for evolutionists :Darwinism Incompatible With the Qur'an

Daniyar

Peace Andya,

I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism'

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

Andya_Primanda

Peace Andya,

I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism'

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps
Andya

unknownuser

Peace all

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

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

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

Regards
Noah

Andya_Primanda

Peace all

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

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

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

Regards
Noah

Peace Noah,

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

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

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

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

unknownuser

Peace Andy.

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

Regards
Noah

unknownuser

Peace Andy.

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

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

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

Regards,

unknownuser

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

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

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

Regards,

unknownuser

Peace Andy.

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

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

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

Regards,

peace lote tree

I need to work on my language skill it seems

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

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

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

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

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

regards
Noah

unknownuser

Hello Noah,

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

Regards,

Fahad1

I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism'

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

salam.

Andya_Primanda

I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism'

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

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

unknownuser

I do not like the practice of 'Bucaillism'

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

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