Jump to content
Islamic Forum
dot

Darwinism Refuted

Recommended Posts

Assalamualaikum and Greetings to All

 

That is incorrect. A scientific theory is based on research and experiments, since science is always progressing, scientific theories may change due to new discoveries. I personally believe in Evolution. I don't see what the problem is, Islam does not confirm or go against Evolution.

 

To SinisterDarkness: Nuh Ha Mim Keller, a prominent sheikh from America, has probably written quite a comprehensive article on the subject (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmasud.co.uk/Islam/nuh/evolve.htm"]here[/url], with regards to Islam and evolution. It is the most comprehensive I've seen. The language used can be complicated at times, but in the end, the conclusion is concise.

 

You're asking us to provide proof that takes longer then we can live to reveal itself. Evolution, if it occurs naturally, takes quite a few generations. Now if you want examples of evolution not resulting in a new species, look at the moth. There was a population of moths with white colored wings living in the northern US. Enter the Industrial Revolution and fast forward a decade. As a result of smog and soot from pollution, the forests neighboring the major cites had taken on a brownish black color. To avoid standing out and thus getting eaten, the moth population developed black wings.

 

To David M.K., is it still called evolution when a population of a living species changes but does not result in a new species? To me, that is natural selection.

 

Noone denies the natural selection that happened to the population of the peppered moths, or similar changes within other living species for that matter. It's when scientists take huge bounds and leaps of faith to say humans evolved from apes, or evolution causes a living species to evolve from one species to another, that some may have a problem believing, or proving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Assalamualaikum and Greetings to All

To SinisterDarkness: Nuh Ha Mim Keller, a prominent sheikh from America, has probably written quite a comprehensive article on the subject here, with regards to Islam and evolution. It is the most comprehensive I've seen. The language used can be complicated at times, but in the end, the conclusion is concise.

 

Walasalam.

 

Link is not working.

 

You can read this:-

 

Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective| Prepared by the Research Committee of IslamToday(contact admin if its a beneficial link) under the supervision of Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî|

 

 

Many Muslims wonder about the theory of biological evolution – the theory that living species on Earth today are descended from others in the past, and that the present diversity of living species we see is a result of descent with modification over the course of numerous generations.

 

Muslims also wonder about one of the main processes that evolutionary theory proposes to explain how evolution takes place – the process of natural selection. This is the idea that the individuals within a populations of living organism vary in their individual traits – they are not exactly alike – and that the organisms which are most successful at leaving descendants will pass on their unique traits to the next generation at the expense of the traits possessed by less successful organisms in the population, thereby contributing to a long-term gradual change in the suite of traits found within the population.

 

To start with, it is not our intention in this article to discuss the scientific implications of evolutionary theory. We wish to explore the issue from the perspective of Islamic teachings.

 

We as Muslims must ask:

 

Does the theory of evolution – and likewise the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution – conform to Islamic teachings or conflict with them?

 

Is a Muslim allowed to believe in evolution as a scientific theory as long as he or she accepts that Allah is behind it?

 

Is a Muslim allowed to believe in human evolution? If not, how can we explain the fossils of upright, bipedal, tool-using apes with large brains that have been discovered?

 

We wish to re-emphasize that our concern here is not with examining the scientific merits of the theory of evolution. What we want to know is what Islamic teachings have to say about the idea. Whether evolution is true or false scientifically is another matter altogether.

 

When we look at the sources of Islam – the Qur’ân and Sunnah – we see that, with respect to human beings living on the Earth today, they are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

 

Allah also says: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing.†[sûrah al-Hujûrât:13]

 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) identified the "male" mentioned in this verse as being Adam. He said: “Human beings are the children of Adam and Adam was created from Earth. Allah says: ‘O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing’.†[sunan al-Tirmidhî (3270)]

 

We also see that Allah created Adam directly without the agency of parents.

 

Allah says: “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was.†[sûrah Âl `Imrân: 59]

 

We also know that Eve was created from Adam without the agency of parents.

 

In the Qur’ân, Allah states clearly: “O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.†[sûrah al-Nisâ’: 1]

 

Therefore, the Qur’ân tells us that Adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the Earth today. We know about this by way of direct revelation from Allah.

 

The direct creation of Adam (peace be upon him) can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. This is because the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) was a unique and singular historical event. It is a matter of the Unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny. As a matter of the Unseen, we believe it because Allah informs us about it. We say the same for the miracles mentioned in the Qur’ân. Miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.

 

What about other living things, besides the human beings living on the Earth today? What about plants, animals, fungi, and the like?

 

When we turn our attention to this question, we find that the Qur’ân and Sunnah do not tell us much about the flora and fauna that was present on the Earth before or at the time of Adam and Eve’s arrived upon it. The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts.

 

The only thing that the Qur’ân and Sunnah require us to believe about the living things on Earth today is that Allah created them in whatever manner He decided to create them.

 

Allah says: “Allah is the Creator of all things and over all things He has authority.†[sûrah al-Zumar: 62]

 

Indeed, Allah states specifically that He created all life forms: “And We made from water all living things.†[sûrah al-Anbiyâ’: 30]

 

We know that “Allah does what He pleases.†Allah can create His creatures in any manner that He chooses.

 

Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

 

The role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. If scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. It is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of Allah. A Muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in Allah’s creation.

 

As for the fossil remains of bipedal apes and the tools and artifacts associated with those remains, their existence poses no problem for Islamic teachings. There is nothing in the Qur’ân and Sunnah that either affirms or denies that upright, brainy, tool using apes ever existed or evolved from other apelike ancestors. Such animals may very well have existed on Earth before Adam’s arrival upon it. All we can draw from the Qur’ân and Sunnah is that even if those animals once existed, they were not the forefathers of Adam (peace be upon him).

 

And Allah knows best.

 

SOURCE <--- ######islamtoday(contact admin if its a beneficial link)

 

Ugh I hate science, boring subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To David M.K., is it still called evolution when a population of a living species changes but does not result in a new species? To me, that is natural selection.

 

I suspect that the discussion would go a lot faster if people looked up (eg on Wiki (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Species)"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Species)[/url] the definition of 'species'. "Moth" isn't a species, the various types of moths are species.

 

"Natural selection" is the main process by which evolution works. If you accept that natural selction happens, it's very hard to see why you do not acept that evolution happens.

Edited by wattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that the discussion would go a lot faster if people looked up (eg on Wiki (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Species)"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Species)[/url] the definition of 'species'. "Moth" isn't a species, the various types of moths are species.

 

"Natural selection" is the main process by which evolution works. If you accept that natural selction happens, it's very hard to see why you do not acept that evolution happens.

 

Indeed. Basically natural selection/micro-evolution adds up to macro-evolution.

 

Basically the same concept as 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 and 1*10 both equaling 10. The 1st looks at each step. The 2nd looks at the original and end result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bint Ali, if you want to remain ignorant of current science, that is your problem. Examples of species which have evolved from another species includes every mammal.

 

you really should have answered me.i am sure you could not know of such an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you really should have answered me.i am sure you could not know of such an example.

 

Humans. Indeed it's been showing that evolutionary divergence has accelerated since the advent of globalization. It's contrary to the mixing that everyone thought was going to happen but the science bares it out. Or looking the other way, 2,000 years ago, 5' was tall and most people were skinny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Sinister Darkness, thank you brother for posting the article on Islam and evolution. It's good that you posted the article, though I may not agree with it entirely, it does make good points. I will make a topic about what Nuh Ha Mim Keller said about the subject, since you could not access the link.

 

I suspect that the discussion would go a lot faster if people looked up (eg on Wiki (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Species)"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Species)[/url] the definition of 'species'. "Moth" isn't a species, the various types of moths are species.

 

Addressing wattle's quote,

 

I was replying to a post from David M.K., who used an example of the peppered moth to support the idea of evolution. The peppered moth is a species of its own; one of the various types of moth species, as you've mentioned.

 

The species or scientific name of the peppered moth is Biston betularia.

 

"Natural selection" is the main process by which evolution works. If you accept that natural selction happens, it's very hard to see why you do not acept that evolution happens.

 

Basically the same concept as 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 and 1*10 both equaling 10. The 1st looks at each step. The 2nd looks at the original and end result.

 

This is a response to both wattle's and David M.K's posts.

 

Natural selection produces variation in the gene population. There's no evidence in any of the studies concerning natural selection, which causes a living species to completely change into another.

 

Within a population, usually a single certain physical trait becomes more prevalent, in response to living factors in the environment. That's essentially what natural selection is.

 

This alone does not explain how an ape can change its body structure, like how it would shed its body hair, change its body posture, change its skeletal and muscular structure, etc. It does not explain how it can change its thinking capacity

to be more developed, i.e. change its brain size and form a more developed neutron network within the brain, to perform more complicated tasks. All these changes are not simple physical traits that can be changed through natural selection.

 

So many wholesale changes to be made for an ape to change into a human, which any qualified geneticist or biologist would tell you, just does not happen in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To Sinister Darkness, thank you brother for posting the article on Islam and evolution. It's good that you posted the article, though I may not agree with it entirely, it does make good points. I will make a topic about what Nuh Ha Mim Keller said about the subject, since you could not access the link.

Addressing wattle's quote,

 

I was replying to a post from David M.K., who used an example of the peppered moth to support the idea of evolution. The peppered moth is a species of its own; one of the various types of moth species, as you've mentioned.

 

The species or scientific name of the peppered moth is Biston betularia.

This is a response to both wattle's and David M.K's posts.

 

Natural selection produces variation in the gene population. There's no evidence in any of the studies concerning natural selection, which causes a living species to completely change into another.

 

Within a population, usually a single certain physical trait becomes more prevalent, in response to living factors in the environment. That's essentially what natural selection is.

 

This alone does not explain how an ape can change its body structure, like how it would shed its body hair, change its body posture, change its skeletal and muscular structure, etc. It does not explain how it can change its thinking capacity

to be more developed, i.e. change its brain size and form a more developed neutron network within the brain, to perform more complicated tasks. All these changes are not simple physical traits that can be changed through natural selection.

 

So many wholesale changes to be made for an ape to change into a human, which any qualified geneticist or biologist would tell you, just does not happen in nature.

 

Oliver was once thought to be a chimp/human hybrid. This was later disproved after genetic tests confirmed he was in fact a chimp and that his human-like appearance was the result of mutation. Say this happened 3 million years ago and the ape bred. Fast forward to today and you would get us if the mutations continued. As for intelligence, we evolved with no more intelligence then a neanderthal (so were we quite intelligent, just not as much as we are now). It was only later that we started to innovate and as we created more tech, our intelligence grew, thus our intelligence in cultural, not genetic.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dvmx(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/oliver.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dvmx(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/oliver.html[/url]

 

######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dvmx(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/oliver-x.jpg[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural selection produces variation in the gene population. There's no evidence in any of the studies concerning natural selection, which causes a living species to completely change into another.

 

There's a species of North American fruit fly that lives only on apple trees. Apple trees are not native to North America.

 

Within a population, usually a single certain physical trait becomes more prevalent, in response to living factors in the environment. That's essentially what natural selection is.

 

There's no reason why it has to be a 'single' trait, and the process does not stop there. The new species with the different "trait/s" can (and often does) contiinue evolving in response to changed circumstances, genetic drift, breeding isolation etc. The subsequent new species will be even more different from the the original. That's evolution.

 

This alone does not explain how an ape can change its body structure, like how it would shed its body hair, change its body posture, change its skeletal and muscular structure, etc.

 

Why not? If you accept that the peppered moth changed an aspect of its body because of natural selection, what's so hard about accepting that other changes happen? There's nothing qualitatively different about them. Also, as evolution is the almost universally accepted process to explain species (and higher orders of taxonomy), you can't just make a bald statement like that to disprove it.

Edited by wattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliver was once thought to be a chimp/human hybrid. This was later disproved after genetic tests confirmed he was in fact a chimp and that his human-like appearance was the result of mutation. Say this happened 3 million years ago and the ape bred. Fast forward to today and you would get us if the mutations continued. As for intelligence, we evolved with no more intelligence then a neanderthal (so were we quite intelligent, just not as much as we are now). It was only later that we started to innovate and as we created more tech, our intelligence grew, thus our intelligence in cultural, not genetic.

 

You said it yourself that these apes need to breed and continue mutating to change into humans, using Oliver as an example. Yet, researchers and scientists have noted that Oliver during its lifetime stayed away from other chimps, and was closer to humans. There are also no other similar apes to Oliver.

 

It looks highly unlikely that Oliver will produce offspring, so on what basis are you using this example to prove evolution?

 

If Oliver is a product of evolution, where are the other chimps like him? After all, you'd need many apes to evolve and form a new species. Why is Oliver the only one so far?

 

It's not the first time apes resemble human faces; they share many characteristics with us because of similar genetic material, which may account for similar facial structures. Having similar genetic material does not prove evolution. Genetic mutation does not lead to evolution, as you can read from the topic (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=37965.html&"]here[/url].

 

Oliver is probably, a single anomaly amongst chimps; my guess is this chimp was born with a slightly higher developed brain, and he was taken care by humans from an early age. As said earlier, it's not uncommon for apes to bear strikingly similar human-like features, but this does not prove evolution. The coupling of his more developed nature and the stimuli he received from a human environment made it different from other chimps.

 

Anomalies do happen in nature, whether they produce an entirely new and different species is another question altogether.

 

There's a species of North American fruit fly that lives only on apple trees. Apple trees are not native to North America.

 

I leave it up to you to further why this explains evolution, because to me it does not.

 

There's no reason why it has to be a 'single' trait, and the process does not stop there. The new species with the different "trait/s" can (and often does) contiinue evolving in response to changed circumstances, genetic drift, breeding isolation etc. The subsequent new species will be even more different from the the original. That's evolution.

 

Speciation is still an ongoing study, and nothing can be derived from it regarding humans.

 

I think there are quite a number of examples regarding this, each one is unique and takes a lot of detail and analysis. Maybe you can start by posting why you may think the North American fly is an example of evolution.

 

Why not? If you accept that the peppered moth changed an aspect of its body because of natural selection, what's so hard about accepting that other changes happen? There's nothing qualitatively different about them.

 

Before the Industrial Revolution, both white and black bodied peppered moths were already present. Historians mentioned that the black bodied peppered moths were collectors items, as they were rarely found in nature.

 

During the Industrial Revolution, the proportion of white and black moths changed, i.e. population of white bodied moths decreased, whereas black bodied moths increased. No new species was formed.

 

After the Industrial Revolution, the ratio reverted back to the pre-Industrial Revolution days, with improved environmental standards. Tell me, on what basis are you using this as an example of evolution, when things have returned the way they were before, and no new species was recorded?

 

It was a change in populations, not a change in body structure or physical characteristic. This is what natural selection is about.

 

Also, as evolution is the almost universally accepted process to explain species (and higher orders of taxonomy), you can't just make a bald statement like that to disprove it.

 

A great deal of scientists also subscribe to the idea of intelligent design. I would say evolution is not yet universally accepted, as scientists use different ideas and beliefs to explain their hypothesis, not just one based on evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I leave it up to you to further why this explains evolution, because to me it does not.

 

It doesn't 'explain' evolution, it strongly suggests evolution. If there's a North American fruit fly species that lives only on apple trees, but apple trees are not native to North America, the species cannot have existed before apple trees arrived in North America. It must have evolved from another species.

 

Speciation is still an ongoing study, and nothing can be derived from it regarding humans.

 

Another bald statement that ignores the research of the past 100-odd years. The current view of the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields is that humans evolved. Yes, speciation is still being studied. So is gravity, so is water. That doesn't mean that we know nothing about gravity and water.

 

A great deal of scientists also subscribe to the idea of intelligent design. I would say evolution is not yet universally accepted, as scientists use different ideas and beliefs to explain their hypothesis, not just one based on evolution.

 

There might be "a great deal of scientists" who subscribe to intelligent design, depending on your definition of "a great deal", but they are a small percentage of the total number of scientists. Of scientists working in fields affected by evolution, the percentage is even smaller. It is simply not a matter for dispute that evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists working in relavent fields as the theory which best fits the facts as currently known.

 

I'm curious: I think even very conservative Muslims think that some parts of the Koran are metaphorical. Why cannot the creation of humans also be seen as metaphorically described in the Koran? There is no clash between science and a religion which says that a process indistinguishable from evolution but controlled by a god is what happened. I assume that this is the view of the Catholic Church, which recently formally announced that they accept that evolution happened/happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said it yourself that these apes need to breed and continue mutating to change into humans, using Oliver as an example. Yet, researchers and scientists have noted that Oliver during its lifetime stayed away from other chimps, and was closer to humans. There are also no other similar apes to Oliver.

 

It looks highly unlikely that Oliver will produce offspring, so on what basis are you using this example to prove evolution?

 

If Oliver is a product of evolution, where are the other chimps like him? After all, you'd need many apes to evolve and form a new species. Why is Oliver the only one so far?

 

It's not the first time apes resemble human faces; they share many characteristics with us because of similar genetic material, which may account for similar facial structures. Having similar genetic material does not prove evolution. Genetic mutation does not lead to evolution, as you can read from the topic (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=37965.html&"]here[/url].

 

Oliver is probably, a single anomaly amongst chimps; my guess is this chimp was born with a slightly higher developed brain, and he was taken care by humans from an early age. As said earlier, it's not uncommon for apes to bear strikingly similar human-like features, but this does not prove evolution. The coupling of his more developed nature and the stimuli he received from a human environment made it different from other chimps.

 

Anomalies do happen in nature, whether they produce an entirely new and different species is another question altogether.

 

Something not becoming a new species doesn't disprove evolution. Ever hear the term, evolutionary dead end?

 

I leave it up to you to further why this explains evolution, because to me it does not.

 

If apple trees were broght to North america and weren't native and if a North American fruit fly lives exclusively on apple trees, then where did the fruit fly come from if they didn't exist before apples?

 

Speciation is still an ongoing study, and nothing can be derived from it regarding humans.

 

I think there are quite a number of examples regarding this, each one is unique and takes a lot of detail and analysis. Maybe you can start by posting why you may think the North American fly is an example of evolution.

 

They're still studying gravaty and have as of yet failed to explain what it even is. Do you think gravity doesn't exist? If yes, walk off a cliff and tell me how it goes.

 

Before the Industrial Revolution, both white and black bodied peppered moths were already present. Historians mentioned that the black bodied peppered moths were collectors items, as they were rarely found in nature.

 

During the Industrial Revolution, the proportion of white and black moths changed, i.e. population of white bodied moths decreased, whereas black bodied moths increased. No new species was formed.

 

After the Industrial Revolution, the ratio reverted back to the pre-Industrial Revolution days, with improved environmental standards. Tell me, on what basis are you using this as an example of evolution, when things have returned the way they were before, and no new species was recorded?

 

It was a change in populations, not a change in body structure or physical characteristic. This is what natural selection is about.

 

Evolution is a collection of adaptations. A new species need not form as a result.

 

A great deal of scientists also subscribe to the idea of intelligent design. I would say evolution is not yet universally accepted, as scientists use different ideas and beliefs to explain their hypothesis, not just one based on evolution.

 

This is true, i don't deny that. Few of them are biologists however. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but there is not sufficient proof of species changing to others there is proof of variation among species though, but that is not the same.

 

 

 

Brother,

 

By this statement you tell us clearly that you know nothing of science. You mention "proofs" but ignore the mountains of tested evidences which support evolution. Too many fail to understand that when science investigates the natural world it is into the sublime intelligence of God that they search and it is the Hand of God which is revealed to them, a little at a time.

 

Salam,

 

JamesYaqub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sl.gif

How can he come up with an example, when the paleontologists' study of all the fossil record in the last 200 years, that covered 250,000 species, that date to millions of years, never found one single species in a transforming state from one species to another.

French paleontologist Pierre-Paul Grassé has this to say on the subject:

 

 

 

Brother you err greatly here. There are mountains of evidence that do just what you deny. In addition there are many species alive today which clearly are in the midst of radical change. The most obvious is the halibut. God is assisting this little fish to adapt to a new food source by changing it from a vertically swimming to a horizontally swimming fish. Yes it is God that is the engine which drives evolution brother, not mindless "chance". Regarding species. In a single family line the sum total of many small changes throughout the years can and do result in totally new species. it happens all the time and is seen in the fossil records. What does not happen is the crossing over of one familial line one to another. In other words a feline will not change to a bovine or a canine.

 

The process of evolution is shown only through fossils? Not so. The annual flu viruses and their constant changing constitutes strong evidence of evolution. You say this is merely "biological change over time"? Sure that is exactly what evolution is ...... Change over time is precisely what evolution is all about.

 

I have read these arguments so many many times. It is almost always the Christians who display the level of ignorance which is required to so inhibit clear thinking. And this is usually because they listen to others who have a vested interest in misleading rather than to those who do not have any conflict of interest such as the question of Biblical inerrancy to guard. Those arguments which you cite are common to the "creationist Christian" who will not think.

 

Salam,

 

JamesYaqub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

islamictorrents(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/details.php?id=19755

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see nothing in the theory of evolution that goes against anything in Islam. I don't see why this is even an issue among Muslims today. This is something that some Christians have a problem with due to their Bible being corrupted. The Qur'an, being from Allah SWT, has no such problems. As for the validity of the theory of evolution, this is a purely scientific question, nothing to do with Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salams,

 

Cefarix, do you believe that both man and animals evolved into what we are today, or just animals? If I'm not mistaken I read a post made by you along time back, where you stated that Mankind was created by Allah and all the ape like species evolved in the 'direction' of mankind as far as their physical strucutre is concerned due to Man's physical condition being the best for survival, naturally living organisms will tend to evolve towards a similar state. Sorry if I misrepresented anything you might have said, this is all from memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saaabz, I believe that all people are descendants of Adam and Eve.

 

The theory of evolution actually does not say how any living thing began to exist. It just says that when some organisms exist, they will change and adapt over generations according to the forces of natural selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brothers and Sisters,

Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is "creation," the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which asserts that living things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and natural processes.

 

How many of us are tired of this mindless argument?

 

The great difficulty lies in the fact that the above definition is not accurate. Science theorizes nothing regarding the origins of life. There are many hypothesis but nothing firmly established enough to be called a "theory". The opponents of "evolution" tend to simplify everything. They are intellectually lazy so they fail to recognize any "nuance" in science. They also commonly mis-define the word "theory". It has a common usage and a much more rigid scientific one which is missed or ignored. Conservative Christian minds do not readily reach deeply into a topic to discover what is hidden. They simply adopt an opinion and stick to it.

 

Science is pretty firm regarding evolution. Darwin is so often maligned. The poor man said nothing about the origins of life. He wrote about the origins of species. See how the two are mis-interpreted? Science has established that there was a moment of Creation. Sure this is what they mean by the Big Bang. In other areas of research, using colliders, attempts are made to discover the smallest primordial material particles. These will help to "flesh out" the story. Science often refers to something they call a "God particle". Hasn't anyone ever heard of this? The famous Einstein is known to have said, "I want to know God's thoughts.... The rest are details".

 

So where are all the atheist scientists that the Christians rant and rave about all the time?

 

 

Pardon me now Brothers and Sisters for being so plain spoken about all of this but I am so sick and tired of the ignorant few ruling the minds of so many.

 

 

"Evolution" begins with the Creation which is the result of the Will of God directed upon spiritual mass which is all there was before there was any physical universe. God's Mind directing God's Energy, Willfully upon Spiritual Mass. Here is the essence of it. The Spirit Mass "slows" and takes form. This action is what science is trying to discover with those big expensive circular thingies called colliders that some Christians know nothing about. A major byproduct of this transitory action is gravity. This is the force which moves all else. "Time" is no more than a dimensional component which, like length, breadth, diameter and velocity is inseparable. The "Intelligent Design" of God directed that the beginnings would be the simplest physical particles. They then group together in vast amounts and form light stars which, in turn, produce the heavier of the elements. When the point in evolution was correct for biological life to begin, it does just like God planed it to do. From those processes everything that we see today is derived. Simple to elegant..... Intelligent Design.

 

None of this is by chance. The religious opinion that claims otherwise is a fearful one that is motivated only by a fierce desire and heartfelt need to protect the story of creation in Genesis. That is what is behind the whole controversy. If any part of the Bible can be proved wrong they are afraid that the whole platform of their belief system will be jeopardized. On one hand is the God given human mind and ability to reason and on the other is the denial of God given mind which is replaced by fear.

 

Creation and Evolution are perfectly compatible. The two dovetail revealing God's Intelligent Design. At the moment of Creation science meets Religion. See how perfect this is? The Genesis story is wrong. Those Bible stories existed in verbal form from the time of Adam for thousands of years before they were ever recorded. Can't we see the human element here? Is there no chance for error? Sure there is. Get over it Christians. Stop mis-defining "evolution". Here is an area ot the Torah which is corrected by the Qur'an.

 

I will not apologize for what I say. Ignorance by those who shape young minds is inexcusable.

 

It is my belief that the authors of the book cited in this post also err in their definition of "evolution".

 

Brother Yaqub

Edited by JamesYaqub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find it interesting that people try to prove things, especially in science.

Typically, any attempt to prove something in science is a clear indicator of pseudoscience.

 

The scientific method is not quite so simple, and to explain it would require a great deal of background knowledge, much of which I can not explain here.

But what I can do is to say why "It's just a theory, so its only a guess" is an incredibly uneducated expression.

 

The empirical cycle never actually tries to prove any hypothesis.

Scientists structure their experiments to try and see if something is not the case.

We try to refute our own hypothesis to increase the degree to which we can accept it.

If, at any stage our test shows that the hypothesis was incorrect, we would try to modify it to suit the results of the experiment, or need be, to try a new one altogether.

Just because the hypothesis did not fail under a certain test does not mean it is correct, either - there may be another test which would challenge it.

So, as scientists all we can do is to make observations of the world, and try to make generalizations, and to continue to make generalizations such that they become "good enough" for all practical purposes.

The idea is to become "less wrong" as time passes.

 

When you understand hypo-deductive model then you have learned that there are two basic forms: verification and falsification.

In short, verification is an attempt to do what people assume we do, to prove something.

Falsification on the other hand tries to disprove something, or to determine that something can not be the case.

We use falsification in Science.

 

The mechanisms by which evolution work and the ways we observe it are far too complicated to explain adequately in one chapter or one paragraph.

Although it is true that evolution doesn't always perfectly explain everything, without it, biology wouldn't make any sense at all.

I would argue that evolution is much "less wrong" than any other working theory.

 

I believe that any major religion's objections of evolution arise in that it removes the extraordinariness from ourselves.

If we are as ordinary as a fruit fly or a bonobo then why are we given special treatment by God?

Why is our species the only one to which sin and deen are attributed?

Alas, I do not know, and this is where my spiritual troubles begin.

These are the kinds of questions i hope to get answers to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science has established that there was a moment of Creation

 

No.

 

If you put carbon water and other simple chemicals together, slosh them around in an enviroment without free oxygen the carbon molecules start "cristalising" into more complex and longer forms.

 

As one of these crystals grows it will grow from the ends of the molecule. Eventually it will be so long that it breaks in the water. Then it continues to grow from both ends.

 

If one of these molecules encounters another it may well use the atoms in the second to grow it's self.

 

This process is not allways perfect and variations in the exact form of the carbon chain molecules will occur on occaision. This can be called mutation.

 

The most robust molecules will resist being absorbed by other paterns. The fastest growing amio acids will take advantage of resources quickest.

 

Evolution has begun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No.

If you put carbon water and other simple chemicals together, slosh them around in an enviroment without free oxygen the carbon molecules start "cristalising" into more complex and longer forms.

As one of these crystals grows it will grow from the ends of the molecule. Eventually it will be so long that it breaks in the water. Then it continues to grow from both ends.

If one of these molecules encounters another it may well use the atoms in the second to grow it's self.

This process is not allways perfect and variations in the exact form of the carbon chain molecules will occur on occaision. This can be called mutation.

The most robust molecules will resist being absorbed by other paterns. The fastest growing amio acids will take advantage of resources quickest.

Evolution has begun.

 

Tim, first of all, there were 'nothing' to begin with. Secondly, even if you have atoms, atoms are just mindless dumb object with no wills,knowledge, motivation. Thirdly, atom and nucleolus are none living objects. Fourthly, you can never get life from non living objects..get me?

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim, first of all, there were 'nothing' to begin with. Secondly, even if you have atoms, atoms are just mindless dumb object with no wills,knowledge, motivation. Thirdly, atom and nucleolus are none living objects. Fourthly, you can never get life from non living objects..get me?

I understand you.

 

Wrong. Life is a product of the chemical reactions of carbon in liquid water.

 

You can get life from none living chemicals.

 

Life can be dumb with no will, knowlege or motivation. Like a tree. It has no mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong. Life is a product of the chemical reactions of carbon in liquid water.

You can get life from none living chemicals.

Life can be dumb with no will, knowlege or motivation. Like a tree. It has no mind.

So do you have any evidence for what you said above? Show me..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you put the basic elements of life carbon and a few other bits and bobs in a water tank, without oxygen, stir and wait it will over the next year or so begin to contain more and more complex hyrocarbon compounds.

 

This experiment has been carried out severval times. It does require a fair ammount of care as oxygen will react with the delicate compounds and destroy them.

 

The water tank is obviously a small volume when compaired to the worlds oceans. The chance of a vigorously reproducing compound (crystal of carbon) happening in such an ocean is millions of times more and the earth was in the state for many millions of years.

 

I have only the memories of school the pass on but I am sure there will be better knowlege amongst the likes of pmca? If anyone can give a link to a paper or such please post it. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×