Theory of Evolution anyone ?

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.

BobaFett

Selam bro.

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.

I understand what you mean, I just disagree with it for a couple of reasons.

While this may be how you look at science, it is certainly not how the majority of modern scientists go about their business. God is not being kept implicit, and this is especially true in Darwinian evolution, God is being excluded.
I don't see how keeping God implicit serves science, I have asked you several times to enlighten me on this point.

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.

I don't think you understand what modern science is mate.. The more accurate term is the "Natural sciences". It is the study of the natural world, what we can observe and measure, there is no room in it for the immaterial, the unobservable. Like I said before the will of God is not being kept implicit, it is being excluded. Every modern scientific theory attempts to explain our reality without resorting to the supernatural(God).

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.

You are right, I misunderstood this since I took it for granted that we all agree God is immaterial. When you said physically/mechanically involved I thought you meant you didn't believe God was involved with the mechanics of creation. My apologies.

Armanaziz

Salamu Alaika Brother BobaFett.

Alhamdulillah. I am feeling our understandings have now almost perfectly aligned. I agree that many of the (not most) modern scientists not only keep "God's will" explicit - rather they exclude it or believe they have sufficient proof to exclude it. And yes I do agree this is a problem - they themselves are confused and even worse they are spreading this confusion among others. In my view they probably do these because they, too, are confused about the purpose and scope of "materialistic viewpoint". And to address this problem only attacking theory of evolution is not justified - rather we need to have dialogue with the scientists on what science really is and what it is not.

Furthermore - the scientists who exclude God are barely the "most" in number. Even Einstein is known for having faith in a supreme power/entity who controls the universe beyond the understanding and perception of humans. He categorically rejected being termed as Atheist. A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. (Ref http//www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/). While this % is low compared to faith in general public in the US - it shows it is still premature to say scientists are unanimous in excluding "God". So, how do you think those scientists who do believe in God or a higher authority get along with their day to day business? I believe, like I explained before, they keep the issue of "God's will" implicit in their research - in other words they adopt a "materialistic viewpoint".

I am proposing that a clear understanding of this "materialistic viewpoint" will help us in 2 ways - 1) it will help us to scrutinize theories like evolution from a more objective view point - we will have clear understanding when we are answering the "How" question and when we are answering the "Why" question. and 2) it will help debunk the "myth" that accepting scientific argument and logic automatically renders a person atheist.

May Allah guide us to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

huruf

From the Qur'an we know that if God didn't exist nothing would exist the creation would cease to exist and that if God did not sustain his cretation it would cease to exist, nothing would exist. But God has made his creation with his sunna, his laws. It is a creation in which is imprinted God's "talents" his way of doing things. We are marked by our creator, we cannot behave, nothing can behave in non conformity with Gods imprinted laws. Law of selfpreservation, for instance.

Any evolution has to be according to God laws. We do not need to state everytime this is according to God's laws. Like I do not have to say everytime I talk to my mother in the presence of those who know her, this is my mother, because that is not the question. The question may be is what is this law or this mechanism that makes things happen this way and not another way? Evolution exists, that is, as far as I can judge, a certainty.

BUT what kind of evolution is it? how does it operate? Trhough randomness? As far as I can judge that is not nonsense, no that is nothing. It does not teach us anything or reveal anything. Randomness does nto exist as a cause of anything. Randomness is another way of saying "I do not know". When people do not know how something came to happen, they say hasard, randomness, destiny, whatever. That is their state of mind or their perplexity, but it does not explain anything. It is the same thing with "natural selection", before that called "survival of the fittest". It has been a cosmetic improvement of vocabulary. "The fittest" smacked of not very charitable consideration of the weakest. So the terms were made less "inocuous, but the fact is that again, natural selection, rests a lot on randomness, that is on ignorance. The fact that you name something instead of ignorance something else, does not make you less ignorant.

Darwinian evolution fell most soundly with the discovery of genetics by Mendel. It was subsequently rearranged to fit genetics in the equation, but is is still upholding something of mystical Choiceness so, so much akin to the "chosen" people concept. That is as if nature selected the surviving ones over the non surviving ones. That you say that "God who selects" or that it "nature selects", the blank is knowledge is the same but you introduce a "moral" or existential principle of things that exist beause they have been chosen by... Call it whatever, you are already setting ategories of things, of people by way of attributing to them the merits of having been chosen. That science is rotten science, sloppy rotten science that rests on the root idea of some being discarded of higher authority and others being chosen of higher authority, and of course that whole concept managed by the gurus of "selection".

Science is inert, it is not a being, it is a concept, and that concept is never independent of the basic mentality that takes hold of it. And when the basic mentality is the one basec on the survival of the fittest (the most powerful) it is lasted and cannot be very objective.

A scientist as anybody who undertakes a labour in which he or she will put all their strengths and endeavours, must purify her or himself. Thy cannot go into it burdened by all the preconceptions, prejudices, and "battles". Scientifical battles are nto nbattles of science but of things straneous to it.

Of course, for as long as we are human we will not be 100% but we should strive for it. If from the start we are already committed to an idea or an ideollogy and connot make it an outside element while we are engaged inside the scientific question, then no good science will come of it.

Darwin is in everybody's mouth. Mendel who did a real discovery far worthier than Darwin's (who as far as I know did not discover anything that wasn't discovered before him) is not mentionned even one tenth of the times Darwin's is mentionned. Why is that? Of course no injustice to Mendel, those who know know who he is and it is sure he didn't discover anything seeking glory or popularity, but it does show where we are concenring science and how we make of it a battleground, where it should be an exsercise in humility and perseverance. Of course with big monies in the strife, things are likely to worsen and not to improve.

Salaam