Theory of Evolution anyone ?

Armanaziz

Salam brother.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I am impressed with your vast knowledge in the subject. bravo

Allow me to humbly clarify what I tried to mean. Let me start with quoting the exact words that you said - The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous. What I saw in this particular statement is a rejection of the proposition that organic life can form out of inorganic matter (a rejection which you continue to defend in you last post). I simply wanted to highlight that Qur'an also suggests men were created from wet clay (inorganic matter). So if you are refuting the very idea that it is possible to have life from non living object then that may be against what Qur'an says. So while you reject evolution - which you have all the right to do - just clarify in your mind what is the alternate theory that you do believe and make sure you are evaluating both theories with equal rigor of intellect.

This brings me to your following remark

...if you are suggesting that God evolved things by directly making them evolve in stages that He decides are best then I cannot argue against this, God is all powerful and can do anything. If He decided this is the best path for His creation then there is no reason He could not do it in this way.

Let me make a few comments on this statement.

Yes, you specified quite clearly what I am suggesting.
Do you also believe in above or something different?

If you believe in something different -

I beg you to teach me what you believe - with equal level of intellectual rigor that you apply on the theory of evolution. I am eager to learn the alternate theory. If the alternate theory is God created a human shape from clay - literally with His own hands - and then literally breathed life to this doll and then transported two living dolls either in a spaceship or some sort of "inter-dimensional portal" to earth - and then these two humans managed to survive in this hostile world and managed to give rise to human race - Then my friend I am sorry, this theory does not pass the test of my intellect based on what I observe in this world. I believe in my God who gave me my intellect and conscience - I submit to God by upholding my intellect and conscience. Fortunately for me when I read Qur'an I find no compelling reason to accept any theory which my intellect does not support.

If, however, you believe in something similar to me, that is, God created us through the process of evolution -

Then my brother - what is the whole point of debate? I believe in gravity, don't you? I believe two objects of mass attract each other because God has created this rule and every object follows this rule. But for that reason I do not debate the theory of gravity and say I rather believe in "Guided Gravity" or "Intelligent Gravity". If I can believe in gravity as is - as scientists describe it and then also know inside my heart - this is because God wanted it this way... what is the problem with accepting evolution / natural selection as described by scientists and then knowing inside my heart - this is because God wanted it this way. Qur'an asks us to travel through earth and see how God began creation - not read the holy book and see how God started creation.

We need to remember - scientists deal with the observable world - they work with hard data and physical evidence. Allah is in the unobservable realm (al ghaib). We can feel Him, we can know Him - but can never make Him subject to the microscope of scientists. I know you are extremely critical about the idea of consensus for scientists - but as humans that's the best we have got at the moment. So why not accept the current scientific consensus of collective human intellect as the best possible interpretation of the material world (the What and How part of it) until a new consensus develops; and at the same time rely on our conscience and the guidance of the holy books to understand the unobservable aspects of it (the Why part of it). That is the approach we are taking about every other scientific theory, why does evolution needs to be different?

So, as far as I am concerned, did life just came from some "primordial soup"? Yes, most likely it did (until proven otherwise). And because this phenomenon is so unbelievably "cool" it increases my faith in my God who said it to be and it was.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

huruf

Indeed, great post, Bobafett.

There has been a phenomenon in science which has been very detrimental to it and it has been the creation the star scientist. It may have started with Darwin.

Ideologically, Darwin arranged very well the imperial designs and mindset. So he was made a star. To say "evolution" is to glorify Darwin, but he didn't invent evolution and what he did was to push an idea of evolution which matched ideollogically imperial designs. There are vested interests in maintaning "Darwinian" evolution. Many scientists worked hard on theories of evolution, but all of them were pushed out as if they came from lepers. On the other hand, "darwinian" evolution has been rearranged and rearranged, because the flaws kept cropping up, but the stardom of the man and his "natural selection" (before it was de survival of the fittest) had to be preserved at whatever cost. Yes, very fit Darwin and his managers survivin and surviving.

Very well said the part about the "consensus" science. The examples given are good but I remember the Ptolemy atronomy, with the earth as fixed center, how many centuries that consensus in science did last? It was science right? It must have been true...

The fact is that finding out how life started scientifically (as is the case of many other things) is very difficult, and that there is no reason why anybody should get desperate because we do not kinow, nor since we do not know are we under the obligation of clinging to whatever theory they give us to feel that we are above ignorance and know everything.

Of course we do not know everything, nor will ever, but we may keep learning humbly through time. What we do not need is to adopt anything as "scientific" when we have no certain and verifiable knowledge of it nor start crusades against the ignorant based on things we ourselves do not know.

As to the Qur'an we should BEWARE. We should not be in a hurry to make it match any current scientific fashion, and anything that is undemonstrated and unverified and still pushed down our throats as knowledge, is nothing but scientific fashion. The Qur'an is right, but if it speaks about things of which we yet have no knowledge we are not going to recognize them. To arrange the words of the Qur'an so that they fit the current scientific fashions is cheating ourselves and doing a flawed service to the Qur'an and to those who do not believe in it confirming that the Qur'an is bullshit. We should not tie the Qur'an to any "scientific" purported knowledge. When the Qur'an shows such knowledge and that knowledge really exists if it fits, it fits seamlessly, no need to arrange anything in the Qur'an at all. We may not be sure but the Qur'an is perfectly sure about what it says, it does not hesitate, show gaps or needs to tread carefully. It has knoweledge and it is thorough knowledge.

Just one thing, Bobafett, for the sake of thoroughness there is not talk of Adam and Eve in the Qur'an.

And thanks for the texts quoted.

Evolution is a fact indeed, but where and how it applies is something else. There have been many theories about it. For a long time, for instance, and after the "darwinian redemption" the formula "function creates the organ" has been despised and ridiculed. But at cell level even atomic level it seems that it was not completely wrong after all and that randomness is not the cause of everything, may be it not the cause of anything at all.

Those who believe in what the Qur'an says, could hardly believe in randomness as the universe ruler, at least that is my feeling and thinking.

Salaam

Jafar

Thanks for your detailed reply. I am impressed with your vast knowledge in the subject. bravo

Allow me to humbly clarify what I tried to mean. Let me start with quoting the exact words that you said - The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous.

Explain "primordial soup"..

What I saw in this particular statement is a rejection of the proposition that organic life can form out of inorganic matter (a rejection which you continue to defend in you last post). I simply wanted to highlight that Qur'an also suggests men were created from wet clay (inorganic matter). So if you are refuting the very idea that it is possible to have life from non living object then that may be against what Qur'an says. So while you reject evolution - which you have all the right to do - just clarify in your mind what is the alternate theory that you do believe and make sure you are evaluating both theories with equal rigor of intellect.

Explain then "how did wet clay become human"?

Every "carbon based living being" evolved from carbon.
Carbon evolved from another type of particle.

This paper discussed about the presence of Carbon in the universe.
http//www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5397/2204.full

Everything went through evolution..

Having said that, not all 'living being" is based on Carbon, there could be a 'non carbon base lifeform'.

Limiting the scope to only "human", although the exact definition of 'human' is also debatable.

Human is an earth bound animal, a mammalia and a primate.
The human evolved from another form of earlier humanoid. (Homo erectus and friends)
Which in turn evolved from another form of primate.
Which in turn evolved from another form of mammal.
Which in turn evolved from another form of animal.
Which in turn evolved from another form of one cell being.
Which in turn evolved from another form of carbon based being.
Which in turn evolved from another form of particle.
Which in turn evolved from another form of non-particle.

Thus it's also correct to state that human is the son of the star, or the son of nebula gas or the son of carbon etc..

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

Of course we do not know everything, nor will ever, but we may keep learning humbly through time.

Could not agree more! A theory is a theory we must understand it is not the absolute truth. It is subject to continuous scrutiny and change. But the part of the "humble" learning process is to accept the current consensus as the "best we have" and then to refine or challenge it with more research and investigation. To reach to step 2, we need to first step on step 1. I am sure even Copernicus / Galileo first started off with accepting the Ptolemy model - but later they moved away from it based on further research and investigation. Qur'an says the sun and the moon float, each in an orbit. before Copernicus / Galileo followers of Qur'an understood these orbits to be around earth, one science moved on - they found that Qur'an does not necessarily contradict the new scientific consensus - so they accepted it. That's how we remain open to science and sincere to our scripture.

What we do not need is to adopt anything as "scientific" when we have no certain and verifiable knowledge of it ...

Nor do we need to challenge the current scientific consensus just because our forefathers did so when we have no certain and verifiable knowledge of it either. If we are convinced that we can scientifically prove the current consensus wrong - we should reach out to scientists community / science journals etc. with our original research (like Copernicus / Galileo did). Until our objection stands the test of collective scrutiny of mankind our opinion remains just that - an opinion. Once it passes the hurdle - it becomes the new consensus.

...nor start crusades against the ignorant based on things we ourselves do not know.

Sure - but in reality who is in crusade against whom? I do not see any science lover ready to kill a person for his rejection of evolution theory - but I do see fanatics who would be ready to kill "apostates" for believing in evolution theory.

We should not tie the Qur'an to any "scientific" purported knowledge. When the Qur'an shows such knowledge and that knowledge really exists if it fits, it fits seamlessly, no need to arrange anything in the Qur'an at all. We may not be sure but the Qur'an is perfectly sure about what it says, it does not hesitate, show gaps or needs to tread carefully. It has knoweledge and it is thorough knowledge.

The question here is not about tieing Qur'an with anything. The question here is whether we can reject the current scientific consensus based on what Qur'an says. As per my humble reading of the Qur'an the theory of evolution fits quite seamlessly with it. The question of arrangement - rearrangement may not be relevant here because I do not see Qur'an to be arranged in a way to explain scientific theories one by one - so an expectation to find supports of evolution theory arranged in a nice paragraph may be an over-expectation. The key question here is - does Qur'an contradict the current scientific consensus? As far as I am concerned, it does NOT.

If anyone believes Qur'an does contradict evolution theory - I am eager to learn HOW.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

unknownuser

If anyone believes Qur'an does contradict evolution theory - I am eager to learn HOW.

The problem with your approach is that you are viewing evolution as a theory, when in truth it is nothing but an ideology that is full of holes, propagated purely for political reasons.

We have been placed between a hammer and an anvil Either we must take evolution as an undisputable fact, not open to any debate, OR we have to believe in the Biblical fairytale of God creating a clay figurine and then blowing into it, thus turning it into a living man called Adam.

No third option has been given to us.

And therefore, when we read the passages of our creation in the Quran, we end up reading it either through the spectacles of Darwin and Co., or through the spectacles of Ka'ab al-Ahbar, the great Rabbi of Sana'a, and his two studious pupils, Abu Hurayra and Ibn Abbas, the "best interpreters" of the Quran.

God forbid we let the Quran speak for itself! Isn't it?

I would like you to take a look at the following simple sentence from the Quran, if you truly believe it to be the word of Divinity, and tell me, without beating around the bush, without resorting to acrobatics or manipulation, what it means to you

{And Allah made you grow from the earth as plants}...

huruf

Salamun Alaikum.

Could not agree more! A theory is a theory we must understand it is not the absolute truth. It is subject to continuous scrutiny and change. But the part of the "humble" learning process is to accept the current consensus as the "best we have" and then to refine or challenge it with more research and investigation. To reach to step 2, we need to first step on step 1. I am sure even Copernicus / Galileo first started off with accepting the Ptolemy model - but later they moved away from it based on further research and investigation. Qur'an says the sun and the moon float, each in an orbit. before Copernicus / Galileo followers of Qur'an understood these orbits to be around earth, one science moved on - they found that Qur'an does not necessarily contradict the new scientific consensus - so they accepted it. That's how we remain open to science and sincere to our scripture.

Nor do we need to challenge the current scientific consensus just because our forefathers did so when we have no certain and verifiable knowledge of it either. If we are convinced that we can scientifically prove the current consensus wrong - we should reach out to scientists community / science journals etc. with our original research (like Copernicus / Galileo did). Until our objection stands the test of collective scrutiny of mankind our opinion remains just that - an opinion. Once it passes the hurdle - it becomes the new consensus.

Sure - but in reality who is in crusade against whom? I do not see any science lover ready to kill a person for his rejection of evolution theory - but I do see fanatics who would be ready to kill "apostates" for believing in evolution theory.
The question here is not about tieing Qur'an with anything. The question here is whether we can reject the current scientific consensus based on what Qur'an says. As per my humble reading of the Qur'an the theory of evolution fits quite seamlessly with it. The question of arrangement - rearrangement may not be relevant here because I do not see Qur'an to be arranged in a way to explain scientific theories one by one - so an expectation to find supports of evolution theory arranged in a nice paragraph may be an over-expectation. The key question here is - does Qur'an contradict the current scientific consensus? As far as I am concerned, it does NOT.

If anyone believes Qur'an does contradict evolution theory - I am eager to learn HOW.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

No, no question of accepting consensus in science. If it works it works, if it does not, no matter how much consensus there is, facts cannot be denied. The fact that persons feel compelled to shut up if they do not see eye to eye with consensus in scientific matters, does not change facts. Facts are facts, there is no consensus needed for them to exist. And nobody is under the duty of becoming blind betcause there happens to be a consensus that this or that should not be seen. If we establish such an aberration in science, we will be going in a path to hell.

You keep speaking about evolution. I think nobody here has denied that there is evolution, that evolution exists, the Qur'an says so.

BUT, big BUT, what kind of evolution? That is the question. "Darwinian evolution" is bullshit, it is imperial ideology hidden under a cloak of scientific pretences. Not even consensus exists on "Darwinian" evolution. That is, consensus may exist amongst "darwinian evolutionists".

Scientific stardom is the denial of science, but we live today in an age of scientific starlets and there are people who delight in just being able to voice the sweet name of god Darwin or Einstein and may be two or three more. Science has been reduced to that, to a couple of popular names attached to a couple of great sounding important words and then one can plapper around as much as one wants and sound up to date.

So, once again, no, the Qur'an does not support "darwinian evolution". Randomness as the sufficient cause of everything? On the other hand, how do you intend to make the Qur'an fit seamslessly with a series of theories that change according to from where the wind blows which is the set of theories comprised under "darwinian evolution"? How can you make it fit to something that changes continually to adapt to the errors that keep cropping up because simply the theory was neither prooved nor well grounded from the beginning nor it was intended to be? But it is embraced as if it was a religious cause.

You say that no damage has been done by darwinian evolution? Not under that name but it is one of the pillars that sustain the greater establishment if imperial wars and dominions and those have made plenty of victims. Not that emperial establishment it is a product of the "darwinian mind", the darwinian mind is the product of the imperial mentality and an instrument of it. One serves at his or her own peril. .

And I repeat, and Pazuzu has very pointedly underscored it in the previous message

we are nto stuck between having to swallow darwinian evolution line hook an sinker or to deny evolution. Nobody denies anything, but all people want truth, not fashion nor political correctness. And no, there is no consensus in science, if one thinks something is not true, it is not becoming true because you submit yourself to a consensus. As somebody has already said, that would be politics, not science. If that line between consensus and truth is blurred, then we are lost. And may be that is the reason why so many nations, muslim or not muslim are being kept down. The passion for science is a passion for knowledge and truth without compromise. It sets nobody in danger, tehrefore no need for consensus. If we bring science to the scope of politics, forget it, bye bye science. And we are mostly there now. There is no truth if it is an inconvenient truth, either for getting funds or for getting a cv or whatever.

I sincerelly hope that this is a crisis and that after that there may be a regeneration of spirits and minds and knowledge may again gain respect over lesser things, like popularity, brainwashing, etc. etc.

Salaam

huruf

The problem with your approach is that you are viewing evolution as a theory, when in truth it is nothing but an ideology that is full of holes, propagated purely for political reasons.

We have been placed between a hammer and an anvil Either we must take evolution as an undisputable fact, not open to any debate, OR we have to believe in the Biblical fairytale of God creating a clay figurine and then blowing into it, thus turning it into a living man called Adam.

No third option has been given to us.

And therefore, when we read the passages of our creation in the Quran, we end up reading it either through the spectacles of Darwin and Co., or through the spectacles of Ka'ab al-Ahbar, the great Rabbi of Sana'a, and his two studious pupils, Abu Hurayra and Ibn Abbas, the "best interpreters" of the Quran.

God forbid we let the Quran speak for itself! Isn't it?

I would like you to take a look at the following simple sentence from the Quran, if you truly believe it to be the word of Divinity, and tell me, without beating around the bush, without resorting to acrobatics or manipulation, what it means to you

{And Allah made you grow from the earth as plants}...

I am so glad to read you... It is so estimulating to see what new stone you are going to upturn and what we find underneath...

Great work on the Qur'an, worthwhile. So much of it has been kept from under the compulsion to make it fit preconceptions... One wonders whether there should not be a Qur'an Liberation Front ...

Thank you for your work and independence.

Salaam

Sabeel_Ameer

excellent post by Pazuzu.

from the verse, i think that the mankind populated like vegetation on the basis of earth/soil. we are from soil and return to soil.

BobaFett

Peace brother.

I would like to start by saying I think Huruf and pazuzu are spot on.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I am impressed with your vast knowledge in the subject. bravo

I wouldn't call it vast, most of it is in the links I provided mate. )

Allow me to humbly clarify what I tried to mean. Let me start with quoting the exact words that you said - The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous.

Again bro, I am talking about Darwinian Evolution, this is not the same as the theistic evolution you seem to believe.

What I saw in this particular statement is a rejection of the proposition that organic life can form out of inorganic matter (a rejection which you continue to defend in you last post). I simply wanted to highlight that Qur'an also suggests men were created from wet clay (inorganic matter). So if you are refuting the very idea that it is possible to have life from non living object then that may be against what Qur'an says. So while you reject evolution - which you have all the right to do - just clarify in your mind what is the alternate theory that you do believe and make sure you are evaluating both theories with equal rigor of intellect.

In the natural world it is impossible. Science is the study of the natural world, so scientifically it is impossible. God is not bound by science so for Him anything is possible.. I don't know how to make this any clearer. He can make life from clay, or anything else He chooses to.

It's the same with the big bang, it is scientifically impossible, that's why scientists say the laws of physics break down in the singularity which gave birth to the big bang(look up the plank epoch). What this means is that our known scientific laws do not apply to it, it makes no sense scientifically.. it is a supernatural event, of course no scientist will ever admit this.

Let me make a few comments on this statement.

Yes, you specified quite clearly what I am suggesting.
Do you also believe in above or something different?

I believe that based on our current scientific knowledge the best answer is "we don't know".

I beg you to teach me what you believe - with equal level of intellectual rigor that you apply on the theory of evolution. I am eager to learn the alternate theory.

I'm sorry bro but I do not have an alternate theory. If someone asks me what is 3145 x 7427 I would not be able to answer, but if the guy next to me said that the answer is 10 I would know he is wrong. It is much easier to tell what is false than to tell what is true.

If the alternate theory is God created a human shape from clay - literally with His own hands - and then literally breathed life to this doll and then transported two living dolls either in a spaceship or some sort of "inter-dimensional portal" to earth - and then these two humans managed to survive in this hostile world and managed to give rise to human race - Then my friend I am sorry, this theory does not pass the test of my intellect based on what I observe in this world.

Interesting, can you explain why you believe that an omnipotent God would be incapable of doing what you said above? What do you observe in this world that suggests God could not do this?

Secondly, the version you gave of creationism above is a very crude one.

I believe in my God who gave me my intellect and conscience - I submit to God by upholding my intellect and conscience. Fortunately for me when I read Qur'an I find no compelling reason to accept any theory which my intellect does not support.

3372 - Lo! We offered the trust unto the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it and were afraid of it. And man assumed it. Lo! he hath proved a tyrant and a fool.

Your intellect cannot accept that God created Adam from clay and placed him on Earth but it has no problem with the sky and earth and hills/mountains being able to think for themselves and decline the trust and know fear?

If, however, you believe in something similar to me, that is, God created us through the process of evolution -

Then my brother - what is the whole point of debate?

I really don't know what the point is, I have already stated several times that I believe it is possible. I have also stated several times that when I say it is not possible I am referring to Darwinian evolution... which again, is what this thread is about.

I believe in gravity, don't you? I believe two objects of mass attract each other because God has created this rule and every object follows this rule.

So where's the graviton? Do you realise that gravity is still one of the mysteries of science? It is the main reason we cannot fit quantum physics and general relativity together.

Also, even if I do believe in gravity what does that have to do with evolution?

what is the problem with accepting evolution / natural selection as described by scientists and then knowing inside my heart - this is because God wanted it this way.

The problem is that the science doesn't support your claims. If it does bring your evidence.

The problem is that the sole reason evolution theory gets so much attention is because it is a step towards not needing God to explain how life came to be. Think about it, what is the importance of evolution theory? What has it given us? Nothing, yet it is by far the most talked about scientific theory.

I suggest you read this article

http//www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html

Here is part of it to help illustrate what I mean, but you should read the whole thing.

In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin?s and Alfred Russel Wallace?s evolutionary theories.

The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.

Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss.

We need to remember - scientists deal with the observable world - they work with hard data and physical evidence. Allah is in the unobservable realm (al ghaib). We can feel Him, we can know Him - but can never make Him subject to the microscope of scientists. I know you are extremely critical about the idea of consensus for scientists - but as humans that's the best we have got at the moment

What are you saying?? That since this is the best we can do I should accept evolution as true? Where is the logic in this? I have shown you several cases of the consensus being wrong, why should I accept this one? There is nothing intellectual or scientific about your approach to this topic.

So why not accept the current scientific consensus of collective human intellect as the best possible interpretation of the material world (the What and How part of it) until a new consensus develops;

Have I not made it clear why I do not accept the "current scientific consensus of collective human intellect"? You are also implying that all scientists are in agreement about evolution which is not correct. All the information I have given you is also from scientists, one group just gets more funding and attention from mass media.. I wonder why?

That is the approach we are taking about every other scientific theory, why does evolution needs to be different?

If any other theory had the holes that evolution has in it, it would not be considered a theory.

So, as far as I am concerned, did life just came from some "primordial soup"? Yes, most likely it did (until proven otherwise). And because this phenomenon is so unbelievably "cool" it increases my faith in my God who said it to be and it was.

Okay, well then as far as I am concerned the center of the moon is made up of a giant marshmallow(until proven otherwise). And because this phenomenon is so unbelievably "cool" it increases my faith in my God who said it to be and it was.

BobaFett

You keep speaking about evolution. I think nobody here has denied that there is evolution, that evolution exists, the Qur'an says so.

I would also clarify that even when I say Darwinian evolution is not possible I am referring to macro evolution or speciation. I believe all creatures can adapt to their environment to a certain degree.

For example your nostril hair will grow longer and thicker if you move from an area of low pollution to high pollution.. therefor you have evolved right?

So what do we call it when you move back to the low pollution area and your nose hairs get shorter and thinner again? Have you evolved again? Have you devolved? Or is it simply we were created to survive in an ever changing environment and therefor have inbuilt mechanisms for adapting to it.

http//en.rocketnews24.com/2013/01/23/as-asias-pollution-problem-is-on-the-rise-air-pollution-map-based-on-the-length-of-your-nasal-hair/

JavaLatte

BUT, big BUT, what kind of evolution? That is the question. "Darwinian evolution" is bullshit, it is imperial ideology hidden under a cloak of scientific pretences.

Bold Indeed. http//3.bp.blogspot.com/--h4eLCX9klE/UZHjEBYfY2I/AAAAAAAADoo/W5bcUQjtXls/s1600/thumb-up-facebook-emoticon-like-symbol.png

I think I don't have to follow Darwin's theory of evolution.

Why not open ourselves for another theory of evolution?

By the way,

if anyone (of new members perhaps) is interested to read brother Pazuzu's understanding and his discussion about "The First Creation", then try to click the link below.

http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-PCIqjnVgNFQ/U2Lh-t3zeEI/AAAAAAAAGxY/KYfwOlH458w/s1600/white-star.png The First Creation http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-PCIqjnVgNFQ/U2Lh-t3zeEI/AAAAAAAAGxY/KYfwOlH458w/s1600/white-star.png

I think that's very interesting and worth to read.

Scientific stardom is the denial of science, but we live today in an age of scientific starlets and there are people who delight in just being able to voice the sweet name of god Darwin or Einstein and may be two or three more. Science has been reduced to that, to a couple of popular names attached to a couple of great sounding important words and then one can plapper around as much as one wants and sound up to date.

And it looks like people like Darwin and Einstein have become idols too... perhaps "the science" itself also become the object of worship.

So, once again, no, the Qur'an does not support "darwinian evolution". Randomness as the sufficient cause of everything?

Bold Good question.

Salm.

uq

Peace,

Further to my previous posts, I would like to reiterate that I find it extremely hard to believe that speciation of organisms here on earth takes place without Divine intervention.

As an example, the statistical probability of the mutation of the gene(s) responsible for the coloration of the coat of the polar bear's ancestor evolving into a fully white coat would be mind-bogglingly improbable if left purely to random mutation. Even with such a "simple" mutation, the amount of time required to allow for such a development would take longer than the time in which polar bears have existed.

As a simpler example, imagine flipping a coin. The statistical probability of guessing how a coin will land in 20 consecutive throws of a coin are very small. The first time you flip a coin, you have a 1 in 2 (50%) chance of knowing whether the coin will land on heads or tails. The second time you flip a coin, your chances decrease to 1 in 4 (25%). The third time, your chances are 1 in 8 (12.5%). The fourth, 1 in 16 (6.25%). And so on, until you reach your 20th flip of the coin, of which the chances are 1 in 1,048,576 (0.00009537%).

In this coin flipping example, we're talking about a coin where the outcome is only one of two (heads or tails). In genetics, the outcome is one of four (G, A, T or C). Therefore the chances of mutation yielding an evolutionarily advantageous protein are greatly decreased; especially if the gene that codes for a protein is longer than 20 base pairs.

The only negating factor to this belief is that there is an as-of-yet undiscovered in-built mechanism in the genetic code of all organisms that somehow predisposes them to yield evolutionarily advantageous mutations. And God is indeed capable of that. But this has not yet been discovered.

BobaFett

The only negating factor to this belief is that there is an as-of-yet undiscovered in-built mechanism in the genetic code of all organisms that somehow predisposes them to yield evolutionarily advantageous mutations. And God is indeed capable of that. But this has not yet been discovered.

Hi mate.

We know that this is not the case because beneficial mutations are extremely rare while harmful mutations are relatively common. Mutations being genetically passed on are even more rare.

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum brothers and sisters.

Thanks a lot for your valuable contributions. The discussion is going into many different directions and I do not find it worthwhile pursuing each loose end of the discussion. I am pursuing the lines of discussion which I feel can be useful to me to shape my understanding of how we came to the earth. Specifically I was hoping to see some good responses on the following two key questions

What is the alternative theory that can counter theory of evolution and be more consistent with Qur?an and simultaneously make sense.
How and where Qur?an is contradicting the evolution theory.

Alternative Theory

One major alternative theory seems to be ?We don?t know?. Well ? for me, yes we do not know anything for sure, but the point is not what we know or do not know ? it is rather what is the best we have. And whether the best we have makes sense in light of Qur?an or not.

The other alternate theory that I found is the one proposed by brother Pazuzu, which in a nutshell says ? human beings originated from a group of humanoids (proposed translation of Bashar). And these group of humanoids ? as a group - grew directly from earth like plants (proposed translation of nabaatan). This theory is primarily based on the following 2 verses (translations by Sahih International)

1526 And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud.

And

7117 And Allah has caused you to grow from the earth a growth.

I have to thank brother Pazuzu for at least coming up with some alternative theory. However, this alternative theory did not appeal to me much. For the following 2 reasons

Per my humble understanding the Arabic term ?Bashar? is the common term to refer to any living being. It can be an animal, a humanoid, even angel or jin or human being. We see Mary, mother of Jesus, claim that she has not been touched by any living being (bashar). We also see Allah say that it is not possible for a living being (bashar) that Allah would give him book, wisdom and knowledge and then he would ask people to be slave to him instead of Allah (379). To translate the term bashar to mean ?humanoid? is a bit too restrictive for me.
As for the term nabaatan in 7117 (translated as ?Progressive growth? by Shahih International and as ?plant-like growth? by brother Pazuzu), the same term has been used to refer exclusively to the growth of Mary, mother of Jesus in 337 ? and we also know from Qur?an that Mary did not grow from earth like a plant ? she was born of lady Imran. So, the more traditional translation of ?progressive growth? seems appropriate to me.

As far as I am concerned, a progressive growth (7117), starting from clay (1526) ? adequately fits in with the evolution theory - it does not necessitate a more dramatic theory of a group of humanoids growing out of earth like plants.

Good try though.

Does Qur?an Contradict Evolution

I was hoping to get more concrete responses in this line ? but my expectations were not met. Most of us seem to agree that some form of evolution is supported by Qur?an but could not clarify which part of it Qur?an does not support.

Some of you proposed me scientific reasoning on why evolution cannot be true. For those ? if you know you have solid scientific and logical proofs to debunk established ideas ? please do go to science journals etc. and establish your point. Once you have done that I will be eagerly waiting in line to congratulate you ? but as long as you have not done that your propositions remain only as an individual?s opinion. Unfortunately I am not an expert in evolutionary biology so I am not in any position to accept or reject your scientific arguments. You are smart enough ? you can reject collective consensus of scientists ? good for you; sad for me - I am not as smart as you ? so I tend to rely on the collective consensus of scientists unless it contradicts my faith. Believe me I am really that unsmart - if, based on some new found data, the scientists today reach a consensus that the inside of the moon is indeed a giant marshmalow - I am really naive enough to believe them because it does not contradict my faith. So, in this forum, I am sincerely not looking for scientific or mathematical arguments on why evolution cannot be true - save your research for your PhD thesis ? please bring me evidence from Qur?an.

The only comment on why evolution is not supportable by Qur?an that I found worth discussing is the one below

So, once again, no, the Qur'an does not support "darwinian evolution". Randomness as the sufficient cause of everything?

Yes ? ?Randomness? that is the key word ? that is the root of the debate. Now before we start debating on the term let?s explore what this term means, shall we?

What is the best example of a random event? Flip of a coin? Throwing a dice may be, right? Do I believe these events as random? Yes, I do. But at the same time I know that when I flip a coin ? whether it would be head or tail is decided by God. Similarly, when I throw a dice the result is determined by God. So while an atheist definition of the term ?Random? is ?lacking any definite plan or prearranged order? a believer?s definition of the term ?Random? should be ?lacking any definite plan or prearranged order other than will of God (implicit)?. That is the fundamental difference between atheist and believer thought process. So, when an evolutionary biologist says life came out of inorganic matters as a random event ?

An Atheist would understand life came out of inorganic matters without any definite plan or prearranged order. Whereas
A Believer would understand life came out of inorganic matters without any definite plan or prearranged order other than will of God (implicit).

We, the believers, generally agree to keep the "will of God" implicit in science/mathematics discussion - not because we admit defeat - but rather because we draw a line between materialistic knowledge and theological wisdom. We deliberately agree to keep these two fields separate ONLY so that our disagreement on one field does not hamper our ability to objectively discuss in the other field.

If we are in a mission to make this ?will of God? as a mandatory explicit addition to any intellectual discussion ? we should reject all books of mathematics to make them rewrite to change the word "random" with the phrase "random subject to will of God." We should protest ?Generate Random Number ? button in calculators ? we should insist on ?Generate Numbers based on will of God ? button.

But if we do accept the term Random as is in mathematics and science discussions ? and are happy to deal with it keeping the ?will of God? implicit - in every other field of study ? I really do not see the reason to make a big fuzz about it when it comes to evolution theory.

The other word worth noting in the statement ?Randomness is the sufficient cause of everything? is ?cause?. The term cause can have two meanings ? one is ?The reason How? the other is ?The reason Why?. If I get stomach pain ? the cause can be a) because of a signal generated in my brain in reaction to harmful activities of a bacteria inside my stomach. b) because I could not resist myself from eating too much junk food yesterday. A ? is the reason how, B is the reason why.

For me Randomness is the sufficient reason how life came to earth BUT NOT the sufficient reason why life came to earth. If any scientist or atheist tries to insist evolution theory explains the reason WHY ? then my friend I have to object and say "Sorry dear ? this is where you are crossing your boundary". Science does not answer why anything happens or why things are as they are, we all have our own individual perspectives on that. That?s where the reign of science ends and where the reign of philosophy / theology begins.

I believe what we need to protest is how the theory of evolution is sometimes misused to give an impression that it answers why life came to earth. IT DOES NOT. But as of now it seems to be the best available theory to explain how life came to earth (Note I am not counting "I don't know" as a theory) - and from that angle I still do not see Qur'an to contradict it.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,

Arman

huruf

You still do not care to distinguish between different concepts of evolution. That is, you keep moving the posts. No serious discussion ocan be maintained on that base.
You may feel obliged to ahere to a particular theory for anything, but that does not mean that everybody should feel the same obligation or need. I may say I favour such or such thought more than another for the moment being, but I cannot accept as a fact something which to me is not a proved fact nor uphold it before others.
A coin is something that exists and has two sides. It might also fall on its edge but it is very unlikely. It would have to be contrived.

A lot of things have been written debunking randomness in evolution, you can find them. But at the point where things have a clear direction and thrust, then you cannot take randomness seriously. And there is no randomness, where the results are not random.

I might already have mentionned, that the first to put forward a hypothesis of evolution in modern (western science) thought what in a nutshell has been called "the function creates the organ" which is a purposeful statement. They were not darwinians, and since the creation of the organs that way seemed to encounter a lot of difficulties at that time, given the level of knowledge in other aspects, and there came god Darwin with his theory of survival of the fittest, which philosofically was a pillaar of the imperial mind, all other paths of study of evolution were foreclosed. Of course the survival of the fittest met a lot of problems, unsolved, but somehow the holyness of the darwinian theory had to be upheld and Darwin become a god-star of science. To make more palatable, his survival of the fittest was turned into "natural selection" which again explains nothing.

In fact as far as I know, in spite of the awful close-grip of darwinianism on that part of science there are discordant voices, yes there are, and not necessarily creationnists, (although that is the appearance that is wanted to create), which show the unscientific procedure followed to make out of the modifyed darwinism a valid scientific theory.

In fact, as far as I have been able to gather, "the function creates the organ" has made a comeback, this time at the cell level and at the quantum level. Change is not random, it is purposefully selected by the evolutioning entity itself at the most fundamental level and randomness does not play any role at all.

Please, get me something from the Qur'an that supports the idea of randomness in the evolution or creation of anything. If there is God, then there is no randomness. No. The whole thing narrated in the Qur'an is purposeful. You say the how is randomness. You cannot get a purposeful result out of randomness, not when at each minute stage it entails a set of simultaneous events so numerous as to be baffling and all of them coordinated. Somebody said that getting evolution by randomness was like putting a typewriter by a monkey's side and expecting that he would write the whole Shakespeare works word by word.

Tell me where in the Qur'an God says He uses randomness. Randomness in human speech is another word for ignorance. But you pretend that when we say random we have a theory, but no, we have nothing, we just do not know. To say we do not know is honest, to say we do not know but we will make it as if we did know, is cheating oneself. And the question is to what purpose?

I cannot fathom why you need to adhere to a particular theory if you are ento sure of it. What is the idea? Do they hand out sweets on holidays or what? If we do not know, we do not know. No consensus can change that nor I see any need to assuage anything by proceeding in such a way, unless the sweet feeling of having god-stars like Darwin and company, the jujus of the seudo-scientific "knowledge" is some kind of prize.

I insist, only those who work in these matters at the "highest" level, that is, at the basic, intrincate, fundamental research level, have a clue of how difficult, complex and surprising these things are.

You want that we give you an alternative theory. If we could do that, we would not be here in the forum, we would be doing research and studying these things in an environment much more suitable and would not have any time for chattering. Something which today is not easy at all. Research requires money and money, we know, is not easy to come by. So scientists, unfortunately, are mercenaries who cannot research what they want nor reach the results that honestly they would find, but who must "produce" results translated into money for their employers.

Universities today work for business. They are not independent because to finance any project they need money. The states have given up much of their power and means for research which means that not even that source is available for disinterested research.

To be a real scientist today is no joke and we would be kidding ourselves if we continued to have on an altar the scientific establishment. And if that happens at the "professional" level, imagine what it is like at the "popular" level.

And still I am puzzled at your need to support any theory or "scientific belief" at all. Why. The world of "money science" will go ahead without my or your approval and they are not going to hand us any priviledged information, let alone knowledge, so what do you get out of believing this or that, of which you have no proof nor find convincing?

I did my bachellor in Geology a long, long time ago, and I am not a scientist neither professionally or vocationally, but I do care not to be fed garbage as a substitute for knowledge. I have too much respect for science, for real dedicated (or frustrated, given the present conditions) scientists who still have a glimpse of the thirst for knowledge, for discovering for pursuing to the end with a passion a difficult road of REAL, hidden, humble search for knowledge.

Of that, the fashion science will not give us anything and it seems that quite the opposite what it creates is the need for people to be "on the right side" of things, on the kosher science, the politically correct science, as if we could negotiate with truth. Truth is not neogtiable. That is the number one law of the scientist. It is logical that in a world whre everything translates into money, there should be an interest in maintaing, also in science, a schizofrenic world of opposites without any other alternative where people can feel they are with the "good ones". So darwinism (evolutionnism) versus creationism. That in itself is a lie. That is a contrived division that does not respond to reality, but we are herded into that or the opposite and anything that does not choose sides is ignored and doen away with. It creates no money nor power. That is the way good people get crucified. when they choose not be on the preset sides, they are eliminated as unassimilable discordants that create strife.

There is a difference between humility and pliability.

Salaam

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

You still do not care to distinguish between different concepts of evolution. That is, you keep moving the posts. No serious discussion ocan be maintained on that base.

I am not a specialist on Evolutionary Biology. My understanding of Evolution does not stretch much far beyond what we have in this page http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Variation . If you could teach me what are the different concepts of evolution and which concepts are supportable per Qur?an and which are not ? I am eager and open to learn.

You may feel obliged to ahere to a particular theory for anything, but that does not mean that everybody should feel the same obligation or need. I may say I favour such or such thought more than another for the moment being, but I cannot accept as a fact something which to me is not a proved fact nor uphold it before others.

May I humbly request you to point out where I have directly or indirectly asked everyone or anyone to feel any obligation OR that I have claimed evolution theory as a "FACT"? All I am trying to understand is ? from Qur?ans perspective what are the contradictions of evolution theory and if there is any alternate theory.

A coin is something that exists and has two sides. It might also fall on its edge but it is very unlikely. It would have to be contrived.

A lot of things have been written debunking randomness in evolution, you can find them. But at the point where things have a clear direction and thrust, then you cannot take randomness seriously. And there is no randomness, where the results are not random.

I explained in my earlier post that for me ?Randomness? and ?without any conscious interference other than will of God? are synonymous. I also explained why I am agreeable to keep the ?by Will of God? part implicit in my discussion of science/mathematics. You have every right to not agree to keep this implicit ? but perhaps for the sake of consistency you should emphasize to make it explicit everywhere.

I might already have mentionned, that the first to put forward a hypothesis of evolution in modern (western science) thought what in a nutshell has been called "the function creates the organ" which is a purposeful statement.

I am looking forward to the advent of this theory.

Please, get me something from the Qur'an that supports the idea of randomness in the evolution or creation of anything. If there is God, then there is no randomness.

Please refer to the discussion on the interpretation of ?randomness? above.

I cannot fathom why you need to adhere to a particular theory if you are ento sure of it. What is the idea?

Good question ? here is why
When my children would ask me about evolutionary biology ? I would not tell them to write in their exam sheet that it is a false theory. Nor can I tell them ? you write this for the sake of your exam ? but know that it is not true. To me that would be hypocrisy.

What I can do is to explain to my kids that evolutionary theory is the ?currently held consenses interpretation among scientsis? of how it all happened ? but science is not able to answer why it happened. You and me know that all this happened because of ?Will of God?. As far as Qur'an is concerned - the events as described by this theory are "possible" but of course we must understand if it all happened this way -that is because Allah asked it to be this way and it was.

For me that is the most honest answer that I can give to my Kid.

You want that we give you an alternative theory. If we could do that, we would not be here in the forum, we would be doing research and studying these things in an environment much more suitable and would not have any time for chattering.

That is the point I am trying to highlight as well. When there will be an acceptable alternative theory ? I will be happily accepting that. But until that alternative theory is available I see a need to attack the current theory ONLY if it contradicts our faith (i.e. the Qur?an). That is why it is so important to understand how Qur?an contradicts the theory.

There is a difference between humility and pliability.

I take this as a provocation to engage in personal attack. I would respond to this with a sweet smile
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

unknownuser

Per my humble understanding the Arabic term ?Bashar? is the common term to refer to any living being. It can be an animal, a humanoid, even angel or jin or human being.

I agree, except with the red part.

We are all "bashar", from a purely physiological sense. And the Cro-Magnon man (our ancestors who came before) were also bashar. Like us, they had hair, bones, muscles, blood vessels, a nervous system, etc...

But what makes the Human race different is the concept of Ruuh (the Spirit), which most Muslims can?t seem to wrap their minds about. There is a divine intervention ? a reprogramming of a sort ? that evolved these primitive ancestors (animal-like bashar) into human bashar.

When you go to study medicine, the faculty is called (in Arabic) (bashary medicine), because it deals with the anatomy and physiology side of the human. This is not so much different from the veterinary profession.

But when you go to study humanities, you are then involved with things like psychology, sociology, history, even art and theater. These are the things that came as a result of the Spirit (Ruuh).

When Muhammad declared that he was no more than a bashar, it was a response to those who asked him to bring down the wrath of God, or to fly up into the heavens and bring down a book with him. These feats are possible only through mala?ika. And when the Quran speaks of Isa and his mother as bashar, it immediately refers to them as having to eat food to sustain themselves, and that they had mortal bodies. They were not mala?ika.
So, if you mean by ?angels? the mala?ika, then I disagree with you, because the mala?ika are not bashar.

{And your Rabb said to the Mala?ika ?I am creating a being (bashar) from clay * So when I have (bettered/ perfected him), and blown of My Spirit (ruuh) in him, then you shall yield to him}....

The above sign is very simple, once you read it with an unbiased mind.

There existed, before us, manlike bipedal beings who were mostly instinctive animals. Their fossils have been unearthed, and proof of their existence cannot be denied. These, the Quran referred to as bashar; meaning , from the pure physiological perspective, beings that were made from earthly materials. I don?t really care what you call them (Cro-Magnon, cave man, Neanderthal, humanoid, etc...) Makes no difference. What matters is that they existed.

Now the above sign speaks of three epochs

Plain bashar created directly from the muck of the earth. This happened some 2-3 million years ago, under certain conditions of heat and pressure. The Quran calls this stage "al-nash'at-ul-ula" (the first creation).
Gradual evolution of the bashar's shape, physical attributes and vocal abilities ({when I have bettered/ perfected him}), until he became Homo-Sapien, creatures very similar to us in shape and size, very intelligent, but still mostly savage hunter-gatherers. This happened some 200,000 years ago.
Breathing of the Ruuh into the Homo-Sapien This last stage is the one that has been driving your ?scientists? insane. They were able to estimate it to some 40,000 ? 50,000 years ago, but they cannot pin it down, nor can they understand how it happened. And they most probably never will. This is the era when the insan (human) became capable of receiving divine revelations, and began to understand his nature as the consciousness of the universe. And the Quran says it coincided with the time when the an3am (livestock) appeared, and the learning of agriculture

The Quran tells us that we shall know very little of this divine phenomenon (3rd stage). It was a direct intervention by God, which caused a leap forward from the final phases of pure bashar, into something else. This is what the Quran means when it says that God told the mala?ika that He shall create a ?khalifa? on the Earth. This means successor. But successor to whom?

The way I see it, the insan/human (bashar + ruuh) was made a successor to the plain bashar (who had no ruuh). And this sudden leap is the greatest mystery of all.

When the Quran wants to appeal to our intellect by asking us to contemplate the signs of the Creator around us, it never says ?Oh you bashar...look and see? (for example). It says ?Oh you insan...look and see?. Do you see the subtle difference?

The equation is simple bashar + ruuh = insan.

Peace.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

I understand the issue and that it may be difficult for a servant of God to live in a secular society that has no faith in God but believes that life stems solely from 'natural selection' and then teach them something opposite privately and to know that school is just talking about theories and they should know the distinction between not having faith and have faith.

Worth teaching them is the logical fallacy of natural selection because even if they develop entirely independantly how could that tiny little cell know into what to develop from the beginning.

But what science observes, empirical research, cannot be denied, but the theory is on how it happened and why. I still am unable to buy the concept of natural selection because the probability that the universe could come into existence with sustainability to provide life without any particular intervention is so minimal that it is nearly non-existent. We cannot deny evolution because we can study it and the reason it is there is because if it was not and we just happened to exist at a point in history then the test would have been too obvious and God does want to expose certain people in a test environment. The question instead of denying evolution is to see who put the evolution in motion and made everything come into existence or triggered the evolution cycle. This is the only heavy pressure point against atheists and if they give some lame excuse then just pardon them and let them drift in their own illusion for there is nothing you can do unless God shows them a sign and they somehow come to their senses.

Apart from the heavy pressure point you can always ask them why the fruits and vegetables seem so convenient to us and why things are created beautifully or imaginative because the animals and vegetation certainly has no need to look pretty or with special features.

How could nature know what would make an animal levitate above the ground. Did it test and find it out itself. Is it intelligent while not being self-aware that virtually brainless entity (if you look on insects for example)?

No matter how much you put faith in natural selection you run into a logical fallacy somewhere. How can the individual cells know in what direction of creation to take? To adapt in evolution the cells need to know what measure of preventive actions to preserve the offspring and it takes intelligence. There needs to be a guiding force from somewhere or a foundation of a system.

Have faith

unknownuser

It just occured to me to include the following passage, for brother Armanaziz, to prove that Mala'ika are not bashar

{But the leaders who rejected from among his people said "What is this but a bashar like you? He wants to make himself better than you! And if it was indeed the will of Allah, He would have sent down mala'ika. We did not hear such a thing among our fathers of old}...

You see, here the rejetors among the elite of Noah's people were expressing their surprise that divine revelation was sent down to a bashar. They had never heard of such a concept before.

Regards.

BobaFett

1. What is the alternative theory that can counter theory of evolution and be more consistent with Qur?an and simultaneously make sense.

Why must there be a counter theory for evolution to be wrong?

2. How and where Qur?an is contradicting the evolution theory.

It depends which version of evolution you are talking about.

One major alternative theory seems to be ?We don?t know?.

"We don't know" is not a theory.

Does Qur?an Contradict Evolution

Again, it depends on which version of evolution you are talking about. Since God can do anything we could fit evolution theory into the Koran as long as the Koran doesn't specifically say "evolution is bs". You are trying to scientifically justify evolution while admitting that there is a being involved that is not bound by the laws of science and on top of that you claim you are too "unsmart" to understand the science anyway.

Some of you proposed me scientific reasoning on why evolution cannot be true. For those ? if you know you have solid scientific and logical proofs to debunk established ideas ? please do go to science journals etc. and establish your point. Once you have done that I will be eagerly waiting in line to congratulate you ? but as long as you have not done that your propositions remain only as an individual?s opinion.

As much as we are all desperate to impress you, what will your congratulations mean if by your own admission, you do not have the intellect to understand what is being discussed?

Unfortunately I am not an expert in evolutionary biology so I am not in any position to accept or reject your scientific arguments. You are smart enough ? you can reject collective consensus of scientists ? good for you; sad for me - I am not as smart as you ? so I tend to rely on the collective consensus of scientists unless it contradicts my faith.

I agree, this is very sad.

Believe me I am really that unsmart - if, based on some new found data, the scientists today reach a consensus that the inside of the moon is indeed a giant marshmalow - I am really naive enough to believe them because it does not contradict my faith.

No need to tell me twice, I am convinced.

So, in this forum, I am sincerely not looking for scientific or mathematical arguments on why evolution cannot be true - save your research for your PhD thesis ? please bring me evidence from Qur?an.

Given your attitude, I sincerely do not care what you are looking for, I will do what I like with my research and find your assumption that this thread is about you to anyone except you quite amusing. If I find something you say illogical I will point it out, feel free not to read or respond to my posts.

This is the topic
"I would like to know my the point of view of the members of this site on the subject of Evolution.

By Evolution I mean , Darwinian evolution, evolution by natural selection."

And that is what I have been discussing.

What is the best example of a random event? Flip of a coin? Throwing a dice may be, right? Do I believe these events as random? Yes, I do.

While these things seem random to us they are not truly random, our brains just cannot calculate all the variables, there is nothing truly random in our universe, at least not that we know. The closest thing is nuclear decay, but even that is not truly random since the rate of decay is always the same. I apologise for adding more science to the discussion.. but I think you will be glad to know that there is scientific consensus on this(except most scientists regard nuclear decay as actually random since they cannot predict which particular atom will decay at any given moment).

But at the same time I know that when I flip a coin ? whether it would be head or tail is decided by God.

If you mean that it is decided by the laws of physics that God created then sure, if you mean that you think God personally guides the coin or die every time someone flips/rolls it then lol.

That is the fundamental difference between atheist and believer thought process. So, when an evolutionary biologist says life came out of inorganic matters as a random event ?

An Atheist would understand life came out of inorganic matters without any definite plan or prearranged order. Whereas
A Believer would understand life came out of inorganic matters without any definite plan or prearranged order other than will of God (implicit).

Is there a collective consensus of linguists who agree with this statement or is it your individual opinion on randomness? Can you support it using the Koran.. or a dictionary?

Also, soon as you put "the will of God" into the equation randomness is gone. Are you even reading what you write? What plan could be more definite than the will of God?

good luck to your kids with their test.