Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

Society Religion & Philosophy
161

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

Peace Med911

Would Adam(AS) have been similar to his father genetically? So how was he different? What made him a prophet where his father was not even human?

162

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

Islam has us respect our parents and forefathers .... How would that be taken if we consider other creatures as part of our family and existing animals as cousins?

163

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

It is quite possible say after one million generations.. provided the isolation remains intact.. which is not the case in the present modern world. Life forms have existed on this planet much before the human race contrary to the literal interpretation of Holy Writings..

There are two kind of extinctions.. one is when species evolve to become other species.. in that case over a number of generations the parent specie becomes extinct.. while the other extinction is caused by inability of the specie to sustain survival pressures. The geological history of our planet clearly indicates that every specie which was inhibiting our planet in the geological distant past have become extinct either by evolving in to other species or simply could not sustain survival pressures.

This is the ultimate physical destiny of our human race also.. we will eventually become extinct due to survival pressure or some geological accident or through evolution..

And if you will try to bring religion at this point in this discussion.. you know very well my position on this matter. I clearly draw a line between physical and spiritual existence..

164

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

I think part of your interpretive process is creating definitions not followed by most scientists.

[quote]
Actually I didn't have a problem with the term "fact" having two different definitions ... what I have a problem with is how people feel they can interchange between those definitions at will.

The term "fact" is a linguistic term which has all its array of meanings.
[/quote]

The word fact is surely a linguistic term just as any other word, however when talking about its use in a field such as science we can generally use a specific definition of the world as outlined by scientists themselves.

[quote]
According to me a "fact" is EITHER similiar and according to definition 1 - i.e. observable phenomenon ratified by multiple observations made by multiple people of sane mind and who are telling the truth (These types of facts are things or actions that actually EXIST)... OR ... a "fact" is some ASSOCIATED INFORMATION about something that **exists, **only when that associated information has been proven or SHOWN to be associated to that entity.
[/quote]

Again, I would behoove you to use the actual definitions used by scientists and not ones created by you.

[quote]
In science a "theory" would be unproven associated information, thus talking about either the "nature" of something or explaining how something "happens" ... when this information is proven to be correctly assigned to that entity then it is called a "law" ...
[/quote]

In science a theory or hypothesis never becomes law. We can see this clearly when we look at Newtons Law of universal gravitation. When Newton discovered these laws, he had trouble attributing a hypothesis that would explain why this law existed. It wasn't until Einstein's general theory of relativity that explained what caused gravity.

[quote]
Laws help us formulate predictable models to aid us in our scientific work.

One can argue that a "law" is a "fact" ... I'm not bothered ... BUT what really bothers me is a theory should be formulated around what is "known to exist - a fact as per definition 1" - in other words the evolution scientists are busy formulating a theory around an "action" that has not been shown to be a "fact" itself first ... and then they sell the whole idea as a "fact" ...

I can only entertain the idea of evolution theory - when I have seen the "act" of evolution to be true. Such scientists argue in support of evolution by merging these two definitions ... they say evolution is an explanation ... thus getting away from the requisite of observing the evolving act ... they have lots of people who ratify the theory, all who do so without observing the "act", they have tested parts of evolution - because it is a compound theory - which utilises other theories, but then makes intuitive leaps to conclude more than what can be tested ... however when they argue for crossing off the "test" box ... they do it using the tests performed on the sub-theories (which in fact are stand alone theories) ... When they pull this all together - they conclude evolution is a "fact" - as per definition 2 ... but Definition 2 requires all of this explanation to be done around something that EXISTS ... i.e. An aspect of Definition 2 is subject to Definition 1 ...
[/QUOTE]

I think I understand your objection and this is my response. Let me first try to explain the 'act' of gravity in a similar way before I turn to evolution.

The 'act' of gravity could be simply stated as an object falling towards the earth. Imagine when man first pondered on such a question as to what caused the object to fall towards the earth. They could have came up with many solutions but the correct one would be that bodies of mass gravitate towards each other and therefore the idea of gravity was born. Now when discussing the concept of the cause of objects falling towards the earth, one generally uses the word gravity in these dialougues.

The act of evolution is simply that many species of animals exist. Imagine when man first pondered on such a question as to what causes species and what is their origin. They could have come up with many solutions but the correct one according to scientists is that species arise due to changes in inherited traits over generations (The explanation provided in the aptly titled Origin of Species). Now when discussing the cause and origins of species one generally uses the word evolution.

165

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

In evolution the closest idea to what you are describing is ring species. Imagine in your chain if there existed a species z that could both mate and produce viable offspring with species x-- and species y++, however species x-- and y++ couldn't mate with each other. Evolutionary scientists have claimed to discover such organisms and claim that these constitute different species (although their definition of species is not clear to me).

Also, its not a matter of millions of years for a new species to arise but probably many generations, and the length of one generation can differ from species to species. This is why scientists claim evolution has been observed in species that have short generation times such as the rise of a new species of Nereis acuminata from long beach california experiments.

Scientists today can't agree on whether speciation is gradual or takes place quickly such as in the case of punctuated equilibrium.

166

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

Perhaps a slight mutation in his genome made him the first. His parents may still have been of the same species,
But still not in its refined form. Its all speculation, but none of it is outside the bounds of reason.

167

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

How about respecting all sentient life? Islam teaches respect for other creatures as well does it not?

Those that scoff at the very notion that they evolved out of a common ancestor as apes are only expressing the arrogance of humanity.

168

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

Islam teaches us the sanctity of life ... The respect for the parents is reverence whereas the injunction for the creatures is care and humane treatment. These are not the same things. We do not obey animals like we obey our parents.

169

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

Dumb, is your choice of wording not mine. I should assume that people living almost 2000 years ago would require a LOT of explaining. To enlighten them on the nature of their Universe to such an extent would require a miracle on the part of God himself. If you haven't yet noticed, miracles aren't very common. So while God could have instilled this knowledge into them, I don't think he would have, nor do I think he needed too. Also it defeats the purpose of telling us to seek out knowledge ourselves.

LOL.. Yes, i have a little red phone in my room where God calls every now and then, and we gossip for hours. You should come over some time! I guess you don't pray hard enough?!?!?!

What YOU believe you know is against established science and evidence. I acknowledge that there is a minuscule chance that what you BELIEVE, is actually reality, but in all likelihood, your absolutely wrong. Yet you clutch at whatever straws you can hang on to trying to defend your world view. I mean come on... DUST? Your an elegant writer, so I assume you have an intellectual mind, so there must be some logical part of your mind that you have suppressed thats sitting there thinking, do I really believe this nonsense?!?!

I don't have to prove anything. We don't know how the Universe is created. I mean its really so beyond us that we can't even venture to guess. I mean, assuming God created the space and time, to understand this notion would require us to contemplate a place where there is no Space or Time! Can you do that? Its akin to trying to visualize "nothingness."

However, we are all speaking within the context of the assumption that God is real and that he created us, SOMEHOW. How he created MAN on this planet, is what we are debating. While we might have to assume "Magical thinking" to understand how the Universe was created, although its better to admit we don't know in that case, we certainly do not require magical thinking to understand how humanity was born on this planet. Its through evolution, and we have evidence to demonstrate its accuracy.

I to simply believe God created the Universe. But this is an assumption. I acknowledge its not based on any evidence. But where we DONT know, we can assume. But where we DO KNOW, we should not. We do know of and understand evolution, so assuming we were created as we are is no longer justified.

You cannot harmonize Islam with evolution if you read everything to be literal. If you don't want to do that, then by all means, go ahead. But don't tell me i have to choose between faith and reality.

We can interpret the passage you are quoting in all sorts of ways. Has it occurred to you perhaps that God is referring to Adam's Spirit, and not his body? And the dust is perhaps the divine Spark? Maybe a molecule? But to assume its literal in the face of so much evidence to the contrary is intellectually dishonest. Now its up to YOU to harmonize your reality with your faith. My point is simply that it is possible. For me, evolution reality. We are descended of ape like creatures, this is our reality.

I don't see why this is mental gymnastics. I think my line of reasoning is pretty concise and rational. Its requires far more calories to defend the negative here, then it does to defend the understanding that Islam and evolution are compatible, because to do so requires you to negate evolution itself, which is backed by over a century of research and evidence. To believe the Koran is literal on the creation of man, and not have to negate evolution to prove it, means you are intellectually dishonest and have no grounds to argue.

170

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

In Islam, I think we can both agree, that we acknowledge that ALL humans are descended of Adam.

Yet, Islam only requires that we obey and revere our parents, it does not stipulate that we show the same reverence for and obedience to ALL humanity, although we should respect the sanctity of all human life, care for other humans, and show humanity towards them, just as we would toward animals.

By your logic, since we are not taught to obey and revere all of humanity as we are our parents, we are then not all descended of Adam?

Similarly, even though we are not required to obey and show reverence towards animals, this does not negate our common ancestry.

171

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

No is doesn't ... but it raises a few eyebrows ... I'm sure there are a whole load more and may be stark problems if we delve a bit deeper.

Consider this hadith:

Abi Musa Al-Shaarai narrated that Prophet Muhammad said: "Allah created Adam from a handful of dust taken from different lands, so the children of Adam have been created according to the composition of the land. Therefore, from mankind we have white, red, black and yellow ones; we have good and evil, ease and sorrow, and what comes in between them."

172

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

What does this unreferenced hadith has to do with what Med911's question?

173

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

This is an established Hadith ... Adam (AS) could not have had a father as his similitude is that of Isa (AS) who did not have father. These explanations are commentaries on the verses ... By the early Muslims, who have quoted Sayyiduna Muhammad (SAW) ...

There is clear indication that Adam (AS) was dust, became slurry, became clay, became moulded, became dried, became enlivened with the spirit of Allah.

174

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

You say it is established hadith and everyone should accept it? Where is the reference? Please never quote any Hadith without a reference.
Secondly, what does this Hadith have to do with Med 911's question about reverence?

175

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

WTH are you saying.

176

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

He is contrasting the Koranic injunction on the treatment of ones parents who we are descended from, to the injunction pertaining to the treatment of animals, in order to demonstrate the Koran makes a distinction between those whom we are definently descended from and those that we apparently are not descended from. Another words , we would be told to treat our parents and animals alike if we were in fact descended from animals as we are from our parents.

177

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

Many things raise eyebrows when we speak of religion.

I don't know what to make of this hadith, in light of established facts, except to say that its either a mistranslation, misinterpretation, or inauthentic. Because even if we take it to be literal, we know dust does not come in any particular color, and geographic location has no bearing on color if indeed dust has one. Skin color is determined by the of sunlight an individual is exposed to. The skin color pattern, if seen as a mosaic on the globe, would demonstrate how skin tone starts very light in north and gradually becomes darker and darker as we get closer to the equator.
If I had to interpret this hadith I would say that its accurate to the extent that skin tone is determined by the environment of the people. So whites are the result of northern environment, and blacks of southern environment. Diet also plays a role to some extent, and so they are the food they eat grown and bred on their particular soil.

178

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

Thank you philosophy for contributing

179

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution … Or unkind dismissal?

:eek:

this is what you believe, but evolution is made up? good god…

180

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

Long time ago i asked a scholar about the contradictions between science and religion. He said something like this:

If scientific evidence on the matter is not well established, we will reject it and favor the religious doctrine.
If the scientific evidence on the subject are established we will use interpretation to explain religious pov.