
While growing up and seeing other developed countries who are the first in science, I started to see that the people who believe this evolution in these advanced countries are more than my country. I saw that evolution is dealt with respectfully, not like we do in my country. So, I tried to search about it a little more.
Base of Charles Darwin theory Evolution
- The word I heard a lot, natural selection, which means that nature don’t stay on one state forever. Nature changes, climate changes too. So, these changes can be favorable for some species and unfavorable for some others.
- The animate who get favorable natural condition will gain power and increase in numbers while the ones who get unfavorable condition will have to adapt to survive, otherwise it will be extinct.
- And that is very logical because there are extinct species. They became extinct because they couldn’t adapt to the changes happened to nature.
- Now, the debates are about the ones who can adapt and survive in unfavorable conditions. Those have to make a change to survive. This is also logical and many proofs are available for this kind of change. There is adaptation now and it is very clear. For example, micro-organisms are evolving to survive under the unfavorable conditions we put them under with antibiotics.
- So, it’s unfair, unlogical to deny adaptation which is a little part of evolution.
- There are other selections that happened by factors other than nature according to Charles Darwin. These other factors are to clarify the change of things that isn’t related to survival like the different coloration of certain birds and other bizarre-looking animals.
- All these previous points should be logical -I think- and I believe them. The problem is about the change from a species to another. Charles Darwin theory evolution tells that mammals evolved from fish and this part of the theory is making the problem of approval and disapproval of the theory.
From species to another
- This is where the long endless debates start. Evolutionists say it happened un evolutionists say it can’t happen.
- Un evolutionists ask for an observable evidence of a species turning to another and evolutionist replying changes from a species to another take millions of years and it is impossible to get an animal who lived in between two species. Evolutionists add that it is very very slow transaction and there is no in between creatures to observe.
- But, that isn’t satisfying un evolutionists who ask for an observable evidence in this case.
- The majority of un evolutionist are believing in good and no observable evidence can be obtained in this case too and this talk us inside an unending loop. Un evolutionists ask for an observable evidence of a creature living between two different species -which doesn’t exist- and evolutionists ask for an observable evidence of god existence -which doesn’t exist too- 🙂
Now, lets talk about the unfair debates
- I’ve recently watched a video in which the interviewer were asking about Charles Darwin theory evolution and he was against the theory. So, he -in his intention- was trying to corner the people who are believing the theory. In the end, he asked for “the observable evidence of a transition from a species to another” which doesn’t exist. And this is a trial to show that the people who believe the theory are illogical and never consider to think about the evidence he is asking for. Nobody gave him the evidence he wanted -because it doesn’t exist- then he told them that they are blindly believing the theory. And that’s really unfair argument.
- Observable evidence isn’t the only way to say this is true or false. There are many types of evidence.
- It upsets me when I see both sides looking down on each other. I hope that both of them will respect each other thoughts, logic, and humanity. We must stop looking down on who are disagreeing with us.
Personally, I think that there is no perfect theory and Charles Darwin theory evolution should be respected without overestimating. All rules have exceptions. That’s my own thought about it.
Hoping that my words here were interesting 🙂