Non-Religion vs Islam & Non-Religious System vs Islamic System

Muslim preacher claims that Atheists have ZERO contribution to science in history. Please watch the video.

Response:

Indeed atheism (a non-religious system) provides an OPTIMAL environment for scientific progress. But before moving to atheism and how it supports science, first, let's examine the relationship between Islam and science.

Harms that Islam Inflicted upon Science

Islam made the whole Islamic world get religious education. As a result, Islam produced millions of Islamic Scholars in the last 1400 years, who were involved only in Jurisprudence and Sectarian fights. Compared to those millions of Islamic Scholars, Islam could not produce even a handful of scientists in 1400 years.
And you will not see even a single woman in the list of those earlier Muslim scientists of the last 1400 years, while Islam considers women to be deficient in intelligence, and they had to stay at home in the name of "Islamic Modesty".
Moreover, the prohibition of studying human anatomy by Islam, in the name of "respect" for the deceased hindered medical progress for centuries, impeding critical advancements in the medical field.
And then some Islamic Rulers also made life difficult for many Muslim scientists too due to their sects or atheist leanings. Ibn Sina was hiding his whole life, and he had to write his books in this state of hiding. Al-Razi was hit in his head by his own books in the mosque. Ibn-e-Rushd got the punishment for being an atheist. Yaqub al-Kindi lashed in public.
In contemporary times, schools in many Muslim countries continue to teach that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is incorrect, promoting the belief that humans were directly created by Allah and that Allah directly sent humans to the earth after a woman from the crooked rib of a man deceived him to eat the forbidden apple.

A challenge to Muslims to show that Muslim Scientists ever extracted any scientific discovery from the Quran or Hadith

Please note that:

None of the earlier Muslim scientists ever claimed to derive scientific discoveries directly from the Quran or Hadith.
Muslims were initially introduced to Greek/Roman scientific works through their conquests in Egypt and other regions. Later, Abbasid Caliph Mamun (d. 213 Hijri year) ordered the translation of these works into Arabic. Only after this development did Muslim scientists begin to emerge.
Muslims assert that the Sahaba (companions) of Muhammad were the best of Muslim generations. However, despite reading the Quran and Hadith throughout their lives, the Sahaba and the subsequent 5 to 10 Muslim generations were unable to extract any scientific knowledge from the Quran and the Hadith.
Present-day Muslims also struggle to extract scientific discoveries directly from the Quran/Hadith, often relying on science to make new findings before connecting them to the Quran.

Thus, the CREDIT for the accomplishments of early Muslim scientists and the "Islamic Golden Age of Science" does not belong to the Quran or Hadith, but rather to the translated scientific works of Greek and Roman scientists, to individual Muslim scientists, and to Muslim rulers of the time who supported scientific endeavors.

97% of the Scientific Community supports Evolution and rejects the theory of Creation today

There wasn't an organized atheist movement advocating for atheism during the past few centuries. Despite this, a vast majority of the scientific community today, estimated to be around 97%, supports the theory of evolution and rejects the idea of creationism and the story of Adam and Eve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, with 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as natural selection.^[1]^[2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.^[3] ... The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, palaeontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.^[23]^[24]

In simple words, today the fathers of Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc., who are making scientific discoveries, are almost all ATHEISTS.

Secondly, it is FACTUALLY WRONG. There have been hundreds of atheist scientists some founders of new branches of science: List of Atheists in Science & Technology.

Thirdly, look at how atheists faced hardships in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists:

There were laws on the books against atheism. In continental Europe, atheism was punishable by death. The death penalty for atheism was only abolished in the United Kingdom in 1677. Virtually all institutions of higher learning prior to the late 1800s were religious. In the United Kingdom, you could not attend Cambridge and Oxford unless you subscribed to the 39 Articles of the Church of England, a practice that was only abolished in 1871. Clearly, these men weren't Christians because of choice, but because there was no other alternative.

Therefore, the reason "Many great scientists believed in god in the past!" was because prior to the late 1800s, you had to openly profess belief in god or risk imprisonment and death for being an atheist. It was only during the second half of the 19th century that atheism became a respectable position.

Conclusion:

In conclusion:

Atheists don't have any MONOPOLY upon science.
But Atheism naturally promotes freethinking and thus supports scientific progress in an OPTIMAL way. While compared to Atheism, religious systems don't optimally support science.
Islam produced millions of Scholars of Jurisprudence and the Quran/Hadith, but only a handful of scientists during the last 14 centuries. But when the non-religious system became stronger in Europe, then look at how science was supported and it progressed at a rapid pace.
Islam failed to produce even a handful of female scientists during 1400 years. But look how the non-religious system supported women and today universities are producing thousands of female scientists every year. Even today, if a few Muslim women are becoming scientists, then it is not due to Islam, but due to the reason that the present non-religious system even promotes and supports Muslim women too to become scientists.
And look, even Galileo was religious, but his heliocentric discoveries were suppressed by the church, delaying technological progress. In the case of a clash between religion and science, religion killed scientific discoveries or slowed down their progress.
Religions showed us 1000s of years of scientific dark age/stagnation. Whatever progress we saw was sporadic or because of a few benevolent and curious rulers, who funded scholars. However, a few centuries of secularism and separation of church and state has given us an exponential amount of technological growth.
Moreover, the Muslim preacher takes credit for scientists being theists, but in the same way, will he take the blame for all those massacres done by theists? Probably no. He will be the first one to say terrorism has no religion.

Please also see this video: