Does refuting the Darwinian theory of evolution imply refuting animal and plant evolution?

Dear Brothers & Sisters,
As-Salaamu-Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh. (May Allah's Peace, Mercy and Blessings be upon all of you)
One of our brothers/sisters has asked this question:
I am a first year university student, studying a course in biology. In this course we learnt the theory of evolution which says that man was originally a monkey, but I do not believe this myth. But what about plants and animals? The theory of evolution may indeed be applicable to them, because some of the students and professors here conduct research projects, one after another, to prove that some species of plants and some species of birds went through various stages of evolution. I am not sure about this topic at all, because I do not want to believe something without evidence from religious teachings. Is there any evidence for this view from the Qur’an or Sunnah?
(There may be some grammatical and spelling errors in the above statement. The forum does not change anything from questions, comments and statements received from our readers for circulation in confidentiality.)
Check below answers in case you are looking for other related questions:


Praise be to Allah


It has become clear to many rational people that the theory of the atheist Darwin has been consigned to the trash can of history, because it was refuted by the disbelieving scientists of the West before Muslim scientists, as it is contrary to common sense and the teachings of various religions. 

In al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Muyassarah fi’l-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib wa’l-Ahzaab al-Mu‘aasirah (2/940-941), after a discussion of this theory, it says: 

From the above it is clear that Darwin’s theory may now be shelved, after the discovery of Mendel’s laws of genetics and the discovery of genes which are the secret code of creation, and the discovery that chromosomes carry the complete physical attributes of humans and preserve the similarity in attributes of a particular species. 

Hence fair-minded scientists think that the similarities between living beings offer clear evidence against the theory of evolution, because they testify that the Creator is one but they do not indicate that the starting point is one. However, the Holy Qur’an confirms that the initial substance of creation for all living beings is water:

“Allah has created every moving (living) creature from water”

[an-Noor 24:45]

“And We have made from water every living thing”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:30]. 

Empirical science has proven the falseness of this theory, on the basis of definitive evidence, and that it is not a scientific theory at all. 

Islam and all divinely revealed religions believe in the existence of Allah, the Creator, Originator, Controller and Fashioner Who has made all things well. He originally created man from an extract of clay, then He created him from a sperm drop lodged in a safe lodging (the womb), and man remains human in his form, attributes and reason; he does not evolve or change. “And also in your own selves [there are signs]. Will you not then see?” [adh-Dhaariyaat 51:21].

End quote. 


The basis for the refutation of this theory is no different with regard to animals and plants. Specialists have refuted the idea of evolution in animals and plants, in ways that make this theory unfit for continued examination, let alone believing in it. 

This evidence – that has to do with animals and plants, as mentioned in the question – includes the following: 


What we see around us of the reality of things is contrary to what Darwin called the survival of the fittest. The earth, as it has gone through different stages in its long life, has been filled with the fittest and the unfit, of various kinds of animals. If Darwin’s theory was correct, then the simple, clear results of his law suggest that there should not still be living creatures that are still at the starting point, no matter how slow we may assume the progress of evolution to be. But we see that the starting point is still crowded with various weak creatures that are still living their lives, with their own characteristics, just as their ancestors also lived their lives in exactly the same manner. Conversely, we see that some highly evolved animals, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct whilst insects such as flies and fleas still survive, as do others that are even weaker than them. The French professor Etienne Rebaud says in his book Will the Fit or the Unfit Survive? (p. 40): There is no such thing as natural selection in the course of fighting for survival, so that the strong survive and the weak diminish. For example, the garden lizard can run fast, because it has four long legs, but at the same type there are other types of lizards that have legs so short that they virtually crawl, dragging themselves along the ground with difficulty.… These types have the same physical makeup, even with regard to their legs; they eat the same food and live in the same environment. If these animals had adapted to their environment, there would not be such differences in their faculties and physical makeup. 

Contrary to the concept of natural selection, all these types of animals have survived and are still living and multiplying. For example, there are mountain rats that have short front legs and only move by jumping in a very awkward manner. Many insects cannot fly, even though they have big wings. So their physical makeup did not come about as a result of living beings trying to adapt to their circumstances. Rather, on the contrary, the way they live is shaped by their physical makeup and the way their different faculties function. 


If evolution is always moving towards the fittest, then why do we not find the power of reasoning in many animals that are more developed and more highly evolved than others, if evolution is for the benefit of all creatures? Why did the higher primates not attain the power of reasoning as man did, for example? Donkeys, from the time when they were first known until the present, are still donkeys. 

Darwin referred to this problem in his book, but he did not answer it. Rather he commented on it in the Origin of Species (p. 412) by saying: 

No one should expect to find a specific answer to this question, especially since we know that we are unable to answer a question that is less complex than this. 


It has been proven through research that many of the plants and animals of Egypt have not changed from the way they were many centuries ago. It is clear from some of domesticated animals that are engraved on ancient Egyptian relics, or that have been preserved by means of embalming, that they are very similar to those that exist now; in fact there are hardly any differences at all. 

And there are many examples that come under this heading. 


This theory cannot be proven through experimentation or observation. No human has ever observed even the slightest degree of evolution.

At no time throughout history has humanity ever observed any living being transformed into another being through evolution, especially when there are specialised scientists who are watching for the slightest change in outward appearance or inward structure of those beings. See the book by the Australian Michael Denton. 

End quote from an article entitled Naqd Nazariyaat at-Tatawwur (Criticism of the Theory of Evolution) by Dr Muhammad Barbaab

The article contains more information and a criticism of Neo-Darwinism. It also mentions discoveries from excavations that have thrown Neo-Darwinism into what is called the crisis of Neo-Darwinism, especially since this new theory insists that all kinds of plants and animals are subject to evolution, without exception.

And Allah knows best.

Whatever written of Truth and benefit is only due to Allah's Assistance and Guidance, and whatever of error is of me. Allah Alone Knows Best and He is the Only Source of Strength.

Related Answers:

Recommended answers for you: