Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Peace yazdi
It is fine with me if you want to start another thread … please start another thread in science … there are a few rules that I would like to agree with you here though … Firstly let’s look at my previous post and your previous post … this is to demonstrate that you are not taking in what I am saying.
As you can see I have presented evolution and treated it as **a possibility **… you on the other hand said it was a likelihood and then changed your words to possibility afterwards … however you want me to argue that it is impossible. I don’t want to argue that it is impossible, because I already know the outcome of that approach, besides I will only argue that it is not correct on religious grounds, not on scientific grounds. Even then I will not be able to show you it is impossible because you have not provided me a falsification test … the parameters of which can be agreed by both parties …
Time and again I told you that a good scientific theory needs to have a falsification test - in other words there needs to be some sort of experiment the results of which will concur with the hypothesis or contradict the hypothesis in such a manner that it will either prove or disprove the basic theory. If you provide this test to me then I’ll see if I can prove evolution to be impossible. Until then evolution is a belief that can be true or false (note - I am saying it is possible, but yet unscientific - unscientific because it cannot be pinned down by a falsification test).
Rather on the other hand faith is not baseless without evidence just like evolution there are signs that point to the possible truth of core belief or theory … so by showing me that evolution is not without evidence it will not set it apart from a belief, not for me, because I hold that beliefs do have evidence as well. By preventing me from talking about faith you will be able to say what you like about faith - but I’m questioning everything here …
If you want to take up a scientific discussion … you will need to do it this way or not at all …
You argue for evolution and provide evidence and in turn I’ll argue for another possible explanation to each piece of evidence that you present. Then you will examine my explanation and show why it is less favourable than the evolutionary one or concede to it being more favourable. The conclusion of each point will be one these scores:
evolution favouring
evolution hindering
or neutral.
Additonally we will need to agree what level of evidence is strong and what level is weak …
**For me:
**To witness an event is strong evidence
To demonstrate or recreate an outcome based on conditions that we adjust and control is strong evidence
To have lots of static data but little to no dynamic data is mediocre evidence
To have assertions that appeal to common sense but are without direct evidence are weak
Do you agree with these? If so then please continue …
Note: The attempt to find the truth must be in terms of how we are juxtaposed
You are showing me that evolution is the most likely outcome scientifically - I will attempt to show that we cannot make that assumption. It is merely a diminishing theory that is possible on scientific grounds, but it is only possible because of all the changes it has gone through. Let’s do this and find out.
If on the other hand you wish to only argue for the possibility of evolution then we have no argument - then we are agreed already. Albeit on scientific grounds … the reason why I still reject it is because of religious grounds thereafter - i.e. moral implications and scriptural difficulties.