For more than a century and a half, Darwin’s theory of evolution has been treated as the master-narrative of how life emerged and diversified. It is taught as settled science, repeated as common sense, and defended with an intensity that sometimes feels more like belief than inquiry. Yet, inside the scientific world, the ground has been slowly shifting. Philosophers of science, molecular biologists, and evolutionary theorists, from Thomas Nagel to Michael Denton, from James Shapiro to David Berlinski, argue that the Darwinian story no longer fits the data we now possess. The deeper we look into the structure of life, the harder it becomes to accept that randomness, blind mutations, and slow, unguided change can produce something as complex as a living cell, let alone a conscious human being.

This opens an unexpected question, after exhausting all of its models, could science one day be pushed to reconsider the possibility of a divinely created Adam, a human beginning that was deliberate, purposeful, and not the product of evolution?

This is not a debate about replacing science with religion. It is a debate about whether science, after confronting the limits of its own explanations, might find itself face-to-face with truths religious traditions preserved long ago. Islam, in particular, offers a remarkably clear narrative. Adam was created fully formed, consciously shaped, with no evolutionary ladder behind him. There was no long ascent from simpler organisms. Adam was the beginning. At first glance, this seems irreconcilable with modern science. But the more genetic and molecular evidence accumulates, the less absolute this conflict appears.

Genetics is where the pressure on Darwinian theory is most visible. Every discovery in molecular biology has revealed new layers of complexity that seem impossible to build through tiny random steps. Michael Denton, a biochemist, medical doctor, and one of the most rigorous critics of classical Darwinism argues that biological structures display an integrated design that cannot be explained by gradual accumulation of mutations. His early work “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” remains one of the strongest scientific challenges to Darwin’s randomness-based model.

James Shapiro of the University of Chicago goes even further, proposing that cells actively reorganize their own DNA in non-random ways, almost as if they possess a molecular intelligence. If this is even partially true, then the central Darwinian assumption collapses, evolution cannot be described as random. The classical picture of life emerging through countless accidental changes becomes less convincing. He detailed his work in his book titled “Evolution: A view from the 21st century “.

A simple thought experiment captures this tension of Darwin’s randomness, can a vast library be produced by randomly spilling ink and waiting for books to form over time? Instinctively, we reject this. Books need authors, organisation, and intent. Why then should the universe of living forms, infinitely more complex than a library, be attributed entirely to chance?

Even committed evolutionists have admitted the philosophical bias behind Darwinism. Richard Lewontin famously wrote that science often clings to Darwin not because the evidence is conclusive, but because alternative explanations appear “too theistic.” When a theory is protected for philosophical reasons, scientific collapse becomes a matter of time, not impossibility.

The fossil record also raises uncomfortable questions. The slow, branching transitions predicted by classical evolution rarely appear. The Cambrian explosion, a sudden emergence of dozens of fully formed body plans around 540 million years ago, remains one of biology’s biggest puzzles. Stephen Meyer and other scholars argue that this is not a small anomaly but a fundamental challenge, if the gradual steps are missing, perhaps the staircase never existed.

None of this cancels the strengths of evolutionary theory. Evolution explains adaptation, variation within species, antibiotic resistance, and small changes across generations. But when it comes to explaining the arrival of the first human being, the emergence of consciousness, or the sudden leap from animal cognition to human self-awareness, evolution remains silent. Thomas Nagel, an atheist philosopher, openly acknowledges that consciousness cannot be explained by material processes alone. Something essential is missing.

And it is here that the Islamic account of human origins enters, not as an opponent of science but as a more complete explanation. The Qur’an describes Adam as being created intentionally and placed first in Paradise, a realm beyond material constraints, before being sent down to Earth. He did not need evolutionary steps to survive either realm. He remained human throughout.

Modern science cannot yet explain such movement between realms. But the same science also cannot explain consciousness, the soul, or human selfhood. If humans are partly non-material, then the idea of a human existing in multiple realms (paradise & earth) is not absurd, it is simply beyond the tools of material science.

Islam reinforces this through another profound episode, the Mi‘raj. Prophet Muhammad ascended through the heavens, witnessed realities beyond physical space, yet did not biologically evolve into a different being. He remained fully human. His return to Earth required no “reverse evolution.” The same logic applies to the afterlife, humans will enter Paradise in perfected but recognisable human form, not through evolutionary transformation, but through divine re-creation.

If humans can transition between realms without evolutionary adaptation, then Adam’s entry from Paradise to Earth, fully human, becomes entirely coherent within Islamic thought. And scientific critiques emerging today make this narrative less incompatible with scientific inquiry than it once seemed.

So, will science abandon Darwinism? Not abruptly. Scientific theories rarely fall in a single moment. They fade as new evidence arrives, new models gain ground, and old assumptions lose credibility. But we are already witnessing the beginnings of that shift. When leading thinkers challenge randomness, when geneticists reveal purposeful cellular behaviour, when philosophers conclude that consciousness cannot arise from matter alone, the space opens for alternative explanations.

The Islamic account of Adam does not demand that science become religious. It demands only that science become honest about its limits. Evolution explains change, but not beginnings. It explains adaptation, but not the leap to consciousness. It explains survival, but not the first arrival of a fully formed human being.

As science reaches the frontier of its understanding, it may discover that the story of human existence is larger than Darwin imagined, and closer to what religious tradition has always affirmed.