He starts his speech with the argument that in no book, it calls evolution a fact but theory. Now this only shows his ignorance about the very definition of a scientific theory and this alone should be enough to simply ignore anything such has to say about science. However I will not do that and listen to rest of his speech and address his arguments. Here is my notes on each of his arguments:
1. Quote from Darwin "I do not believe in natural selection, I do no believe in theory of evolution". First of all, could someone please provide me with a citation for this letter Darwin wrote? Although I have a gut feeling that he is just lying but putting that aside, he is talking about the very early days of Darwin when he was very young and hadn't yet really arrived at the theory of evolution so him not believing in it at that time should not be very surprising and have much (if any) weight as an argument.
2. He presented an argument about Darwin admitting missing links that I couldn't quite catch despite the fact I heard it again and again. If he is just talking about missing links themselves, he seems to be ignorant of an important fact that Darwin was able to correctly predict at least a few missing links to be found later that really where found later just like he predicted.
3. The *only* reason theory of evolution is taught everywhere now a days is that church has been against science and theory of evolution goes against the church. I am sorry but this is such a stupid thing to say. This might be able to explain why it's taught in western/Christian countries but how does this explain it being taught in China, Japan and India for example?
Also not all churches have always fought against theory of evolution. Some churches, like Lutheran got over it ages ago and they hadn't challenged the validity of evolution for a long time. In fact I personally know a Lutheran priest who recently wrote any article on how this theory doesn't go against the teaching of Bible.
Catholics have never really been against evolution and recently they've started to show signs of embracing it.
Notice the stress on *only*. This implicitly implies that he denies any evidence supporting it what so ever and that is something quite contrary to reality. If he had denied or challenged the validity of the big amount of evidence present, that would have been very different but simply denying it's existence is nothing but either utter ignorance or lie.
4. Then he describes the states of human evolution according to theory of evolution. He puts them in wrong order and he doesn't even seem to know that homo-sapiens is the name for the modern humans. Surprise surprise, he proves the theory of evolution wrong by criticizing these stages that he got wrong himself. This is just another example of his ignorance about this theory he is talking against so confidently.
5. He talks of 100s of scientists who are against theory of evolution including nobel prize winers but when he give examples, he is only able to mention one Nobel prize winning scientist. I tried to catch the name of that person but didn't quite catch his name or maybe (just maybe) this person doesn't actually exist?
All the other people who mentions, I have never heard of them and searching for their names on Internet doesn't bring-up much, unlike when you search for Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and other big scientists in the recent times.
It could be just that I don't get to catch the names correctly and google isn't able to suggest anything better but I will appreciate if anyone could provide me this list of scientists.
6. He again come to "there is no proof whatsoever" and then he contradicts himself immediately after that saying "there is some proof on the microscopic level". If he had challenged the proof and/or evidence supporting evolution, that was another thing and I could think about that but simply denying the existence of any proof is simply making a loud noise about one's ignorance to me.
7. He then claims that evolution on microscopic level is not against the Quran so he simply accepts that as a fact. Thinking about this, I wonder where does Quran says that evolution can't happen on non-microscopic level? The only thing in evolution that really does conflict with Quran is evolution of man himself. So why make the difference between microscopic species and non-microscopic ones?
8. He then calculates the chances of evolution happening and comes up with a very small number. How does he do that? By completely keeping two very important facts from his calculation: 1. the incredibly huge amount of number of solar systems in this universe 2. The extremely long amount of time it took. I once saw a program on National Geographic in which they calculated the same probability with these importance facts in mind and they came up with a very big number.
9. He then goes on attacking the 'theory' that homosexuality is genetic, which he concludes by saying it is illogical. However I remember hearing the news 1-2 years ago about scientists finding the exact gene that causes a person to be homo-sexual. Not only that, they even found how it transfers from one generation to another. Anyway, this is off-topic and i don't have any reference so i'll let him win on this one. :)
10. At the end, he talks of the 'theory' that all man are descendants of one man. He says that it's just a theory so he doesn't quote it or anything but since it's in accordance with Quran, he predicts that in 100 years it will be proven. How exactly can he know that? What proof he has in support for this theory that he is comfortable with believing in that, even though it's just a 'theory'?
Looking at the history of all religions (including Islam), it's very easy to predict instead that they all will accept theory of evolution at some point, many in fact has already done so and some (Catholics) are showing signs of doing so in the near future. In fact, they will then claim that this theory was foretold in their religious books long time ago and present it as a big argument everywhere.
In the end, a very simple picture that shows one of the many evidence in favor of evolution (thanks Karl Lattimer for pointing it out):
