Theory of Evolution anyone ?

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.

huruf

Salamun Alaikum.

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

What?

I am speaking in general and I think I have made it s clear that this manipulation of the concept of science is being pressed against all people, I have not taken anyone as being exceptional.

Other than that you continue equating evolution with darwinism.

I do not want to convince you of anything, information and writings about theories are available from the net and libraries. I am not a science writer. Better get solid the stuff from soemone other. What I say is that there are varied ideas or theories if you like on evolution and that one does not have to be stuck with one.

Salaam

huruf

Regarding the children, well what is the problem with telling them that you do not know and that they shouldn't think automatically that anything printed or taught is true? You are not the only one who has children and all of us or many have that situation, not that problem, it is not a problem you say what you to your best ability think is true and encourage them to think for themselves. Or tell them, and that comes up frequently with history, that when they answer, they should say

"According to the textbook and what they teacher says..."

That is what I do when I do not want a child to get into trouble.

Salaam

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

First of all to Pazuzu ? yes, I now get that angels (malaika) are not supposed to be ?bashaar? ? thanks for correcting me on this. At least from you I am learning something!

I would like to revert on two statements by BobaFett ? which possibly illustrates the difference between our theological understanding - which is hindering us to come to the common ground

? if you mean that you think God personally guides the coin or die every time someone flips/rolls it then lol.

LoL as much as you may ? this is what I believe ? God personally sustains the entire concept we call ?existence? and everything that happens out there - starting from each movement of atom to each supernova happens per God?s will. Flip of coin is not an exception.

If your idea of God is someone who selectively chooses to intervene in some ?important? events of our life and reluctant to the mundane ones ? then our conception of God is strikingly different.

Also, soon as you put "the will of God" into the equation randomness is gone.

Yes as soon as we put "the will of God" into the equation; not before that. For study of science and mathematics we usually take a deliberate choice not to put "the will of God" into the equation and adopt a materialistic perspective.

If God wills that a basic life form would just spring out of inorganic matter ? all God needs to do is to will it and it will be (kun fa-yakun). From a strict materialistic perspective ? this would look like some random molecules in the inorganic matter coming together to form an organism. It would seem like an extremely unlikely event ? but still a random event ? by no way a materialistic perspective would detect God?s intervention ? because God operates from an unobservable realm (al-Ghaib). If the observer is a person who can understand ? he will see the SIGN of God in this extremely rare ?apparently random? event ? but that is a theological perspective. If a person is someone who has ?disease in their heart? (fi-qulubihim maradun) he would refuse to see the sign, will interpret the random event as a sheer chance without any purpose or direction what-so-ever.

In my earlier post I have tried to explain why this ?materialistic perspective? is critical ? but perhaps my effort was inadequate ? so let me try one more time. When we discuss science and mathematics ? we generally adopt a strict materialistic perspective so that in spite of differences in theological understanding we human beings can productively discuss on the observed phenomena of this world. This is by no way a defeat of theology ? but rather a purposeful separation between theology and science to facilitate a greater good ? the progress of human knowledge.

If understanding the varying perspective of ?randomness? is too abstract for you ? let me give you other examples ? per science day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth about its axis. But Qur?an says Allah turns the night into day and the day into night. While we believers wholeheartedly believe the later to be true ? we do not debate the claim of science because we agree that earth?s motion causes day and night - from a strict materialistic perspective. But we do know that's HOW it happens, not WHY it happens - we know it happens because of God?s will, but we keep this perspective implicit.

Same goes with the study of climate. What causes rain, thunderstorm, flood ? when we study science we explore these questions from strict materialistic perspective (keeping the "will of God" purposefully out of the equation / implicit). Then once the materialistic interpretation is understood ? some of us are fortunate enough to see the sign of God in it ? while some others are not.

When Huruf says, "According to the textbook and what they teacher says...", I believe it is referring to this very materialistic perspective

According to the textbook and what they teacher says, the movement of earth causes day and night ? this is possibly mechanically correct, but we have enough wisdom to understand that it happens per will of God. (the statement in italic implicit)

According to the textbook and what they teacher says, it rains when cloud droplets grow and combine to become so large that their fall speed exceeds the updraft speed in the cloud, and they then fall out of the cloud ? this is possibly mechanically correct, but we have enough wisdom to understand that it happens per will of God. (the statement in italic implicit)

My question is if we are OK to adopt this materialistic perspective on every other field of science then why we cannot adopt the same for creation teory? Why cannot we just say

According to the textbook and what they teacher says, life span out of inorganic matter and gradually evolved through natural selection to give rise to higher level organisms including humans ? this is possibly mechanically correct, but we have enough wisdom to understand that it happens per will of God. (the statement in italic implicit)

? especially since Qur?an does not contradict this kind of understanding.

If you are convinced that the theory of evolution is not even mechanically correct ? then I would say one day or other the more accurate mechanically correct version of ?origin of species? theory would triumph over the current weaker version ? BUT ? and a very big BUT it is ? for all possible likelihood even in the more accurate mechanically correct version of ?origin of species? theory (be it ?the function creates the organ? theory or whatever) ?God?s will? is still going to remain as implicit.

In fact if a theory has God physically /mechanically involved in arranging DNA strands to create a life form ? I would absolutely protest that because that would portray God as a ?heavenly being? limited in time and space. God is not a being limited in time and space ? He is the originator of the heavens and the earth, time and space ? when He decrees a command He only asks it to be and it is. From a materialistic perspective sometime it looks like a random event ? sometimes it looks like application of Newton?s law of physics ? sometimes it looks like application of theory of relativity. From my theological perspective, events in this universe are neither random, nor law driven ? everything is a manifestation of God?s will.

To all those who reject the Evolution Theory - if you are rejecting based on some materialistic argument - I totally get that. But I not being the right person to judge that argument- can only hope someday good materialistic logic would replace weaker ones and we will have a more refined theory. Until that happens, we are stuck with the current version of evolution theory as the "best available theory" which scientists accept and not necessarily contradict the Qur'an. BUT if your primary contention to the evolution theory is that it claims life came out of a random event - it does not recognize "will of God" in the equation - then my question to you is - do we not purposefully keep "will of God" out of the equation for every other field of science? Why target creation theory alone?

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

BobaFett

I am glad to see you have chosen to take a more amicable tone. )

LoL as much as you may ? this is what I believe ? God personally sustains the entire concept we call ?existence? and everything that happens on earth. Starting from each movement of atom to each supernova happens per God?s will. Flip of coin is not an exception.

If your idea of God is someone who selectively chooses to intervene in some ?important? events of our life and reluctant to the mundane ones ? then our conception of God is strikingly different.

I agree He is the Sustainer. My idea of God in this context is "someone" who created the laws of the universe, so each atom in the universe obeys His law. I don't think He is telling each atom what to do at every moment. At the same time I have no doubt that He could do as you believe.

754 - Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority) He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!

God governs the law(s) and His creation obeys them.

The other problem is that if we were able to calculate the variables(weight and density of the die, density of the surface it is being rolled on, friction, wind, gravitational pull etc.) we could accurately predict how the die will land. This would mean that we know the mind of God, which is obviously unfathomable to us. But in reality we just have an understanding of His laws, not His self.

Yes as soon as we put "the will of God" into the equation; not before that. For study of science and mathematics we usually take a deliberate choice not to put "the will of God" into the equation and adopt a materialistic perspective.

Not really.

Firstly the will of God is always in the equation.

Secondly the laws of Mathematics and Physics are Gods law. God decided that 1+1 should equal 2 and it does, that doesn't mean He is causing 1+1 to equal 2 every time someone punches it into a calculator, the law is set, there is nothing anyone can do to break it.

If understanding the varying perspective of ?randomness? is too abstract for you ? let me give you other examples ? per science day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth about its axis. But Qur?an says Allah turns the night into day and the day into night. While we believers wholeheartedly believe the later to be true ? we do not debate the claim of science because we agree that earth?s motion causes day and night - from a strict materialistic perspective. But we do know that's HOW it happens, not WHY it happens - we know it happens because of God?s will, but we keep this perspective implicit.

Mate, something is either random or it isn't. If from your perspective something seems random then there is something wrong with your perspective.

Another way of saying "per science day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth about its axis." is "Day and night are determined by the laws of physics that govern the rotation of Earth".

Another way of saying "Allah turns the night into day and the day into night." is "Day and night are determined by the laws of physics that govern the rotation of Earth".

Can you explain how removing God from anything can make that thing better?

Also, we do know why something is happening, because that thing is subservient to Gods Law. We also know why God made the Law the way it is, because that is the best choice to make. I guess we just don't know why it is the best choice.

According to the textbook and what they teacher says, it rains when cloud droplets grow and combine to become so large that their fall speed exceeds the updraft speed in the cloud, and they then fall out of the cloud ? this is possibly mechanically correct, but we have enough wisdom to understand that it happens per will of God. (implicit)

If God doesn't exist science tells us how things work. If God does exist science tells us how God makes things work, there is no need to to separate God from the equation if you believe He exists.

So for this example you could say "According to scientists this is how God makes it rain" and then proceed to explain the stuff about the droplets etc.

for all possible likelihood even in the more accurate mechanically correct version of ?origin of species? theory (be it ?the function creates the organ? theory or whatever) ?God?s will? is still going to remain as implicit.

Agreed.

In fact if a theory has God physically /mechanically involved in arranging DNA strands to create a life from ? I would absolutely protest that because that would portray God as a ?heavenly being? limited in time and space.

How so? this seems to contradict your earlier statement "God personally sustains the entire concept we call ?existence? and everything that happens on earth. Starting from each movement of atom to each supernova happens per God?s will."

God is not a being limited in time and space ? He is the originator of the heavens and the earth, time and space ? when He decrees a command He only asks it to be and it is. From a materialistic perspective sometime it looks like a random event ? sometimes it looks like application of Newton?s law of physics ? sometimes it looks like application of theory of relativity. From my theological perspective, nothing is random ? nothing is law driven ? everything is a manifestation of God?s will.

It seems to me God has clearly chosen to manifest His will in the form of laws. It is easy to say "nothing is law driven", it is not so easy to actually live your life as if you truly believe it is so. Otherwise you should be incredibly surprised every time you drop something and it goes down instead of up.

Of course, God knows best.

Peace.

Armanaziz

Salam brother.

If God doesn't exist science tells us how things work. If God does exist science tells us how God makes things work, there is no need to to separate God from the equation if you believe He exists.

What I mean by keeping "will of God" out of the equation - is refraining from explicitly mentioning "will of God" in science discourse - I am not meaning forgetting God. God IS always part of the "real" equation - but for the purpose of science we choose to keep this implicit. Since you are refuting a point which I am not making I have to understand I have still not been able to communicate my argument about "materialistic perspective" clearly enough - but unfortunately, I have reached the limit of my expression ability and time so I would just leave it there. Just be honest and ask yourself In study of climatology or astronomy - do we deliberately keep the words "by will of God / by law of God" implicit or not? If you find an honest answer to that you should understand what I am saying.

In fact if a theory has God physically /mechanically involved in arranging DNA strands to create a life from ? I would absolutely protest that because that would portray God as a ?heavenly being? limited in time and space.

How so? this seems to contradict your earlier statement "God personally sustains the entire concept we call ?existence? and everything that happens on earth. Starting from each movement of atom to each supernova happens per God?s will."

The key words are the ones highlighted in red - "physically /mechanically involved". I believe God sustains us somewhat like we sustain our imagination - He is way above physically /mechanically getting involved in this creation. This is the same reason why the whole concept of "Son of God" is absurd. Whatever God wills He just wants it to be and it is - this is true for the creation of Jesus, just as much it is true for creation of Adam - Allah is far above of getting physically /mechanically involved to get anything done.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Best regards,

Arman

huruf

I know that Armanaziz has said that when he says evolution he refers to darwinian evolution, but since he seems to be setting against the introduction of the intervention" of God, for the sake of clarity I insist that reducing evolution to "darwinian" evolution is a falsification of facts. There is no such a choice as between darwinian avolution and no evolution. This is open field, there are many possible types of evolution. The question is completely open.

Salaam

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

I know that Armanaziz has said that when he says evolution he refers to darwinian evolution, but since he seems to be setting against the introduction of the intervention" of God, for the sake of clarity I insist that reducing evolution to "darwinian" evolution is a falsification of facts. There is no such a choice as between darwinian avolution and no evolution. This is open field, there are many possible types of evolution. The question is completely open.

Salaam

This is the area where I am open to learn as well. I am really not knowledgeable about "many possible types of evolution". So if there is any material on this - and any perspective on why a particular type of evolution theory is better fitting with Qur'an I am eager to learn that.

However if the only value addition of the modified theory is that it puts the words "by will of God" in the conventional evolution theory - then don't bother. I agree to such addition, but I already explained why keeping that part implicit is acceptable for me.

May Allah guide us all to the straigh route.

Regards,
Arman

huruf

I think I made it clear that I refer strictly to the scientific world in the language of the scientific world and for me the there is no such thing as a division of science between God and no God, but between good science and sloppy science.

Darwinian evolution, from hte begining has been a loppy science because the result to be reached always came first, not what honestly could be ascertained. That of course giving due place to the fact that in researche there is always a certain degree of conjecture, sufficient to push forward the research, but not to condition it to the preconceived resuelt one wants.

We have seen that kindof conjecture in the forums many times we ask ?What if? sometimes it comes to something useful or revealing, many times it does not, but it is bad when from the start we assert it must be so no matter what is uncovered. I have learnt a lot that way, and I think many of us have. Of course, since this is a field not subject to experimentation and only to observation, we may not agree on many things, but that is logical since in human sciences the variation is infinite and many things may be true to a certain extent but not absolutely and we are never absolutely objective, although we can become more and more objective. that is purify ourselves as to our motives and honesty.

Salaam

virtueorvice

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.

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}...

Salam,

Dr. Shabbir Ahmed has translated the verse you quoted as 7117 And God has caused you to grow as a growth from the earth.

Muhammad Asad has also given a similar rendition.

Not everything that the theory of evolution says is correct neither it is addressing all the problems; nevertheless, everything has happened/is happening in measured stages and working according to divine laws.

Whatever has happened to "bashar" that turned him into "Insan" must be discovered and addressed through natural phenomena.

There are some theories and explanations that address the problem of "bashar" vs. "insan" in a good and rational manner. But I agree with you that the mainstream "theory of evolution" has become (by many atheists) an ideological tool and propaganda machine .

Wakas

peace uq, all,

With regard to mathematical possibility of evolution, I read a journal article which discussed this and suggested it was perfectly feasible. However, a response to that journal article, which also appeared in the journal, discredited much of it.

I have noted that evolutionists tend not to mention the mathematical practicalities/assumptions of their theory, which I have always found disappointing. I'm no expert in biology nor mathematics so I'm not sure what's possible.

Taro_Hiroshi

Peace Wakas, all,

Thanks for sharing the findings about the mathematical possibility of evolution. The journal which discussed this and the response to this journal seems interesting. Can you share a link to these articles with with us?

When it comes to my thoughts about the theory of evolution, as far as I am concerned there are many good arguments both for and against this theory. Both those who support the theory of evolution and those who support the theory of intelligent design have good arguments, in my opinion. For example the author Richard Dawkins has some good arguments for evolution, in my opinion. And the author Richard Milton has some good arguments against evolution, in my opinion. Their books/videoes might be worth taking a look at.

There are also people who believe in both evolution and creation. For example the muslim author T.O. Shanavas seems to believe in both evolution and creation. His book "Islamic theory of evolution" might be worth taking a look at.

Many christian creationists claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. But in reality there is no evidence that supports this claim. Since this claim has no basis in reality, I think this claim is worthless.

Many people claim that it is import to read arguments both for and against evolution before making our mind up on the theory of evolution. I think it is important to question both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. It is not an intelligent decision to blindly accept evolution or blindly accept intelligent design.

A 300 million year old tooth has been found in Russian coal (see the link below). And Nasa images have found a 1.7 million year old man-made bridge (see the link below). If these findings are fantasy-based, then these findings are not a threat to the theory of evolution. But if these findings are factual/reality-based, then these findings suggests that our ape-like ancestors must have been very intelligent and must have been in possession of advanced technology.

http//www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/300-million-year-old-tooth-gear_n_2527424.html

http//www.industrytap.com/nasa-images-find-1-7-million-year-old-man-made-bridge/17310

Some people claim that either evolutionists are right and intelligent design supporters are wrong, or intelligent supporters are right and evolutionists are wrong. But this might be a false dichotomy. Because there is a possibility that there are more than two options (evolution or creation). There might be a third option as well.

It seems that most people are either for evolution and against intelligent design, or for intelligent design and against evolution. In the past I used to have a "for-or-against approach" towards the theory of evolution. But then I decided to change my approach and not take a stance regarding this theory until I have examined it more thoroughly. I have decided to not be for or against the theory of evolution until I have studied this theory very deeply and examined the best evidence from both evolutionists and intelligent design supporters. If some evolutionists or some intelligent design supporters consider me a heretic for taking this approach, then so be it. I am not responsible for their petty and useless emotions. I would rather be a critical thinking heretic than a blind following sheep.

Quran 3918 The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.

Wakas

peace Taro,

It was this article. I can't find the response I read, but there are a few responses, e.g. this one.

BobaFett

Many christian creationists claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. But in reality there is no evidence that supports this claim. Since this claim has no basis in reality, I think this claim is worthless.

While I don't know if there is or is not evidence supporting the 6,000 year belief, their is certainly strong evidence that the current methods used for dating the age of the Earth are very flawed.

I agree with what you say about evolution vs creation.