for evolutionists :Darwinism Incompatible With the Qur'an

Fahad1

salam all .
dear Andya and all those who believe in evolution theory .
i dont believe in evolution . but i dont have much knowledge about evolution , so i m not here to start a debate . i just want to know what u think about the views presented in harun yahya's book "Why Darwinism is Incompatible With the Qur'an" on http//www.harunyahya.com/incompatible01.php .
thank u .
salam.
fahad.

Andya_Primanda

salam all .
dear Andya and all those who believe in evolution theory .
i dont believe in evolution . but i dont have much knowledge about evolution , so i m not here to start a debate . i just want to know what u think about the views presented in harun yahya's book "Why Darwinism is Incompatible With the Qur'an" on http//www.harunyahya.com/incompatible01.php .
thank u .
salam.
fahad.

Peace Saladin,

Regarding the Harun Yahya committee (HY), you should know a few things.

First, Harun Yahya conflates evolution (a scientific explanation, theory and fact) with everything he thinks as evil in the world atheism, competition, communism, terrorism, racism, etc. This is apparent if you read every book and article they wrote in which there is always a part attacking evolution. This is incorrect.

Evolution does not imply atheism in the same way that gravity or quantum mechanics does not imply atheism.

Racism from bigotry, and it existed even before anyone ever thought of evolution.

The link between evolution and terrorism is more ludicrous. Is Osama bin Laden an evolutionist? Last time I checked George W Bush, if his views have any connection to this matter, leans towards the creationist side.

Second, the fifth chapter, 'The Errors of Those Who Use Qur'anic Verses To Prove Evolution', which I think is the core of that book, is basically pointing out some verses that some Muslims have interpreted as somehow indicating evolution, and then they say it does not. Why? Because they think there are 'correct' interpretations of Imam Tabari, Omer Nasuhi Bilmen, Hamdi Yazir and other (Turkish?) authorities. Note that with the exception of Tabari, which of course lived before science ever have an idea of evolution, all the names were fairly unknown outside Turkiye, and the more important thing is, we here at FM know that the argument from authority of imams/scholars are not the best way to understand the Qur'an. Sure, they could be right, or wrong, but their interpretation is not the final word.

Of course, having said that, I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism', which is trying to fit Qur'anic verses to scientific discoveries.

Then again, it is important to stress that evolution is established in science not because of any scripture, but because of a lot of evidence points to it. We can see changes in the fossil record, we can measure how selection changes populations over time, we discover signs of affinities between all organisms.

Third, if I may offer my perspective, evolution is basically just the details of 'creation'. Just like embryology is the details of how God created me and you. My main interest in studying the Qur'an has always been the word 'khalaq' ('create') and a key verse is 2920 (the numbers I wrote on my dead bird avatar)

2920
Qul seeroo fee al-ardi faonthuroo kayfa badaa alkhalqa thumma Allahu yunshi-o alnnash-ata al-akhirata inna Allaha AAala kulli shay-in qadeerun

Free-minds
Say "Roam the Earth and observe how the creation was initiated. Thus God will establish the final creation. God is capable of all things."

in which I understand that we can witness how God create everything. I do not claim that this verse indicates evolution. I just think that this verse indicates that creation ('khalaq') can be studied by roaming/traveling the Earth. That's what us scientists do go out there and study the clues God left from creation. And it points to evolution.

2920 also implies that creation was not some kind of unobservable magical 'poof' preferred by creationists. It is also worth noting that khalaq is used in many verses that refer to natural processes, like embryology, the origin of mountains, and the origin of the universe.

Sure, God could have created things by magical poofs. Or by evolution. Or by some other way not yet discovered. How do we decide? The best way IMHO is to go out there and look for evidence.

I appreciate if you would take some time to study evolution. These links might be helpful
http//www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http//evolution.berkeley.edu/
http//evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html

Thanks for the interest.

Fahad1

salam Andya .
thank u very much for the detailed reply . i will check out the links that u posted inshallah.

also do u believe that Adam was sent to earth from the Garden or Heaven ?

thank u very much.
salam.
fahad.

Andya_Primanda

salam Andya .
thank u very much for the detailed reply . i will check out the links that u posted inshallah.

also do u believe that Adam was sent to earth from the Garden or Heaven ?

thank u very much.
salam.
fahad.

Peace Fahad,

Personally I still don't know what is meant by the expulsion of Adam from the Garden (al-Jannah). I have been studying it for a few years and I still haven't found any conclusion. You should know that the word al-Jannah in the Qur'an is used both for worldly gardens (ie 2265, 699, 1832-40) and the place for afterlife divine retribution of good deeds ('Paradise'). Confusing these matters further is the term 'Heaven' which in English translations are derived both from al-Jannah (garden) and as-sama (sky).

But I am inclined to think that Adam's Garden is either a place on earth, or a metaphysical issue.

Daniyar

Peace Andya,

I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism'

Hold on! ) Please tell a bit more. What's this?

Andya_Primanda

Peace Andya,

I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism'

Hold on! Please tell a bit more. What's this?

'Bucaillism' is a term coined by people active in discussions of the relationship between science and Islam. The term comes from the name Maurice Bucaille, the French doctor who wrote 'Bible, Qur'an and Science' in the 70s. In that book he explores several scientific discoveries of that time and try to match Biblical and Qur'anic verses onto them. It was he who first stated some of the favourite slogans about the Qur'an predicting scientific discoveries such as in embryology, earth sciences, and cosmology. He managed to 'fit' many Qur'anic verses to scientific knowledge of that time. On the other hand he argues that both the Bible and hadiths contain scientifically erroneous statements.

This approach, while popular among Muslim laypeople, remains contentious to several scientists. Scientific knowledge is tentative, it can change in light of new evidence. If a Qur'anic verse is considered to represent a scientific principle, what will happen if in later times the principle was changed/replaced by another? People will have to work out new interpretations.

This page explores some things related to the scientific interpretation of the Qur'an
http//www.altway.freeuk.com/Answers/142-ReInterpr.htm

Maurice Bucaille
http//www.cis-ca.org/voices/b/bucaille-mn.htm

Hope that helps
Andya

unknownuser

Peace all

I hyave found many sites, especially christian, against the theory of evolution beyond simple mutations based on habitat. I.e a bird does not change into a fish or visa versa.

Here is just one link i found http//www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat5.htm

Im not sure where i stand on this, both sides argue valid point. I am however concerned aobut it when we claim something as true fact based solely on our own tools of measurement. I have seen a lot of stuff petrified in less than 500 years, this could point out to serious flaws in evolution THEORY, that scientists just have to accept is there. and then put on the working glowes and thinking hat again. There is no shame in that, its the purpose of what they are doing, not to create end all be all relegious ideas, rather to stimulate us and solve practical problems.. I have the same problem with math. Where it might be practical at certain things, it is not the be all end all explanation of everything. But im not a scientist, so i will stay open to both points of view. Neither are important to my purpose on earth.

Regards
Noah

Andya_Primanda

Peace all

I hyave found many sites, especially christian, against the theory of evolution beyond simple mutations based on habitat. I.e a bird does not change into a fish or visa versa.

Here is just one link i found http//www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat5.htm

Im not sure where i stand on this, both sides argue valid point. I am however concerned aobut it when we claim something as true fact based solely on our own tools of measurement. I have seen a lot of stuff petrified in less than 500 years, this could point out to serious flaws in evolution THEORY, that scientists just have to accept is there. and then put on the working glowes and thinking hat again. There is no shame in that, its the purpose of what they are doing, not to create end all be all relegious ideas, rather to stimulate us and solve practical problems.. I have the same problem with math. Where it might be practical at certain things, it is not the be all end all explanation of everything. But im not a scientist, so i will stay open to both points of view. Neither are important to my purpose on earth.

Regards
Noah

Peace Noah,

Regarding the site you mentioned, it questions the credibility of Carbon-14 dating methods, which is part of the creationists' (of the Young-Earth variety) insistence that the earth must not be older than 6000--10.000 years as they think the Bible says.

It is an established scientific fact (and not directly linked to evolution, because geologists come to that conclusion a few years before Darwin) that the Earth is older than 10.000 years. Only Christians have a problem with that, Muslims and others are not troubled by the long age of the earth.

Here's a site that addresses the question about the age of the earth
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

But anyway, you make a good point by pointing out that evolution/creationism, or the question of 'how we get here' is not that important for our ultimate purpose on earth.

unknownuser

Peace Andy.

Im sure you have a much deeper understanding of these things than i do. Im well aware that the questioning is mostly raised by christians that absolutely wants the earth to be 6000-10000 (it varies ?) years old. That said, no human are infallible nor any method or idea we can come up with. That goes for geologists and their methods aswell. But its all good fun, and if this is what it takes to make someone belive in God and do good. By all means go ahead.

Regards
Noah

unknownuser

Peace Andy.

Im sure you have a much deeper understanding of these things than i do. Im well aware that the questioning is mostly raised by christians that absolutely wants the earth to be 6000-10000 (it varies ?) years old. That said, no human are infallible nor any method or idea we can come up with. That goes for geologists and their methods aswell. But its all good fun, and if this is what it takes to make someone belive in God and do good. By all means go ahead.

Come Noah, you don't mean that do you? Are you saying that if creationist arguments make believe in God then this is a God thing? This will mean abdicating our reason.

If Hadiths and Sunnah make some believe in God is that a Good thing? We know many forum members here reject them as fabrications...

Regards,

unknownuser

Im sure you have a much deeper understanding of these things than i do. Im well aware that the questioning is mostly raised by christians that absolutely wants the earth to be 6000-10000 (it varies ?) years old. That said, no human are infallible nor any method or idea we can come up with. That goes for geologists and their methods aswell. But its all good fun, and if this is what it takes to make someone belive in God and do good. By all means go ahead.

Come Noah, you don't mean that do you? Are you saying that if creationist arguments make someone believe in God then this is a good thing? This will mean abdicating our reason and science!

If Hadiths and Sunnah make some believe in God is that a Good thing? We know many forum members here reject them as fabrications...

Regards,

unknownuser

Peace Andy.

Im sure you have a much deeper understanding of these things than i do. Im well aware that the questioning is mostly raised by christians that absolutely wants the earth to be 6000-10000 (it varies ?) years old. That said, no human are infallible nor any method or idea we can come up with. That goes for geologists and their methods aswell. But its all good fun, and if this is what it takes to make someone belive in God and do good. By all means go ahead.

Come Noah, you don't mean that do you? Are you saying that if creationist arguments make believe in God then this is a God thing? This will mean abdicating our reason.

If Hadiths and Sunnah make some believe in God is that a Good thing? We know many forum members here reject them as fabrications...

Regards,

peace lote tree

I need to work on my language skill it seems

No, if people need the scriptures to be backed by science in order for them to belive. that is all good. We all have our reasons to belive.
Personally i dont take anything science present for granted, as to be infallible correct. What is true today is not neceserily tommorow. What method we used today, may come out flawed tommorow. The same thing goes for my understanding of the Quran. Im the one reading, thus im the one interpretating my experience. Then i can share that experience with others and see if they had the same experience. Do we know what is real? not really.

There are certain factors though that are inavoidable as our tools (senses and ind) can confirm them directly. Like gravity. when you jump, you dont stay hanging in the air, why? some force is pulling you back down. Scientists have tried to explain excactly why, and perhaps they have. But all i know for certain is that some force is pulling me down, thats what i can confirm.

When it comes to dertermining the age of stuff. well. i wasnt there. perhaps they are right. perhaps the christians are right, really, what do i know?.

Im not disregarding science at all. I think its cool. I altso think the christians -although biased- view is cool. because. what do i know? i wasnt there when it happened. So nomatter the amount of methods i can come up with, all they can do is give me an idea of what i sense, in more detail.

I fail to see where hadith comes into this. Im pretty sure God is talking about his scriptures of before in atleast 2 places in The Quran that i know of. And as hadith came after the Quran was made, those cant be part of it. Some of the Biblical prhophecy stuff is really interresting. Does that mean that i take it as a guide to my reality? no. That science put forward stuff that interrests me, does that mean i take THAT as a guide to my reality. no. Its perspectives.

regards
Noah

unknownuser

Hello Noah,

You have outlined a very sensible approach and thats a very good approach to all forms of knowledge and understanding...and you right, science has no absolute truths. Science can only make tenable conclusion out of available data...

Regards,

Fahad1

I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism'

salam Andya .
what do u think about "Millerism" http//members.aol.com/silence004/godel.htm

salam.

Andya_Primanda

I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism'

salam Andya .
what do u think about "Millerism" http//members.aol.com/silence004/godel.htm

Qur'anic self-reference? Of course I agree with that.

unknownuser

I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism'

salam Andya .
what do u think about "Millerism" http//members.aol.com/silence004/godel.htm

Qur'anic self-reference? Of course I agree with that.