In reality, whoever has a basic scientific background in evolution and how it actually works; or has read a book by any evolution scientist and their refutation of the arguments against evolution; or has just read the book that Darwin wrote in the 19th century, which included his response to many arguments; and then, reads the books written by those who call themselves religious authorities and scholars, will find that they address issues they know nothing about. They do not even understand evolution, or how it occurs according to evolution scientists. Instead, they have understood evolution in a backward way, and then proceeded to argue in an extremely superficial and simplistic manner based on that backward understanding. We also find them repeating Darwin's original arguments—that he had already presented and refuted in his book—similar to how they present superficial arguments in an attempt to refute the accuracy of the principles and methods of historical geology used to determine the age of the older rock layers, even though the accuracy of these methods is undeniable. They argue against the theory of evolution, asking why the circumcision of children is not inherited, and why an ape that is trained to walk does not pass the walking trait down to its offspring. When average people read these arguments, people who do not know what evolution is—they might fall for them. But they are simplistic arguments to those who understand the theory of evolution and how it works. The traits that are inherited by the next generation are those written in the genetic plan of the organism. They are not acquired traits, like the walking of a trained ape or the circumcision of a child. This is self-evident to evolutionary biologists.
On the other hand, some people who challenge the theory of evolution assume that evolutionary biology states that compound and complex organs such as the eye came into existence through a single mutation. Not even Darwin says that, let alone modern scientists. They are supposed to be refuting what is taught in well-established universities around the world. These universities do not teach that compound and complex organs such as the eye came into existence through a single mutation, or even tens or hundreds of mutations. As a matter of fact, such people are ignorant of the basics of the theory of evolution, so they present a distorted version of the theory, and respond to it based on their erroneous understanding. This is nauseating for whoever reads their books, and it makes them conclude that they are completely defeated in the face of evolution as well as the atheist movement they attempt to confront by using single-burst creationism that excludes evolution. This theory contradicts not only biology, historical geology, and archeology, but also the literal meaning of religious scriptures. This will be clarified when we discuss religious scriptures, like the Quran, which clearly indicate that creation occurred in many stages and through evolution.
A single question is enough to topple single-burst creationism without evolution. It has definitely and undoubtedly already been proven through historical geology that when the rock layers are older, they contain organisms of lower rank, and when they are newer, they contain organisms more developed than their predecessors. The issue is one of development: moving from bacteria to eukaryotes to multicellular organisms, reaching the fish of the ancient world, passing through the vertebrates and fish, then amphibians and land animals, then mammals, then the diversity of mammals and increasing size, and so on. The question is: why did God create living things in multiple bursts in different time periods, creating in each period a group more developed than their predecessors, such that whoever sees them would think that they have evolved from the earlier ones? Do those who deny evolution think that God wants to mislead us?! God is far above that.
Do they have a logical, scientific explanation—other than evolution—for these bursts that succeed each other in time, development, and complexity? If we take as an example whales and dolphins that now live in water and are considered to have evolved from mammals that lived on land, we will find—in the fossils discovered so far—a chain of intermediate organisms appearing consecutively over time, each one separated from the other by millions of years. They started as land mammals, then gradually developed so as to descend into and live in the water. We find that each group evolves progressively toward living easily in water, until we eventually reach the whale. Is there a reasonable explanation or answer as to why God created these creatures over consecutive time periods, such that whoever sees them concludes that the whale is an inevitable result of this chain of organisms that appeared consecutively over time, and progressively evolved towards life in water?!
I believe there is no logical answer except evolution. Otherwise, the alternative answer, which contradicts science, would be to accuse God Almighty of doing all of this in order to mislead the people, but He is far above that.
We look at whales and dolphins, and we find that they swim by bending their bodies up and down in a manner identical to land mammals when they run. They do not swim like fish that, in most cases, bend from side to side. When we observe whales, we find that they give birth and feed milk to their young that is produced by the mammary glands, in exactly the same way as mammals.
Sometimes the opponents of evolution resort to books by biologists and geneticists who are resistant to, or critical of, the theory of evolution, without recognizing that some of them do not deny evolution, but instead simply regard it as a controlled process, or present it in a novel way. For example, scientists disagree about how the mechanisms of mutation (its speed, pausing, etc.) affect biological diversity. A tremendous difference exists between those who say that the theory of evolution is true, with a god directing it, and those who say it is false. They share the belief that a god exists, but not the belief that the theory of evolution is false. Furthermore, not every statement by a biologist has scientific value. One should not just present an opinion, especially when it is the opinion he has adopted. Supporting evidence should also be presented in order for people to see whether it has scientific value or if it has already been scientifically refuted, and then the issue will be settled. There are universities and research centers around the world that adopt rigorous scientific standards and have people who evaluate research papers, books, and critiques of scientific theories. If a valuable scientific critique by an expert existed, these universities and scientific centers would have quickly embraced it, and it would be published and promoted, and scientific seminars would be held to discuss it. However, what we see is the exact opposite. Today, in all well-known universities around the world, the theory of evolution is the only explanation for the existence of life on the earth. Whoever wants to search for the truth themselves by conducting scientific research should at least acquire sufficient knowledge in historical geology, evolutionary biology, genetics, anthropology, and archeology. They should then read the scientific critiques of the theory of evolution, as well as the responses to them, so as to make their position scientifically solid and valuable. However, if someone says that some biologist has responded to the theory of evolution in some book, or that some scientist said something about the theory of evolution and therefore it is false, or if one refers to someone who is not even a specialist when evaluating this theory, then these are truly contrived and unscientific stances. When you read their scientific reviews, you sometimes find that they lack any credibility since their authors present the theory of evolution in a twisted, backward way, and then respond to it. It is as if the responses are intended for the average person who does not know anything about the theory of evolution and are intended as a marketing tool for their insignificant research. There is no scientific basis for these responses. Rather, they are based on the fact that their authors have advanced degrees in biology, or in a field that is not even relevant to the topic, such as cosmology.
In summary, whoever says that they want to refute the theory of evolution should not distort or twist it. He must refute the theory as it is presented in well-established universities around the world today, not as he imagines it to be, or as the opponents of the theory have incorrectly presented it.
Remark: I have noticed that those who reject the theory of evolution repeat the same arguments that evolution scientists have already presented and responded to themselves. This is inappropriate for whoever claims to have knowledge and claims to be scientifically refuting the theory. They should read and recognize that evolution scientists have already responded to their arguments, some of which were presented by Darwin himself in the nineteenth century. Therefore, whoever repeats the same arguments is either incapable of discussing and refuting the responses given by evolution scientists, or they have not read what evolution scientists have written and do not even realize that they were the first to present and respond to these arguments, as well as dozens of others. In either case, it is inappropriate for them to put anything down in writing without knowledge.