Exploring the age-old questions of life's origins and evolution, this article navigates the clash between religion and science. With compelling arguments, it delves into the intricate balance between divine creation and naturalistic explanations, urging contemplation on the mysteries of existence.

Certain questions have always intrigued us, young and old, since our inception on Earth, consistently finding an audience throughout generations: What is life? How did life begin and spread on Earth? Were plants, animals, and humans created separately or from a common ancestor? In the words of a believer, how were we created? Or, in the words of a non-believer, how did we come into existence and evolve alongside all other living beings?

These questions appeal to every one of us at varying degrees based on our level of contemplation and curiosity, and the answers to them are a kind of tug-of-war between the belief in “God's creation” and alternative theories. The deadlock might continue until the end of time and the primary reason for it lies in the fact that the claims of either side cannot be subjected to a “scientific” experiment in today’s accepted criteria, i.e., put into a laboratory, like as a physics experiment, and then proven for good. Moreover, the judgments based on conclusions drawn from indirect observations do not help break the deadlock.

For those who believe in God, creation is a miracle that overpowers human comprehension, knowledge, and power. We cannot explain how the miraculous phenomenon called life began with the fundamental principles of the physical world, which are separate arts of God that we normally know and name as “laws of nature.” This is where all the controversy arises. The scientists who reject the miracle explained by revelation and instead attempt to measure everything with their limited tools of physics and chemistry are bound to fail, just like a foolish person who tries to measure the waters of the oceans with a small bucket. Those who believe in creation do not face such distress because their path is very broad, easy, and safe.

The major stages and fundamental principles of creation are explained in the divine Word, which is unadulterated by foreign elements. Its verses post the signs, open the doors to reason, and reveal some traces from behind the veils, yet leave out the full detail. The verse “I did not make them witnesses of the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor of their own creation, nor did I take those who lead others astray to be my helpers” (18:51) warns, somewhat threateningly, against bandying about creation and acts of God. However, this should not be misconstrued as a prohibition against exploring the matter. In numerous verses, the Quran characterizes the cosmos as a readable book and encourages contemplation, investigation, and exploration.

The Quran is not a book of biology, physics, chemistry, or astronomy, nor is it a book of economics, sociology, or history, yet it presents succinct divine truths for human understanding in all these fields like seeds that will yield fruit. We cannot find anything in modern scientific disciplines that represent highest human achievement that is contrary to the Quranic truths. In the same vein, we do not and cannot know anything about the matter of creation other than the truths mentioned in the Quran, for this is the realm of miraculous wonders that transcend the realms of physical sciences.

Disbelievers, in their refusal to accept a creator, go to great lengths and concoct myriad theories claiming that the first living organism emerged by chance and through natural laws and subsequent life forms evolved from this initial simple organism through mechanisms like mutation, adaptation, and selection. To this end, they distort trivial facts in the guise of science to fit their disbelief and then circulate their extreme interpretations.

For the theory of evolution, the origin of life is the toughest nut to crack. All experimental studies aiming to demonstrate the random formation of complex organic compounds, cell organelles, and the first cells from simple elements using factors like methane, hydrogen, water vapor, carbon dioxide, volcanic eruptions, lightning, and ultraviolet rays that were present in the primordial atmosphere have ended in failure. Science or reason does not support the conclusion that molecules self-organizing into cells eventually gave rise to all living beings in accordance with a DNA program holding information that may take up thousands of volumes. It is a distressful and futile struggle to attribute the flawless operation of a program that yields all species of animals and plants to a theory called evolution, which lacks consciousness, intelligence, knowledge, and power. It is also an unconvincing argument to ascribe such attributes as divine creativity, knowledge, and power to atoms or physical and chemical reactions just to deny a single creator.

Today, scientists unanimously agree that not even a single protein molecule could form by chance. However, the mind-boggling figures from probability calculations in statistics books do not seem to have any effect on evolutionists. According to the broadest calculations, the probability of just one protein forming is as staggering as 1/10⁶⁴. Considering that even the simplest life form requires around 300-400 different protein chains, the probability of these proteins aligning to form a single-celled organism is approximately 1/10^{130 000} (in which 130,000 zeros follow the number ten). When computations for a cell stretches the limits of computers, it is surely not one of the best examples of scientific inquiry to believe that the plans and programs of more complex living things would self-encrypt into a DNA chain. It is even more absurd to accuse believers in creation of being outdated and unscientific. It is not scientific, to say the least, to interpret positive sciences in the light of a flawed understanding at a time when all sciences proclaim God and when the veils are virtually lifted to reveal His infinite power.

At this point, it is worth addressing some partly justified criticisms that could be levelled at us. The primary reason for the increasing strength and acceptance of the theory of evolution in the scientific world stems from the biological principles we discuss below. Believing scientists who are pushed into a defensive position in the face of extreme materialistic interpretations of these principles, which are based on observations and findings in nature, are accused of being anti-scientific and dogmatic by those who even object to the biological principles performed in nature as laws of God.

Natural selection, adaptation, variation, and mutation–the driving forces of the theory of evolution–are biological principles whose reasonable interpretation demonstrate the infinite knowledge and power of God. Yet, the interpretation of these principles in a manner supportive of the theory of evolution, along with the initial inability to produce counter arguments, has caused some confusion for believing people.

Natural selection, the primary claim of Darwin’s theory, is based on a vital ecological principle, the “food chain.” While the survival of the fittest and the elimination of the weaker individuals may not be a hundred percent valid, it holds about eighty percent of the time. This system allows for the circulation of matter within the limited space and resources on Earth. Hypothetically, if all the lions and all the antelopes in nature were equally strong, both the predators and the preys would eventually perish because of the continuous chase. Lions would not be able to catch their prey, and antelopes would not be able to stop to graze, which would lead to slow death by starvation.

However, nature does not function this way. Due to genetic variations, weak and sick individuals exist among both lions and antelopes. The weak antelopes caught by strong lions will feed not only the lions but also other creatures such as hyenas, jackals, vultures, crows, insects, and bacteria. Weak lions unable to catch prey will die, and their carcasses will feed numerous other organisms. However, lions will not develop a new organ (such as wings) to facilitate hunting as they chase their prey. Similarly, antelopes will not develop an extra leg or respiratory system that is not available in their genetic programming to aid in their escape. What will happen then? There will be no anatomical or physiological changes in their existing organs, and individuals with stronger organs from birth will have a better chance of survival.

Adaptation, the second Darwinian driving force, works alongside natural selection as the “genetic insurance for survival.” Those that possess suitable variations for the changing environmental conditions (such as climate, food, humidity, temperature, vegetation, etc.) adapt better to their surroundings and become stronger, while those that do not possess suitable variations for the environment are eliminated. However, there are boundaries. Adaptation operates within the spectrum of existing anatomical and physiological features. For instance, skin color darkens or lightens, muscles grow or weaken, lungs enlarge or shrink, height increases or decreases, structures like beaks and claws sharpen or thicken, etc. These changes remain within the “species boundaries,” leading to different races, or subspecies. However, all these races are part of the same “gene pool.” Human races like black, white, yellow, Aboriginal, Native American, etc. all belong to the “human species” capable of intermarriage and producing offspring. There are no new or different formations in the available organs or tissues; no noticeable change qualifies as a different species.

A crucial point here is that species with very limited genetic capacities and rigid boundaries, such as the offspring of dinosaurs, will face extinction if they lack adaptability conducive to changing environmental conditions. However, they will not transform into birds, since there exist substantial anatomical and physiological differences between reptiles and birds, and these differences are robust traits within the genetic structure of the species.

Mutations, which form the basis of evolution (especially Neo-Darwinism), are attributed with tremendous power. They refer to molecular-level changes such as the accidental breaking, loss, or addition of units (nucleotides) in the genetic program (genome) encoded onto chromosomes, akin to letters, syllables, or sentences. Mutations occur at a rate of one in a million, and about 99% of them are harmful. Mutations that could be beneficial, such as creation of a new and advantageous organ, (say, turning gills into lungs or fins into legs) do not occur. The observed mutations tend to disrupt, weaken, or cause deficiencies and malfunctions within the existing system, leading to abnormalities in organisms that could be described as “biological oddities,” resulting in their death or disability.

All these interpretations align with the findings of genetics, molecular biology, embryology, anatomy, and physiology, and they do not warrant being labeled as anti-scientific. Yet, there is a recurring question about creation that needs to be addressed. In the face of scientific evidence refuting their materialistic and atheistic interpretations relying on natural causes and autogenesis, evolutionary theorists pose the following question as a compensatory measure: “While you refute the claims of the theory of evolution, especially asserting the significant finding that intricately designed patterns cannot arise by chance, you fail to present an argument, a claim, or a theory regarding how creation occurred. What is your theory on creation?”

Here is the answer to this question: We do not have any concern about producing an answer to this question because one needs an infinite knowledge and power equal to that of God’s to be able to describe how God created. Humans, created by a more superior being, cannot know their creator. Whatever they say about this matter will be false. It is impossible for a believing person to speak about a situation unwitnessed by anyone, one which defies experimentation and observation, which cannot be replicated due to lack of knowledge, and which transcends the limits of science. However, for God’s infinite knowledge and power, it is not a deficiency to make worldly circumstances a veil, to make creation in certain stages and periods, to create the organisms with less complex organs and systems first and more complex ones later, or to prepare the material causes for creation and to set certain physicochemical conditions (such as the primordial soup of amino acids, protein compounds, etc.). These are simply a concealment of God’s magnificence and grandeur as part of the test.

Each of the myriad beautiful names of God (Asma-ul Husna) has seventy thousand degrees, and each degree is intricately interwoven with the others in manifestation. Thousands of divine names like al-Jameel (the Beautiful), al-Razzaq (the Provider), al-Muddabbir (the Organizer), and al-Muzayyin (the Adorner) become manifest simultaneously in the creation of a fly, an eagle, a bacterium, or a whale. The simultaneous appearance of Asma-ul Husna in creation helps us understand the diversity in living things. The intricacy of a fly’s wing, the keenness of a shark’s sense of smell or an eagle’s sight, the precise composition of the healthful honey made by bees, the radar in bats, the sonar in dolphins, the intelligence and reason in humans—all these are manifestations of the various degrees of God’s thousands of names, bestowed more upon some species than others.

To believers, the fact of creation never triggers laziness or failure to investigate the functioning mechanisms of nature simply by attributing everything to God. Instead, it fosters wonder and contemplation in us to explore the book of the cosmos and encourages us to marvel at creation and exercise the right to intervene in things befitting the station of human vicegerency. To believers, this fact sets the stage for new inventions and discoveries.