PP1, Intelligent design and concept of being "irreducibly complex" have been hypothesized to refute the theory of evolution. However, it would be folly to thins that ID is pro-religion--it only stands as an anti-theory to the theory of evolution.
Like ID, here is another example. The second law of thermodynamics --unlike the theory of evolution, it is an univeral law-- states that nature loves DISORDER (entropy of a system always increases), and nothing in nature or science disobeys this law (observe how concentrated organized molecules of your cologne diffuse around the room), except the theory of evolution (TOE). According to the TOE, human beings-- complex species--evolved from unicellular organisms--simple species, which directly violates the second law.
That is unclear. Given that the article is also found on several non-MSA sites, you can't tell if the MSA took the article from elsewhere or vice-versa.
Nonetheless, the introduction does make clear that the author does understand arabic, and what he wrote is not contradictory to either of the two fatwas I linked to earlier on evolution.
Aside from which, every translation of the Quran I've been able to find uses the present tense forms "creates" and the old-english "createth". There is no need for interpretation, it's clear that Allah SWT still Creates what he we wants.
Well, that means that Eve was popping out hundreds of kids of her life span. Now this again is great leap of faith to believe, but then so are most other things in religion.
But now this also implies that all of Adam and Eve’s offspring were indulging in incest, because how else could they have propogated without getting it on with eash other? I mean, is this mentioned in the Koran?
First let me say im impressed by your assesment..
But evolution like everything else in the Universe is also an example of entropy or randomness is it not? (Although it could be argued that what appears random to us is actually not, might be some divine intent involved etc). Evolution is random in that its is the random mutations in our genetic makeup which causes us to either adapt pr die out, or if not adapt then excel and cause the continuation of that mutant gene at the expense of others. This is random.. Its all per chance…
We could have just as easily not have evolved..
So evolution is in accordance with the second law, since mutation are random…
No, it is not. Evolution requires creation of ORDER from DISORDER.
This is a fallacy of equivocation.
In the pre-biotc world, it was a whole bunch of macromolecules drifitng about. So, evolution says is they all just suddenly got arranged in order, making cell organelles (vacuole, mitochondria, nucleus) which then organized themselves to make a cell, where according the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the molecules should have acquired a more disorderly state from their original state of disarray.
Some evolutoinists make the claim of second law to be applicable only for a closed system, and not an open one–like earth, but the arguments fall short of describing the mechanism of a machine/system that would create Order from Disorder. It is almost starting to sound pedantic, so I will leave it at that.
Holy texts speak in stories and simple analogies so the uneducated masses can grasp it. But even simpleton-speak does not mean God could not have created man and his other creations through evolution. There is substantial evidence of most all species developing over hundreds of millions of years.
*. The is proponderance of evidence that tells us that evolution is a reality... *
Actually no. This is what the common man is fooled into thinking. If you're a scientist, you know that evolution is still just a theory. To make a theory into a law or a certainty, you need a lot more proof than just some fossils, buddy.
Therefore, since its just a theory, just give it a rest people. So the Quran doesn't explicitly describe the theory. So what? Let the theory exist, and let people continue searching for the answers to their question. Let them earn their research dollars and have their cup of chai, if you will.
Biological evolution is a fact. It is a fact that the earth is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for about half of that time and that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. While the process of human evolution described by Darwin is a theory, biological evolution on earth is accepted by scientists as fact.
I'm talking about human evolution, as in we evolved from some common ape-like ancestor. Isn't that what this thread is about?
There are two different types of evolution. Macro-evolution, as I've described with the apes. And Micro-evolution. Micro-evolution has been demonstrated in controlled experiments. It works fine where the turnover rate is high and generation span is low and where fecundity is high. Like a population of bacteria for instance.
However, macro-evolution is the one that is always under debate, since it applies to our origins as a species. That is a THEORY, not a fact.