The invalidity of the claim that ''evolution has nothing to do with chance''

One of the issues that Darwinists have recently taken to espousing is the claim that “evolution has nothing to do with chance.” This claim, proposed with the incomprehensible and specious idea that “everything happened randomly, but that does not mean by chance,” serves no other purpose than to reveal how illogical Darwinists’ claims are.

-          This claim, developed as a defense mechanism, was raised after everyone had realized how illogical the word chance was.

-           It reflects Darwinists’ embarrassment over that idea.

-          Because if Darwinists admit that fact, then everyone will realize that they are espousing the nonsensical idea that all the extraordinary complexity in living things came about by chance. Unwilling to suffer such embarrassment, Darwinists have sought a way out by saying, “we make no such claim.”

-          They are trying to avoid this embarrassment by producing other words that mean exactly the same thing as chance. They are trying to give the impression that they are making a more logical statement my using terms such as “random” instead.

-          When asked, “if it is not chance, then what is it?” they again end up referring to chance from a more roundabout route.

-          When they reject the idea of chance, Darwinists must admit the existence of a consciousness. But Darwinists reject any conscious intervention and conscious creation. In that case, what they espouse must therefore only be unconscious and chance phenomena. Anything else would be illogical.

Embarrassed by their claim of chance, Darwinists maintain that natural selection, a conscious mechanism, is responsible. But it is unclear to whom that consciousness belongs. They are ascribing consciousness to nature here. If what Darwinists mean by nature is the ideology of naturalism, that falsely deifies nature, then they are clearly adopting another pagan religion.

-          By saying this, Darwinists are trying to deceive people into thinking that nature has intelligence and the ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood and to foresee the future. They are ascribing a power to it by referring to natural selection. The fact is, however, that nature is a single whole made up of stones, soil, trees, mountains, gravel etc. There is of course no possibility of these being able to select anything in the best and most perfect manner. This is therefore just another improper element of Darwinist demagoguery.

Darwinists reject the idea of a consciousness at any stage in their claims, because they would otherwise have to accept the existence of Almighty Allah. They therefore have to espouse a lack of consciousness, in other words, chance.