The theory of evolution suggests that everything within the...

The theory of evolution suggests that everything within the universe appeared by itself, and evolved and developed over time through inorganic matter and mutations (chance), which negates the need of a creator and supports the idea of creation of everything, from small to large over a large interval from inorganic matter and permutations. However, there has to be some creation, even at a minute scale which was origin of further creations.

The evolutionist scientist, Pierre Paul Grassé [35] concedes this and summarises what the concept of accepting “coincidence” and “chance” means for evolutionists: “Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named, but which is secretly worshipped.” Hence, evolutionists, despite knowing the fact that numerous signs within an extremely well-constructed, organised and structured universe point towards the existence of a Creator, but still choose to disbelieve in God – and “worship” chance and coincidence in the hope that they are correct.

Therefore, the theory of evolution is more like a creation myth than a scientific theory. A myth neither be proved, nor disproved, with the technology of the culture; a myth requires faith. Evolutionists must have faith that living organisms appeared spontaneously from non-living matter on earth (abiogenesis) but again, the non-living matter was also being created and that cannot be created from chance. [36] The evolutionists would then say, from where did God come from?

Did man create the concept of God? How did we learn about our Creator? So, we go to the next step, how God Exists? Islam on the existence of God: In a long tradition, 8 th successor of the Prophet (c. 766 –818) [37] said to an atheist: ‘And if it was so that the word was our word (Existence of Allah), wouldn’t you be destroyed and we would be Saved (if there happens to be a God)?’ So, he said, ‘May Allah have Mercy on you!

Help me to find out how He is and where He is?’ So, he (the successor) replied: That description for Him is wrong. He is ‘where’ without a ‘where’, and ‘how’ without the ‘how’, so He cannot be recognised by the ‘how-ness’ nor by the ‘where-ness’, nor can He be attained by the feelings, nor can He be compared with anything’. The man said, ‘So He is ‘nothing’ when He cannot be realised by the feelings from the senses’. So, he was told!