Second objection: necessity produces the organ
The Darwinists claim to have proved that among mammals, reptiles and birds, some organs weaken, atrophy for want of being used and that others are developed further for being exercised thus showing that organs are necessity-driven. It must be noted that Al Mashrîq's adresses a proposition that pertains to Lamarckism, not Darwinism.
Al-Mashrîq's response: There is no denying the boosting of working organs or the weakening of discarded ones. The visually-impaired's earing, the sense of balance of the high wire acrobat are developed of necessity. But there is no substance in the Darwinists' claim that domestic birds are unable to fly because they have not used their wings. The main thing is to hold on to the impossibility to extrapolate from biological evolution exemplars: whilst owls may have acquired enlarged eyes in order to see better at night as the Darwinists claim, man who also needed to improve his night vision has proved unable to do so. Their doctrine is mainly attacked for failing to explain whether biological changes result from chance or from an evolution achieved independently from the will of an Eternal Spirit.
