I always believed that there are limits to credulity and ignorance but I was proven wrong when I watched Zakir Naik presenting ‘arguments’ against evolution. [1]
It was difficult for me to digest that a large number of people present in the live audience and watching on screens could buy into such third grade arguments. Moreover one can raise strong questions regarding the credibility of such a (pseudo) scholar. It is understandable – in the context of low literacy rates, much lower rates of scientific education and suppression of rational inquiry in our region – that general public could misunderstand science and take things for granted but it is criminally ignorant to let people like Zakir Naik churn out rubbish in the name of science.
In this series of rebuttals, I intend to take on Naik’s arguments, statement by statement and debunk those claims and expose what I perceive as either abject ignorance or criminal trickery.
Argument : Zakir Naik claims that evolution is a theory and not a fact [1]
It is perhaps the most popular and actually the most ridiculous argument presented by creationists. It actually exhibits complete ignorance of science and scientific method and raises serious questions regarding the academic credentials of Naik who claims to be a doctor of medicine.
Anybody who has gone through elementary courses in science knows that there are other ‘theories’ of science such as ‘Theory of Gravitation’ and ‘Electromagnetic Theory’ but nobody declares gravity as just a theory and jumps of a thirty storey building in a hope that he/she will start floating in mid-air rather than falling downwards.
The reality is that in scientific jargon, the terms ‘theory’ and ‘fact’ carry very different meanings. The colloquial usage of term ‘theory’ which stands for unsubstantiated claims is not valid for the scientific theories of Evolution, Electromagnetism and Gravity.
What is then a scientific theory? Biochemist, Science Fiction writer and popularizer of science, Isaac Asimov explains:
Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is “only a theory,” giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning 
with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the Roquefort-cheese theory.
A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe’s workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally.
For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the “cell theory”); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the “theory of gravitation”); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the “quantum theory”); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the “theory of relativity”), and so on.
All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is “only” a theory, that is all it has to be. [2]
Similarly, Paleontologist Stephen J. Gould states:
If the vernacular word FACT has any currency in science, it can only be defined as “confirmed to so high a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” By this definition, evolution – the observation that all organisms are connected by unbroken ties of genealogy – is as much a fact as anything discovered by science – as well confirmed as Copernicus’s claim that the Earth moves around the sun.[3]
Gould states at another place:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s 
data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. [4]
Skeptic, Psychologist and historian of science Michael Shermer comment on scientific thinking:
Scientists agree that the following elements are involved in thinking scientifically:
Induction: Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.
Deduction: Making specific predictions based on the hypotheses.
Observation: Gathering data, driven by hypotheses that tell us what to
look for in nature.
Verification: Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypotheses.
Science, of course, is not this rigid; and no scientist consciously goes through “steps.” The process is a constant interaction of making observations, drawing conclusions, making predictions, and checking them against evidence. [5]
Shermer further explains:
Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:
Hypothesis: A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.
Theory: A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of
hypotheses.
Fact: A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be
reasonable to offer provisional agreement.
A theory may be contrasted with a construct: a nontestable statement to
account for a set of observations.The living organisms on Earth may be
accounted for by the statement “God made them” or the statement “They evolved.” The first statement is a construct, the second a theory. Most biologists would even call evolution a fact.
Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.[5]
Conclusion
I consider the above arguments enough to explain why Naik’s statement holds no ground. It may seem wasteful to spend so much time refuting a single statement (rest of them will be refuted too in future) but I find it important as it leads us to another important question. Is he totally ignorant of the scientific method or he deliberately uses false statements in front of his audience. In first scenario he comes out to be a totally ignorant speaker who holds no credibility to take part in debates regarding science. His shameless arrogance is appalling in this regard. How could he stand in front of millions of people in audience and argue regarding things, he is totally ignorant of? Is such a man worth listening to? If he is deliberately lying, the case becomes more severe. He is charlatan who cheats and deceives his audience with verbal trickery and false arguments and all that in the name of religion!
References
1. Zakir Naik on Evolution, Video
2. Asimov, Isaac, The “Threat of Creationism”, New York Times Magazine, 14 June 1981
3. Gould, Stephen J, ‘Creation Science ‘ is an Oxymoron, Skeptical Inquirer Vol. XI, no. 2 / Winter 1986-87
4. Gould, Stephen J, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37
5. Shermer, Michael, Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time, 2002
fugstar
August 27, 2009
Muslims dont need to absorb christocentric angst like anti evolutionism.
but we do quite abit, on all fronts. i think the darwin issue is one which is used to fan the flames of ath… sorry secularism in the muslim societies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/11/religion.darwinbicentenary
and get over zakir naik already
aman
September 4, 2009
zakir naik is foolish in simple words he just drag ignornt dhadiwala sin pit of hell;
Zaki
January 2, 2010
Right, you’re chatting shit. Shit that’s quite enjoyable to read, and could sway anyone who likes to think they’re intellectual- which apparently means deciding every question based on Michael Shermer’s scientific method (who the fuck is he again?).
At the end of the day, science and religion are NOT fully compatible. Just like for e.g. Hinduism and Islam (or you and someone who disagrees with your views) may not be. And you’re just going to have to learn to live with that and stop trying to push your views on others (by calling Zakir Naik a criminal… Your face is criminal). It’s a case of let the man believe what he believes. And let him say what he wants to say because isn’t that what freedom of speech is about (should definitely be a concept known to someone writing a blog titled ‘secular Pakistan’)? If Zardari can say his heart his bleeding for the people that got screwed in the bombing/ riots, I’m pretty sure it’s alright for Zakir to say he thinks the theory of evolution is a load of shit. You’re the one that’s being a narrow-minded scientific fundo by not opening your mind up to the idea that an alternative theory may actually be true.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say (keep getting distracted by trying to take the piss out of your ignorance) is that a lot of people that are religious (oh lord, we must kill them all) believe that there are in fact a lot of things that science hasn’t proven and that the teachings of Islam (i.e. God in their opinion) may actually be more prescient than mr. Darwin or that random paleontoligist you have a shrine in your room for (get out of the I heart Ross bubble). There was a time that people believed that the world was flat; pretty sure it was a fact (happy? didn’t say theory) then based on whatever scientific (or non-scientific) method those lads thought appropriate back in the day. I personally know very little about evolution (or what Islam says about it) but reading your article actually pushes me to the other side just because you sound like a scientific twat searching for actual evidence but coming up with a weak argument that actually doesn’t disprove shit and all it does is fluffs itself up with quotations from important sounding people and through putting down relgion and a scholar who’s actually done a lot for dispelling myths about Islam (sacre bleu I called him a scholar). Get a fucking identity man; it’s okay to have your own opinions but seriously it’s not really that cool to think Zakir Naik isn’t cool. He’s got a photographic memory, sports that beard quite well, and is all around a bit of a lad. So get your priorities right, and write about something more intelligent because you’re actually a pretty good writer. Safe xx
Ayyaz
January 3, 2010
Zaki Sahab,
Please don’t get worked up about the above article.
The only thing that the author has tried to prove is that the context of the word ‘theory’ as used in science (.eg. theory of evolution) is different to the context in which it is used in everyday life. And thus, Zakir Naik, especially being a qualified doctor, saying that evolution is only a ‘theory’ (in the everyday sense of the word) is distorting the fact(s). Freedom of speech entails responsibility and part of that responsibility is to present facts/evidence/theories as they are. Which, in this case at least, Dr. Naik has not done accurately. That is all.
You are perfectly within your rights to not agree with the author in a respectful way but please do not indulge in personal attacks (you yourself admit that: ‘keep getting distracted by trying to take the piss out of your ignorance’). It only contributes to distracting readers away from your argument and focussing on the spiteful drifts in your comments.
ali
December 3, 2012
P.s- sorry about the brackets and Dr naik is awesome…
Tilsim
January 3, 2010
@ Zaki
Yes, F’ing this and F’ing that does not add much to your argument and actually makes people think poorly of you.
taha
January 8, 2010
Mr. Awais,
what he actually meant when using the words ‘fact’ and ‘theory’ is that there are actually not enough scientific proofs regarding to evolution, thus making it a theory (in the scientific meaning of it) that is not backed up by facts.
its sad seeing you rant so much and doubt the knowledge of a man so well versed just because of your own lack of comprehension skills, hope you learn to read the meanings of words in context rather than quoting them from dictionaries and encyclopedia, makes you sound not only very pompous but also very stupid, embarassing really.
if you are still skeptic about creationism then i suggest you read the works of Mr. Harun Yahya.
Ayyaz
January 8, 2010
Taha Sahab,
Unfortunately, you have made the same mistake that Dr. Naik did in discounting evolution by calling it a ‘theory’ in layman terms.
The reason that the ‘theory of evolution’ is called a ‘theory’ is that it is scientific jargon and it is part of the scientific method to regard a hypotheses put forward to explain observable phenomena as a ‘theory’ (e.g. theory of evolution, theory of relativity) AS LONG AS IT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINS PHYSICAL PHENOMENA AND MAKES ACCURATE PREDICTIONS GIVEN A SET OF CONDITIONS AT A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME. If at any point, any physical evidence or observation comes along which does not satisfy the predictions made by the ‘theory’ then that theory is discarded in favour of one which explains the observable phenomena more accurately or is modified so as to explain the new evidence and/or experimental observations. Thus, a scientific ‘theory’ is fact as long it accurately predicts experimental results and observable phenomena but is to be discarded in favour of one, if it comes along, which explains physical observations more accurately.
An example in this regard is of the ‘theory of relativity’ put forward by Albert Einstein. Relativity is, for all intents and purposes, a fact as proven by latest observations during eclipses and by the very fact that spaceships and shuttles designed keeping the theory of relativity in mind work perfectly well. Now, I’m sure no one, including you, would discount relativity saying that it is only a ‘theory’. But yes, if tomorrow we observe a phenomenon which cannot be explained by the theory of relativity or do an experiment whose results do not collaborate with those predicted by the theory of relativity, then we will discard the theory for one which better explains our experimental results while still satisfactorily explaining the observations explained earlier by the theory of relativity. OR we may modify the theory of relativity so as to make it conform with our experimental observations. Thus, the word ‘theory’ in the physical sciences is used not as in layman terms (.i.e. to allude to something which is not fact and/or experimentally confirmed) but it is just the scientific way of expressing our state of knowledge which is in constant flux with new theories coming and going or staying, depending on the how well their predictions correlate with our experimental observations.
Now this brings us nicely onto the question of the ‘theory of evolution’. I hope by my above explanation that you have understood why we call evolution the THEORY of evolution and not the FACT of evolution or LAW of evoultion. The simple fact of the matter is that the theory of evoultion has, uptil now at least, been able to explain ALL, and by that I really do mean ALL, the observable phenomena that we see in the diversity of the biosphere. Thus, although there is no experimental evidence and/or observation to refute the theory of evolution it is still not called fact or law as there is still the possibility, no matter however remote, that tomorrow some evidence may come to light which does not fit the predictions made by our theory which may then have to be modified or discarded. Happily, no such evidence has as yet come to light and theory of evolution, just as the theory of relativity, is as much fact as you or me experiencing the gravitational pull of the Earth.
As a biochemist and a scientist, I implore you to keep away from the works of pseudo-scientists like Mr. Harun Yahya and I hope you will trust me when I tell you that denying the veracity of theory of evolution is like standing in front of the sun, closing your eyes and saying that there is no sun. You may call it the humility of science that it is prepared to discard long-standing theories (such as evolution and relativity) if even a shred of evidence comes to light which does not fit that which is predicted by its theories.
Moreover, calling the sharer of this article with us ‘stupid’, ‘pompous’ and lacking in ‘comprehension skills’ does not, in any way, enhance your credibility and only serves to distract readers away from the main body of your argument. The only point that the author of the article has tried to make is that Mr. Naik, especially in his capacity as a doctor of medicine, should not confuse or mislead laymen by using scientific jargon in everyday terms (as he has done in this case by calling evolution just a ‘theory’).
I hope you will take the trouble of reading my very long post. For any further clarifications on the subject of the scientific method or the evidence for evoultion please feel free to contact me (ayyaz.mallick@oriel.ox.ac.uk).
Tilsim
January 9, 2010
Thanks for clarification Ayyaaz. There is much confusion on this matter.
Taha
January 11, 2010
I agree with what you and the author is saying but I doubt that you are getting what I am trying to say out here. I think (or atleast, I must confess, hope) that what Mr. Zakir Naik meant when he said those words was that it is a flawed theory that is not backed up by sufficient facts, thus making it a theory in the layman meaning of the word.
In other words, what he meant is that the theory is unscientific, which is why he used the layman terminology and claimed it to be just a theory.
Dr. Zakir Naik can I think be forgiven for using terminologies that the common man is familiar with since he is usually addressing the aforementioned category. Many of his listeners would be lost if he went into the details of the word theory rather than explain the meanings and teachings of Islam, which is his real purpose.
Dr. Harun Yahya may be a pseudo-scientist in your opinion, my friend, but he does make some valid arguments when it comes to evolution.
Ayyaz
January 11, 2010
Taha my friend, I’m a scientist myself and I can tell you that ALL, and I mean ALL, the observations and experiment results gathered through the study of genetics, biochemistry, embryology and palaeontology (to name a few scientific disciplines) agree with the theory of evolution.
Firstly, Harun Yahya is not a doctor of any kind (either of medicine or a PhD). So please refrain from attaching the prefix Dr. with his name. Even his own website does not say that he ever received such a degree. As for his science, his books have no credibility at all among the overwhelming majority of scientists. His website is laced with material which betrays the lack of even a basic grasp of the tenets of modern science and the theory of evolution.
Moreover, if you watch the whole video of Dr. Zakir Naik when he is trying to refute the theory of evolution, he says a lot of things which are absolute falsehoods. I will give you a few examples and you can check these up yourself if you want to:
1) He says that, “Charles Darwin went on an island by the name of Okeletropis.”
This is wrong. Darwin’s observations were made on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean
2) He says: “….the church was against science previously and you know the incidents that they sentenced Galileo to death. They Sentenced Galileo to death. Why? because he said certain statements in astronomy etc which went against the bible so they sentenced him to death.”
He says Galileo was sentenced to death THREE times. Anyone who has ever read anything about the history of science knows that this is absolutely wrong. Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment (and NOT death) which was reduced to home imprisonment later.
3) Three scientists that Dr. Naik mentions as in opposition to evolution are Sir Whitemeat (apparently a biologist who wrote a book against evolution), Ruperts Albert (he apparently wrote a new theory of evolution against Darwin’s theory) and Sir Frank Salisbury (another biologists).
There have been no biologists in the history of the world by these names and certainly not any who spoke against the theory of evolution. You can look them up if you want to and get back to me if you can find any trace of these respected gentlemen.
4) Dr. Naik says that he can provide a list of HUNDREDS of scientists against evolution.
I study at Oxford and I have never met a single, NOT A SINGLE SCIENTIST, who does not believe in the theory of evolution in its broad meaning (although they may differ on fine details). I would also like to have a look at the list of the HUNDREDS of scientists Dr. Naik claims to possess of scientist who do not believe in the theory of evolution.
5) He quotes many scientists, blatantly out of context, as evidence for their standing against the theory of evolution. An example of this is when Dr. Naik mentions P.P Grasse in 1971, who held the chair of evolutionary studies in Paris, in Sojerion University as saying “It is absurd – We cannot say who were our ancestors based on fossils.’
This is a perfect example of quoting a person out of context to completely twist the meaning what he/she said in your favour. I present here to you a statement made by P.P Grasse in 1977 (with reference):
“Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world … [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] … Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and … plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution.” (Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)
The sentence quoted by Dr. Naik was uttered by P.P Grasse based on his frustration on the lack of fossil record at the time. It is quite evident from the statement I have quoted above that P.P Grasse never disputed the veracity of the theory of evolution.
6) You and Dr. Naik say that the theory of evolution is not backed up by sufficient facts.
This, as I have already mentioned above, is absolutely not true. Observations emerging from every field of biology, including zoology, anatomy, embryology and biochemistry, agree with the theory of evolution. Natural selection and evolution are all around us. Even the recent outbreak of the bird flu and swine flu virus are examples of natural selection and evolution at work.
Dr. Naik is spreading lies and falsehoods under the banner of the Quran, Islam and rational thought. Even a cursory look at the errors I have pointed out above in the answer he gave against the theory of evolution should be enough to put his credibility to doubt and to convince anyone that this man is not to be trusted blindly especially when he is talking about the theory of evolution.
I implore you to stop living in a world of denial and embrace the scientific truths that hundreds of scientists around the world are working 24/7 to present you with. Again, if you have any doubts in your mind regarding the theory of evolution or the scientific method, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Nasir
January 11, 2010
http://chaoticone.com/magical-zakir-naik-on-evolution-part-1/
&
http://chaoticone.com/magical-zakir-naik-on-evolution-part-2/
Ayyaz
January 11, 2010
Thank you, Nasir. This article was the one I had read before writing my reply above.
taha
January 12, 2010
i stand corrected.
Fatima Sawala
March 28, 2010
Zakir Naik should get an education before he spouts the most stupid statements about evolution, which is an observed fact.
Naik has done no observation or experimentation to back up his claims, other than to swallow a huge load of Islamic dogma and regurgitate it.
Usman
August 4, 2011
Just a suggestion to everyone here, whatever side you are on, read Darwin’s black box. It criticizes both evolution and creationism under the latest evidence present. I can post a summary of the arguments here if enough people are interested.
mani
August 23, 2011
well i vill just say that …u cant blame dr. zakir for all dis..he is a human ..mistakes can occur ..he just took names ov the scientist wrong …its nt a big deal ..he is nt a speaker by birth ..he used to stammer , once he was afraid of stage ..but nw he is one ov best speakers who cn stand against greatest greatest scholors ov ny religion including christianity ….so its nt a big deal
mani
August 23, 2011
come and ask ur scholors to ask him abt his mistakes on stage …he vl admit if he is wrong ……if u ppl have nything which he said wrong abt islam or misleaded da muslims ..dn plz show me prooof ….all books can change …even darwins orignal paper can be changed by people .
Farhan
September 15, 2011
Frank salsbury was the biologist and head of the dept at Utah university.
anonymous
March 12, 2012
theory of evolution is bull shit… this theory fails to explain the creation in pairs…
avik
December 28, 2012
I work in oman and hindu and love my religion,after working with arabs, i find there is no problem with arabs,pakistanis they are good people but indian muslims are fraud and engage in activities which are unislamics .This zakir naik and his family was schedule caste as he cannot leave his hindu family name “naik” ,may be his forefathers had converted to islam to escape the hindu caste system, as a grand children he has rage in his blood ,so he abusing hindus and trying to create uncomfortness. if he is so much knowledgable about islam then he should become the chief priest at AL-Haram mosque in saudi and try to get saudi passport instead of applying for british.
and then he should try to solve the shia & sunni problem in the arabworld ,instead of putting finger in hindus.
As a hindu ,i am very sorry to say that pakistanis are far better than indian muslims of bombay origin,our media and leaders should understand.
prentex d?ugopisy
January 28, 2013
Spełnić trzeźwego repertuaru, iż pragnę,
by zarabiać pieniądze w strategia, kto umożliwia mi mieć
bez liku niesamowładczego czasu gwoli sobie, moje wigor.
Air Conditioner
June 18, 2013
Good day very nice blog!! Man .. Excellent .
. Amazing .. I will bookmark your site and take the feeds also?
I am glad to find numerous useful information right here within the submit, we’d like develop more strategies on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .