Prophet Abraham’s (as) Conversations with His Father -II

Remember when Abraham said to his father, Azar: “Do you take idols as deities? I see that you and your tribe are clearly misguided.” (Surat al-An‘am: 74)

Remember when he [Abraham] said to his father: “Father, why do you worship that which can neither hear nor see, and is of no use to you at all? Father, knowledge that never reached you has come to me. So follow me, and I will guide you to the right path.” (Surah Maryam: 42-43)

One of the most important elements of this conversation, which should be taken as a model, is that no matter how arrogant and difficult an unbeliever may be, a believer must remain patient while relaying the message and behave in the most pleasant manner possible.

Prophet Abraham’s (as) approach here is exactly the same as that of Prophet Moses (as) toward Pharaoh. Prophet Moses (as) also employed a temperate and gentle style when relaying Allah’s message to Pharaoh, in compliance with Allah’s command to “speak to him with gentle words so that, hopefully, he will pay heed or show some fear” (Surah Ta-Ha:44).

Allah reveals the message that Prophet Abraham (as) gave to his father, as well as his father’s reaction:

[Abraham said:] “O my father, do not worship Satan. Satan was disobedient to the All-Merciful. Father, I am afraid that a punishment from the All-Merciful will afflict you, and turn you into a comrade of Satan.” He [his father] replied: “Do you forsake my deities, Abraham? If you do not stop, I will stone you. Keep away from me for a good long time.” He [Abraham] said: “Peace be upon you. I will ask my Lord to forgive you. He has always honored me. I will separate myself from you and all that you call upon besides Allah, and I will call upon my Lord. It may well be that, in calling upon my Lord, I will not be disappointed.” (Surah Maryam: 44-46)

These conversations contain important wisdom. First and foremost, Prophet Abraham’s (as) courageous and humble attitude is most striking. He carried out Allah’s order, even at the risk of his own life, and invited his father to the true path. He risked losing his father’s love, help, and goods; refused to be intimidated by his father’s threats, and displayed the greatest humility and patience when told to leave.

Knowing that Allah would help him and show him the right path, he behaved according to the comfort and security that such knowledge imparted. The way that he immediately prayed to Allah after being unjustly forced to leave the house in which he lived, and his faith that his prayer would be heard demonstrate the exemplary modesty and purity required of a Muslim. Moreover, he displayed a most pleasing moral attitude toward his father, who was quite hostile. He maintained his moderate style and continued to call him my father. All Muslims should adopt this example of a very superior morality when calling people to the truth.

He approached his father with great affection and modesty, and humbly invited him to the true path. When his father persisted in his denial, Prophet Abraham (as) immediately sought refuge in Allah and removed himself. This attitude shows that Muslims are to work only for Allah’s good pleasure, and to love what He loves and hate what He hates. Allah reveals this quality, which every Muslim should possess, thus:

It is not right for the Prophet and those who believe to ask forgiveness for the idolater—even if they are close relatives—after it has become clear to them that they are the Companions of the Blazing Fire. Abraham would not have asked forgiveness for his father but for a promise he made to him. And when it became clear to him [Abraham] that he [his father] was an enemy of Allah, he renounced him. Abraham was tender-hearted and forbearing. (Surat at-Tawba: 113-14)

Another noteworthy feature of this conversation between Prophet Abraham (as) and his father is the latter’s devotion to paganism. So strong was his devotion that it led him to threaten his son with death by stoning, a son who was of his own blood, whom he had raised and kept by his side, and who treated his father so respectfully. The only reason for his father’s wrath was that Prophet Abraham (as) worshipped only Allah and rejected his tribe’s paganism. This is an example of the unbelievers’ cruel, uncompromising, and oppressive natures.
 

THE INVALIDITY OF PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM  - II 

The Misconception About Restricted Populations 

The second concept stressed by the proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory is that of "restricted populations." By this, they mean that the emergence of new species comes about in communities containing very small numbers of plants or animals. According to this claim, large populations of animals show no evolutionary development and maintain their "stasis." But small groups sometimes become separated from these communities, and these "isolated" groups mate only amongst themselves. (It is hypothesized that this usually stems from geographical conditions.) Macromutations are supposed to be most effective within such small, inbreeding groups, and that is how rapid "speciation" can take place.

But why do proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory insist so much on the concept of restricted populations? The reason is clear: Their aim is to provide an explanation for the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record.

However, scientific experiments and observations carried out in recent years have revealed that being in a restricted population is not an advantage from the genetic point of view, but rather a disadvantage. Far from developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is that in restricted populations individuals must continually mate within a narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individuals become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic defects and sickness increase within the population.1

In order to examine this matter, a 35-year study of a small, inbred population of chickens was carried out. It was found that the individual chickens became progressively weaker from the genetic point of view over time. Their egg production fell from 100 to 80 percent of individuals, and their fertility declined from 93 to 74 percent. But when chickens from other regions were added to the population, this trend toward genetic weakening was halted and even reversed. With the infusion of new genes from outside the restricted group, eventually the indicators of the health of the population returned to normal.2

This and similar discoveries have clearly revealed that the claim by the proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory that small populations are the source of evolution has no scientific validity.

Conclusion

Scientific discoveries do not support the claims of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. The claim that organisms in small populations can swiftly evolve with macromutations is actually even less valid than the deception of evolution proposed by the mainstream neo-Darwinists.

So, why has this theory become so popular in recent years? This question can be answered by looking at the debates within the Darwinist community. Almost all the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution are paleontologists. This group, led by such famous paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven M. Stanley, clearly sees that the fossil record disproves the Darwinist theory. However, they have conditioned themselves to believe in evolution, no matter what. So for this reason they have resorted to the punctuated equilibrium theory as the only way of accounting even in part for the facts of the fossil record.

On the other hand, geneticists, zoologists, and anatomists see that there is no mechanism in nature which can give rise to any "punctuations," and for this reason they insist on defending the gradualistic Darwinist model of evolution. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins fiercely criticizes the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, and accuses them of "destroying the theory of evolution's credibility."

The result of this dialogue of the deaf is the scientific crisis the theory of evolution now faces. We are dealing with an evolution myth which agrees with no experiments or observations, and no paleontological discoveries. Every evolutionist theoretician tries to find support for the theory from his own field of expertise, but then enters into conflict with discoveries from other branches of science. Some people try to gloss over this confusion with superficial comments such as "science progresses by means of academic disputes of this kind." However, the problem is not that the mental gymnastics in these debates are being carried out in order to discover a correct scientific theory; rather, the problem is that speculations are being advanced dogmatically and irrationally in order to stubbornly defend a theory that is demonstrably false.

However, the theoreticians of punctuated equilibrium have made one important, albeit unwitting, contribution to science: They have clearly shown that the fossil record conflicts with the concept of evolution. Phillip Johnson, one of the world's foremost critics of the theory of evolution, has described Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most important punctuated equilibrium theoreticians, as "the Gorbachev of Darwinism."3 Gorbachev thought that there were defects in the Communist state system of the Soviet Union and tried to "reform" that system. However, the problems which he thought were defects were in fact fundamental to the nature of the system itself. That is why Communism melted away in his hands.

The same fate will soon await Darwinism and the other models of evolution.

1. M. E. Soulé and L. S. Mills, "Enhanced: No need to isolate genetics," Science, 1998, vol. 282, p. 1658.
2. R. L. Westemeier, J. D. Brawn, J. D. Brawn, S. A. Simpson, T. L. Esker, R. W. Jansen, J. W. Walk, E. L. Kershner, J. L. Bouzat, and K. N. Paige, "Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population", Science, 1998, vol. 282, p. 1695.
3. Phillip Johnson, Objections Sustained, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, 1998, pp. 77-85.