Hamza Tzortzis on Evolution

This video explains the Muslim stance on Evolution for more information please read:www.hamzatzortz...

[@smiletojannah]

mashaAllah, excellent

[@Critic7493]

+Smile 2 Jannah Why not? You just had a similar interview, after all. Brother Hamza is as funny as you, but not as frequent, though.

[@shamshadakhtar3774]

according to modern science first living organism developed in oceans surat al anbiya (21:30) Did the unbelievers (who do not accept the teaching of the Prophet) not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart,28 and We made every living being out of water?29 Will they, then, not believe (that We created all this)?

[@edwardtimothy3581]

@@shamshadakhtar3774 according to modern science, all living organism INCLUDING HUMAN ANCESTOR develop in the Ocean

[@stiryotype4695]

"go where the science takes you as long as it doesn´t contradict established facts"...Hamza Tsortzis What a strange dude

[@RationalConclusion]

I've spoken to plenty of muslims who fully accept evolution.

[@MohamedShou]

Lmao no you didn’t

[@sal8jun]

Subhanallah, yesterday I was talking with an atheist classmate of mine and he asked me, do you actually believe in Evolution in Islam. I couldn't answer his question the way I wanted but now I can show him this :D yaay :D

[@natsidrukdruk4889]

You can't pick and choose science. You can't say that i want to believe this and that in evolution, and throw the rest of the fact right out of the window. Evolution is a theory and a fact. I suggest that you read about evolution from other sources. Also, read about confirmation bias, it helps...

[@natsidrukdruk4889]

Salma Karim I dont belive a random person, i have studied by myself. But since you want to get in onto that direction, let me ask you this. Have you studied aerodynamics for a jet-plane? Have you studied vaccines? have you studied computer, if no, then how do you know that they work? How do you know that a plane will fly if you haven't studied it? Evolution is 110 % fact, muslims,jews etc they can't disprove it. You only look at sources who supports your fact, thats why you find "evidence" for your belief. Thats a logical fallacy. And thats why you watch Hamza clips on youtube. Good luck Subhhannala!;)

[@sal8jun]

natsidrukdruk Well i do know how a plane flies and I do know how a computer works because I recheared it and so did I with everything that is a part of my life since i am probably one of the most curious people ever. Islam never denied a part of evolution since of course we do change after time. The nonsense we do not believe in is that we were apes. Can you prove there is no god? And right now you're judging me with what you want to be the truth. I wasnt a muslim before I had to research everything before believing in anything. The difference between me and you is that you choose to listen to humans and I choose to read and understand. like many scientists said before MANY things in the quran written are impossible to be known by mohamed pbuh a simple man who could neither write or read. Neither was the technology so far for people to know anything written there. And then people like Darwin comes and say oh wait i mixed salt and sweet water and they do mix while the Quran clearly says 2 SEA'S not two cups of water etc. And yes I love watching Mr Tzortis since he is someone amazing that I'm proud to show off as a muslim instead of nowadays "muslims" that are nothing that islam presents.

[@natsidrukdruk4889]

Salma Karim Like i said, you pick and choose facts. You can't believe some of the facts of the evolution and reject the other half because that contradicts with your "belief in the Quran". This is the logical fallacy of ignorance. Evolution is about biological changes over time, and that also includes HUMAN evolution. Humans are apes, and we are related to all the apes in the world, take it or leave it. You say i can't prove there is no god, but ok, does that mean that there is a god? Since i can't prove any god, so there must be a god? You can't prove that there are no aliens on mars? You can't prove that there are no flying unicorns? So does that mean that they all exist? Im not judging you, all i am saying is, look at the facts, don't look at "facts" from the islamic perspective because they are influenced by a islamic narrative. But i see that you are judging me, you say i listen to people, while you read. But the Quran was written by people and you choose to read and believe in something that some people had written for 1400 years ago, isn't that the same? (oh, no, thats the word of God, may be the answer). Go to the library and read about evolution from a real, well establish, supported scientific book. I have read the Quran and i don't find any science in it, its all about the person interpreting the verses. I have a question for you, are you ready to leave islam if you find that science contradicts with your Quran? I know your answer, but let that be your hypotheses, will you leave your faith if you find it not to be supported by science?

[@ProteinShaykh]

natsidrukdruk lol seriously..? So how do expect science to progress if we are supposed to accept everything status quo.. So if I make use of some information regarding nutrition and diet from what is established in the nutrition industry and not align myself with all of the recent studies, this is against some sort of "breaking science" rule? News flash: A huge number of studies on fat loss conflict with one another in their conclusions...

[@paulpaulpaulpaulism]

I love the fact he claims Richard Dawkins isn't open minded enough to admit scientific theories can be wrong.Hamza can never admit the quran might be wrong. Dawkins always admits scientific conclusions can sometimes be wrong in light of new evidence.Ask Hamza if the quran might be wrong then ask Richard Dawkins if maybe some scientific conclusions can be wrong and see who the more open minded person is.

[@tomwolfe6063]

The consequences of Hamza admitting such a thing are probably dire. Regardless of whether he changes his mind or not, he's stuck. I should probably take it a little easier on the poor guy unless he's complicit.

[@irlsvm]

Lol, he simply means, to openly say with one hundred percent certainty that God doesn't exist, like Dawkins most certainly does, points to the arrogance of the man. If you believe science can change in it's first principles then you can never use science to disprove God. Why he's arrogant is, the amount of certainty with which he says that God doesn't exist. On what bloody basis xD

[@russ8156]

The Quran is absolute fact as it's God's word, on the other hand, science is based on our limited observation

[@edwardtimothy3581]

Trueeee

[@edwardtimothy3581]

@@russ8156 that's why Science has the luxury to be false, yet Quran that supposedly to be the Word of God, contradicting the Evolution, Heliocentric, And Sphere earth

[@OwenOsula]

I think Hamza is begging the question here. Now I just want to say, I am not trying to defend evolution per se. In fact, I think macro-evolution is problematic in some respects but that is a separate issue. I just want to put that as a disclaimer for those who think I am defending evolution. It seems that Hamza is saying something like this. There exist revealed theological revelation that must necessarily be true because it comes from God. Evolution is a scientific theory derived by naturalistic experimentation to explain the occurrences or events that take place in the naturalistic world. Scientific theories are constantly changing in the naturalistic world. Since scientific theories constantly changes and Evolution is apart of science, then we must not trust it in the same manner as we do with revealed theological revelation, as revealed theological revelation does not change and comes from God who knows all truths of the world and beyond. Therefore, we must not accept the percepts of evolution that contradict revealed theological revelation. This is a very rough sketch of what I think he is trying to say. But I find this explanation with some trouble in terms of its claims. First of all, just because evolution is a part of the corpus of science does not mean that it is automatically at fault for being less powerful in giving good valid arguments for how the natural world is. In other words, it could be the case that evolution can be right or very consistent in its confirmed scientific experimental results even though it is in the discourse of science. If the instances of evolution are consistent and the evidence lines up with the theory, then it is a compelling theory to accept as the chance for it being true is very highly probable. For example, let us entertain that evolution has something within its theory that contradicts Islamic revelation and has been tested to be very highly likely to be a valid representation of the world. Now if Islam says something about that subject and evolution has greater explanatory power than Islam on the subject, then we must evaluate both views to see which one is more valid than the other. Just to note, it could be the case that both views are wrong but it cannot be the case that both theories are correct, if you add naturalism into the evolutionary model. And it would be wrong to suggest that Islamic revelation trumps over evolution because it is believed to be true. That is not good reasoning because starting off with a statement that is believed to be true in itself pollutes the discussion about how the world can be outside of one's belief. I just think that Hamza cannot be honest about the discussion of evolution and science when he has a presupposition already in place. It is very reasonable for the evolutionist to reject Hamza's argument because it does not have the same explanatory power as evolution does. Since explanatory power clears up some of the problems of justification in epistemology, although certainly not entirely, explanatory power would be one of many different methods used to explain the world around us. But since Islamic revelation, from what I understand, does not talk about the natural world in the same capacity as science does, although Islam does talk about mountain formation and embryology just to be charitable, the explanatory scope of power for these subjects that Islam apparently has compared to science is not in the same level. Science goes into much more detail and can have better explanatory power in term of predictive measurements with that is highly consistent in most of its claims but not all of them (just to note: "this is important because evolution is not a theory that is unmolested with complete certainty") instead of positing a claim that does not offer predictive measurement in the same manner as science does. This is not to say that Islam is wrong in its scientific claims because it does not follow the paradigm of science to derive at its principles, but it is that it does not have the same explanatory power and predictive measurements that science has. This is important epistemically because one would need to have justification to know if one has knowledge of the world or the thing in question. Suppose there was a ball that was thrown from the main room that hit the wall of the room where three friends: Bobby, Tommy, Bill are watching television. Seeing this instance, they enter the main room to investigate who did this. But there are over 10 people in the main room and they all could be possible candidate for knowing who or what threw the ball. Bill posits that one particular man who is known for being a ruffian threw the ball as it is indicated in his past behavior to have the propensity to commit the act of throwing the ball. Bill swears on this insight and refuses to go away from his intuition. But Tommy rejects this hypothesis and investigates further. He recollects on the previous events that transpired before he went into the room and remembers that one of the men came in with the ball as they entered the house. He also remembers him playing with the ball before he entered the room while all of the other guys were playing video games. In this, Tommy makes the claim that it is most likely the man who came in with the ball that threw the ball. He inquires about this insight with Bobby and he confirms all of the accounts that Tommy said. So there are two people over one person who believes that the man who came in with the ball is the most likely culprit who threw the ball. Now in this scenario, it could be the case that Bill is right and Tommy is wrong. It can also be the case that Tommy is right and Bill is wrong. But all you can go by is the evidence and by the standards of investigation, Tommy made a better argument than Bill and it would not be irrational to adopt Tommy's view and reject Bill even though Tommy can be completely wrong. This similarly holds for evolution and Hamza's belief in the same manner as the example. This example is by no means an exact outline of Hamza's view and evolution but just a rough sketch to grasp the idea at hand. So I just think Hamza needs to consider that evolution could be a good scientific theory that explains the world as it has good explanatory powers, good predictive measurements for future changes in the world pertaining to evolutionary processes, and the evidence can be consistent with its general precepts.

[@edwardtimothy3581]

Boy i can't read all of that, but i get the point. Im not an English Native speaker so i can't tell how much i get irritated from The way he answers the Question, but i do feel like he somewhat cheating here 😂

[@Add_Account485]

He says : " As a Muslim scientist ; i will continue to do the science until I don't agree with its conclusions " ( he means until he doesn't agree with his beliefs.. ) Which is exactly what he just put shit on science about in the sentence before by calling science theory... Maybe it is , maybe it isn't.. But U can't use science being a theory to discredit it ; when your religion is a theory too?. Hu?

[@frazk2427]

Basically he is saying that he accepts science as long as it doesn't contradict Islam but he would take quran as truth because he believes in it. How is that a valid argument?

[@jeanrepal]

Proper science doesn't change all the time. Hamza should know better. If you have different results in an observation that cares about the basic scientific principles, your hypothesis is wrong, you throw it out and it does not change. Science is all about what qualifies a certain hypothesis to be a fact. Once science declares it as a fact, it does NOT change. In fact scientific knowledge is something that people can hold on. I guess the new iERA premise should be "go where the science takes you, unless it takes you away from allah".

[@jeanrepal]

this might well be...the scientific method underwent a certain evolution as well. as technology progresses, so does science. And especially when you're at the innovative frontiers of science you gotta be careful about what kind and amount of evidence qualifies a certain hypothesis to be accurate. It's like this new evidence they found for the existence of gravitational waves. The hypothesis states that gravitational waves indicate the afterglow of the big bang. However, it turned out that Milkyway dust could have distorted their results. So now they're conducting further investigations. If those really were gravitational waves, that'd be a milestone in astrophysics. Are they stating it as a scientific fact? No, they can't cause in science it's all about what evidence qualifies a certain hypothesis to be a scientific fact. One more thing: mistakes, miscalculations or unpredicted results have a very important value in science. It means we can learn something here. And the more we learn the better the predictions that can be made.

[@jeanrepal]

Moj Dak oh damn, quantum physics is the real shit. I'll visit the visit CERN sometime next year, so excited already. Quantum physics is not the only kind of science that goes beyond common sense. We simply didn't evolve to know about these things. We experience the world from our human perspective and can't possibly imagine what kinds of other worlds are out there that are completely different from the world we experience. But scientists developed all these technologies and models that can find out about reality in a way that were not supposed to see it. So I'm kinda more into that space exploration thing. That's what floats my boat. Anyway, proper science meaning science that values the scientific method and never violates the basic scientific principles. I assume you're familiar with the methodology of science, but I can recall if you want me to. Sometimes scientists can get very emotional and euphoric about their field of study that they disregard these principles. That'd be unproper science. You can also encounter unproper science in institutions that are biased, like for instance the Discovery Institute. Misleading people for 2 decades now -.-

[@jeanrepal]

Moj Dak No, I don't know how much of the large hadron collider you can see as a visitor or if you can even enter the actual complex at all. I just happen to have a good friend who is authorized to take me down to the complex and to the main control room (not IN the main control room, but to a room right in front of it with massive security windows). I agree, we have nothing more than our senses and our so called "extensions of the senses" meaning technologies and all those fancy instruments people invented that extract data which we try to make sense off (note the expression: making sense off something^^). However using these technologies and applying the scientific method basically is science, and up to know it's the best way for us to know about things. Can you think of a better way? I don't. But here's what kinda bothers me, cause I've seen so many of these scientist vs religious guy arguing about evolutionary theory recently. So if a very well educated biology scientist teaches me about evolution, explains the actual process, how it works and presents the evidence, why would I even bother (particularly on this issue) to listen to a religious apologist who speaks about ancient philosophies, who's so incredibly convinced that his ancient book is the word of god and who doesn't - unlike the scientist - dedicate his life to biological studies. But still he argues against it, usually in a rather rhetorical manner. But then again, i don't even get why anyone would even wanna put up with religion. Emotional comfort? The idea that one is special somehow? Is it pleasant anticipation for the afterlife? Is it the fear that one might burn in hell for eternity? Or is it just for traditional reasons like when you simply wanna carry on your parent's or your national or cultural traditions. Cause where I come from religion is mostly held up because, oh well, it's such a nice little cultural tradition. It'd be a pity if it died out. And hey, look at that beautiful church. But on the other half, most of the young people haven't even read the bible and only few of the whole people even actually believe.

[@RationalConclusion]

Science has to change in order to get closer to the truth.

[@shamshadakhtar3774]

according to modern science first living organism developed in oceans surat al anbiya (21:30) Did the unbelievers (who do not accept the teaching of the Prophet) not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart,28 and We made every living being out of water?29 Will they, then, not believe (that We created all this)?

[@howardmills1050]

I did go where science took me and I left islam it no longer make any sense

[@takkiejakkie5458]

+howard mills Good for you. And good for the rest of the world. Welcome to reality, rational person.

[@ranajawad990]

Seriously?

[@XX-tq1oe]

howard mills thats hilarious

[@goddamnfaith6607]

Why

[@abdirahmaanyuusuf7687]

May allah guide you to the right path

[@Add_Account485]

He said Dawkins problem is " not entertaining that MAYBE he can be wrong !".. Bit like himself I guess..

[@12kmnxcv]

Because that's the words of Allah

[@rationaltom]

"Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true. A classical example of an incorrect inductive argument was presented by John Vickers: All of the swans we have seen are white. Therefore, all swans are white." (Wikipedia) Tzortzis uses the same incorrect argument here (only with sheep), neglecting to mention probability. Dishonest.

[@edwardtimothy3581]

Exactly. The Guy know it is contradict the Qur'an yet act like it didn't

[@sam-ht6qv]

@rationaltom Cry harder about Islam refuting you 😂

[@Diabolous3x]

Has Hamza never listened to dawkins say science is essentially agnostic... sigh. Once again, another man confused about his existence believing in the invisible man in the sky he couldn't possibly perceive except in his imagination. What Dawkins establishes is that the doctrines bring humanity to evil time and time again and stifle progress. It is a sad fate that we have to see such things in this modern time.

[@EnjoiningKnowlege]

Dawkins embraces scientism. Although he agrees that science has limitations, he believes it has a monopoly on truth and is the ONLY sound means of acquiring knowledge (William Craig humiliates Chemist, Peter Atkins when he relies on this reasoning, see their debate). THIS is what Hamza is referencing when he says that Dawkins thinks science is 100% it.

[@yark618]

atheism brought way more evil than religion

[@edwardtimothy3581]

Agree

[@edwardtimothy3581]

@@yark618 like what?

[@TBDBoss]

Either way Islam is fully ok and compatible with the full spectrum of evolution. There's a good book called the Islamic theory of evolution by Dr. T.O Shavanas. Or you can disregard it as well as it is not a major part of deen.

[@silkysmooth2442]

Hamza is fun to listen to. He's a nut.

[@samuelvimes7686]

When I think about Islamic creationists I think about ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban,...

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

I'd love to agree with science that reindeer can't fly, but there's this book about Santa Claus that tells us they can. And we all know that we should blindly trust a book with silly stories in it over science.

[@srada123]

There are outsiders who watch a video of a man proclaiming his view and say 'You see, evolution and religion are mutually incoherent' and then resort to analogies to entertain their circles. But then there are thinkers who read in the book 'And Allah has produced you FROM THE EARTH growing GRADUALLY/like plants." [71:17] and ask themselves 'Have we misunderstood the book?'

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

srada123 Ah yes, the religion started by a warlord who fucked a 9 year old girl.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

***** Well, for one, dumbass, there are thousands of photos of cells undergoing mitosis - oh, and I myself have seen cells in different stages of mitosis. Now, where are the photos of god? And where can I see for myself god doing some of his magic tricks?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

***** I didn't call Muhammad a pedophile, I just pointed out that even Muslim leaders say the Muhammad began fucking a girl when she was just 9 years old, after marrying her when she was 6 (or 7, or 9 - the hadith versions differ).

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

***** 1) You failed to provide any photos of god - yet I have seen hundreds of photos of cells undergoing mitosis. 2) You also failed to explain how I can see god actually perform his neato magic tricks - but I have seen cells undergoing the different stages of mitosis. Mitosis - observable, confirmable your god - not observable, not confirmable Apples and oranges

[@edwardtimothy3581]

Yeah sure, an omnipotent Being don't even know how the Universe work. Never mention earth rotation, earth book, snd evolution. An omnipotent being that need his creation to interpret his word so that it could match the scientific discovery

[@kristinehayes4744]

Hamza calling himself a scientist is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[@adamharrisakarexon9492]

I assume you have a PHD in the philosophy of science?

[@mj897]

Especially when he had to repeat a year at university due to plagiarism.... not really great foundation...now he attacks the philosophy of science because there are no other options.

[@edwardtimothy3581]

@@mj897 rlly? I'm curious can u give me the source?

[@mj897]

@@edwardtimothy3581 watch his video where he talks about his conversion.

[@tessartea]

nice bro... jazakumulloh kk

[@AnYa.hawrami]

Gorges💜😍

[@shokohparsi3356]

Can you prove the Quran is word of GOD?

[@mostafasaid5012]

There is a full talk given about this by Dr. Zakir Naik. You van search it, it is called "is the quran god's word- Dr. Zakir Naik". =)

[@cecilestevens2322]

Mustafa Said Naik who makes 25 mistakes in 5 minutes?

[@mostafasaid5012]

cécile stevens he didnt. Thats already debunked.

[@cecilestevens2322]

Mustafa Said Now you are being apologist to the one who says sex-slaves are justified in islam, keep it up!

[@mostafasaid5012]

cécile stevens where did he say that? Give me a link!?

[@Peter_Scheen]

Muslim scientist. No not really. Use the scientific method on religion and you will come to the conclusion that it is at least not a 100 % true. They believe it is from god. How cognitive dissonant can you be...

[@f.lemken9594]

When science and the Qur'an are in conflict, you dismiss science? That makes you a denier of logic and judging by probability a denier of reality as well. Without science there is no way of proving anything objectively. No one would have any necessity to believe the Qur'an if it would not attempt to be provable by the standards of sciecne.

[@ranajawad990]

No, we donot dismiss science. But as he said, evolution is based on empiricism, which cannot lead to a 100% truth because of limited set of observations. There will always be uncertainty with it. In that case, there is possibility that science is wrong.

[@f.lemken9594]

Modern science is empiricism and yes, there is always a possibility that science is wrong just as much as you are free to jump of a cliff, if you deny gravity. There are degrees of certainty at which one can be logically called dumm for doubting a scientific theory. However the claim hamza expresses is that the objective truth of qur'an is to be prefered to facts derived from science. Herefore he would have to prove that the qur'an is objective truth. Provinz this objectively is only possible by arguments which have to accessable by the scientific methods. The arguments put forward to Do so (e.g. scientific wonders) are ambiguous and inconvincing compared to a well established scientific theory like evolution. Therefore everyone Who applies the original argument can be called a denier of reality.

[@ranajawad990]

No, objective truth of the Quran is not to be prefered to facts derived from science. Hamza didn’t say that. Darwin’s theory is not a single idea. It is a made up of several related ideas supported by specific arguments. When it is said that evolution is a fact, it is addressed with only one argument 》 Small scale changes of the features within a species over time. This is ‘fact’. However, there are other factors of neo darwinism which cannot be called ‘facts’. knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that random mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts in a completely unguided fashion 》 Not a fact. You can look that up yourself. Furthermore, evolution fails miserably when addressing our Conciousness. And even things like altruism. Since the observable realm of science and experimentation will never exist, any theories are just loose hypothesis. So science is not yet equipped with supporting evidence to prove Quran as scientifically false. Not as well equipped as self evident truth of gravity.

[@f.lemken9594]

Rana Jawad I quote "go to where the science takes you to a point where you know it doesn't negate established theological "facts"".This is exactly the statement you deny him saying and it's also the statement I addressed my original comment to. This is by far not limited to evolution. "Darwin's theory" already wrong. The modern theory of evolution has little to do with what Darwin originally proposed. While did not even bother to define what you mean by "small scale changes" I guess you are referring to micro- and macroevolution and the typical misconception, that there would be a mechanistic difference between them, This is not the case and macro evolution is as much proven by mountens of evidence as micro evolution is. Stop listening to propagandists and start listening to scientists on an issue that belongs in the realm of sciecne. While we do not know all details of the biochmical process of evolution like the fusion of telomers, we understand quite a lot of it and definitly enough to confirm, that this process is capable of increasing and changing the DNA, which is the most essentiel aspect of speciation. On the other hand we do not even need this mechanism, to prove that evolution has taken place. Comparative anatomy and DNA analysis prove this without any doubt. Therefore even most intellectual creationists can only claim that the mutational mechanism is insufficient, which they cannot prove and is actually quite dicouraged by our state of knowledge, to slip in devine guidence as a "god of the gaps" argument, which is a logical fallacy. Evolution does not attempt to explain conciousness? Neurology has to provide a basic understanding of what conciousness is in the first place. We do not know what is necessary for to have conciousness nor which animals or maybe even plants have it. Ypur claim is like saying, that the bigbang-theory would fail at explaining the composition of our earth's atmosphere. Correct but useless. Evolution gives some very good explanations for altruism. Look for example at insect states, which often show eusocial (purely altruistic) behaviour and this provenly improves the states survivalness. Social interactions are parcially based on evolutionary survival strategies. The degree of varification is unmeasureable. Therefore we cannot say one theory is more correct than another. However as you believe that I read what you write and you don't jump off a cliff, you do not even yourself believe, that every theory always is nothing more than a hypothesis. In my opinnion the qur'an has been disproven long ago, because of the effort, which has to be invested into the reinterpretation of verses, which talk about scientificly provable issues, to make them catch up with modern science. I am not sure what you mean by the last part. Gravity neither as an observation nor as a theory is selfevident prove.

[@ranajawad990]

I am still pretty much Unconvinced about the scientific evidence for macro-evolution. I am a Muslim but I am not stupid to be blind to Quran and denier of science. I love science. My argument is about two things, 1- Lack of case for evolution regardless of the supporting evidence. ( That’s why hamza said that we reject evolution and stick to Quran). 2- Quran’s varying interpretations. First, I am not listening to the propagandists, neither do I reject science and stick to Quran. To me, Quran still holds its incredible power in science. The thing is, There have been statements from the leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. No one has ever seen evolution happen.... Scientists defend it by saying the process is too slow observe. The point is, if it were a real process, evolution would still be occurring and there should be many ‘transitional’ forms that we could observe. But all we see is distinct plants and animals with many varities within each kind but with Very Clear ‘unbridgeable’ gaps. In Micro-evolution, downward minor changes occur fairly. Yes! But such changes are not true in ‘verticle’ evolution. Evolutionary genetics experiments conducted on ‘fruitflies’ and other rapidly reproducing species, to induce ‘mutational changes’ hoping they would lead to NEW distinct species have Failed to reach the goal. And as Hamza said, we cannot trust the science of evolution and reject Quran. Let me support his argument. For example, Earnst Mayor, the dean of living evolutionists, long term professor of biology at Harvard who has alleged that evolution is a ‘simple fact’, nonethless he agrees that it is an historical science for which ‘laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques’ by which to explain it. One can never see evolution in action. The entire history of evolution is strikingly devoid of intermediates, the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world. And Quran: you see People who are against Islam, Just don’t want to believe in it. They reject it from an emotional perspective first, and then try from a logical perspective. Quran is supposed to be a book for All times, all nations, till the day of judgement. That is why it’s interpretations varry with time. For example, describing the embryology and human birth, Quran uses the arabic word ‘Alaqah’ which has four meanings. ‘A leech like substance, something which clings, congealed clot of blood, i forgot the last’. In early times, they just interpreted it as a ‘congealed clot of Blood’. But as the science progresses, we now know in early stages of embryonic development (25th day) it looks exactly like a ‘leech’. Including the length. And also, it ‘clings to the uterine wall’. In early stages, blood does not circulate, and hence it looks like a congealed clot of blood. Your argument abrout disproving the Quran by its varrying interpretations to catch up with modern scientifc discoveries, actually goes in Favor of Quran, not against it as it is valid for all times. [ He creates you stage by stage in your mothers’ wombs, in threefold darkness, That is Allah, your Lord, sovereignty is His, there is No God but Him, so What has made you deviate?] (Quran 39:6) [It is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily it We who are steadily EXPANDING IT] (Quran 51:47) [But rather, they Belied the truth when it came to them, so they are in a state of confusion] (Quran 50:5) [Were they created by Nothing? Or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no certainty.] (Quran 52:35-36). [The day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a (written) sheet for the records. As we began the first creation, We will repeat it again. (That is) a promise binding upon us. Indeed We will do it!] ( Quran 21:104) The day science disprove Quran with CERTAINTY, like the certainty if gravity, not evolution, will be the day I will leave Islam.

[@jayyy689]

Watch Dr Rana Dajani's video on Islam and evolution. She actually has a PhD in biology, and accepts evolution as fact. Now she squares her Islam with evolution by interpreting the problematic verses metaphorically (essentially going against mainstream scholarly consensus since forever- the literalist interpretation is accepted by Hamza and all mainstream scholars). It's either you accept that this book is untrue or metaphorical. Or take the Hamzian route of sophistry and cult psychology. I took the Hamzian route for a while, but now I simply reject Islam as antiquated science (among other things).

[@edwardtimothy3581]

Wow, Congratulations for ur realization

[@jayyy689]

@@edwardtimothy3581 thanks brother. Wow such a throwback to read my comment from 6 years ago lol.

[@edwardtimothy3581]

@@jayyy689 so are u a Muslim?

[@jayyy689]

@@edwardtimothy3581 no, I converted for about three years in my early twenties. Now I'm essentially a perennialist.

[@edwardtimothy3581]

@@jayyy689 so u are an ex?

[@tomwolfe6063]

That was some pretty unimpressive intellectual dishonesty. Who hears this and thinks the guy made even the slightest shadow of a rational argument?

[@branmaher6684]

Interesting that Hamza requires 100% evidence in order to believe that evolution is fact. Yet is freely able to beleive in God via the writen word in a book, which has very little in terms of fact. Science are always saying theres a possiblity of being wrong, but not when it comes to evolution.

[@edwardtimothy3581]

Religious apologetic u know. Didn't realize that they contradicting themselves most of the time 😂

[@sebastianschulz6531]

Hamza Tzortzis should educate himself about evolution prior to speaking about it, and displaying his laziness. Theological facts? How do they compare to scientifically proven facts, or facts in general?

[@rationaltom]

Short version: where science contradicts Islam, ignore science. In this video Tzortzis completely refutes his own claim that Islam is scientific.

[@ranajawad990]

Watch the video again. He said, ignore science when science is uncertain and contradicts with Quran.

[@isajidazmi]

rationaltom What???He has made a Long video titled Qur'an is not. scientific miracle...Using something speculative or inconclusive to prove something that will never change is idiotic

[@galbisabdi5807]

My people the Muslims are in a sad state because when they are not listening to outdated scholars they are listening to young men like Hamza who have no credentials or qualifications. The guys talks of the literary miracles of the quran and he can not speak Arabic. need I say more?!

[@Mimi-Maa18]

Galbis Abdi actually he can speak Arabic

[@account_nameonline6420]

Why does Hamza always try to dumb it down for his audience? I have seen a few videos of Hamza trying to explain terms as if we are retarded. I feel like Hamza himself just found out the meaning of his terms and therefore believes he is teaching us something new. No Hamza, you don’t need to explain empiricism to us.

[@edwardtimothy3581]

Yeah 😂 i felt that too

[@nourqteifan2132]

Muslim Muslim Muslim lol

[@tjsho417]

Firstly, the man in this video is not only not a scientist, he doesn't even have a basic clue as to how science works. Secondly, "theology" and "facts" shouldn't be in the same sentence.

[@EnjoiningKnowlege]

Firstly, you're an idiot and secondly you're an idiot. Why do I say that? Because you FAIL to even form a COHERENT argument. WHAT is your POINT in pointing out the OBVIOUS, namely that Hamza is not a scientist? No one claimed he was. How does that undermine his actual point? What REASONS do you have to think his POINTS are false. Instead of using a childish authority fallacy like, "he's wrong, because he's not a scientist, so yeah he's wrong", use your brain and form an actual argument. How ironic that the people who end up relying on science as a god are also the one's who do it the greatest disservice by being incapable of offering specific reasoned criticism.

[@armomahmad4053]

I think you should then stop watching these videos and start check SCIENTISTS like Prof. Keith More. Prof Tagateja shen and others who are the MASTER PIECE and who REVERTED TO ISLAM and their books are still the master piece.

[@tjsho417]

Armom Ahmad Uh, those scientists are all fucking frauds. I listen to Laurence Krauss and Stephen Hawking.

[@JahidKhan-yh6kg]

to understand science I don't have to be a scientist lol. Good on you mate. But I'm pretty sure that hamaza has better scientific knowledge then you

[@clintronnow264]

LMFAO!!

[@ZanzibarBreeze]

Ibn Al Haytham > Muhammed