Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^that's exactly how i feel about your and diwanabees posts in here ;)
Peace philosophy
Do you even know why I am laughing?
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
peace.
no.
peace.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
peace.
no.
peace.
I thought as much ... His figures were wrong that is why ... Just because someone agrees with Creationism it does not mean that I will naturally ignore their false claims ... I will scrutinise any claims 'scientifically' in an unbiased way ... and I laughed because he stated with a lot of authority yet there were at least two major problems with his post. I wasn't laughing to ridicule him, it was more of a gesture of disbelief.
I hope that you see I am not biased about this topic of evolution at all ... All it takes is a bit of clear thinking ... We cannot say where new creatures come from (Do they magically appear? Come out of water? Out of the Ground? - Or from other creatures?) As scientists we can't say - since we have not seen it happen yet ... However if we see it then I'll accept it.
As a Muslim I have no need to think that one creature comes from another is any less remarkable than a magical appearance - For God both are equally possible ... Since scripture mentions something which sounds more like unique Creation instead of derived creation - or evolution then I currently side with creation ... there is nothing ridiculous about this position. The idea that evolutionists want to suggest is that it is easier to argue one creature comes from another - but when genetics is considered they realise how miraculous that would be as well.
The attempt is to give a rational explanation to everything ... my understanding is that it would be a difficult task to achieve without making assumption upon assumption in which case the whole basis of finding a rational explanation is compromised because there are so many assumptions that it loses tangibility and relegates itself to being a belief.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Its all very eloquent brother psych, but im sorry, I dont see anything in all that which I or anyone else could consider to be the smoking gun. Many religous people
point at trees and dirt and claim its all miraculous and proof of god. I look at these and think of a myriad explanations for these things besides god.
And I dont know which prophesies u are refering too. Somehow I seemd
to have missed them. And we know why objects of mass produce gravity, its bcs they distort the space around them.
And yes I suppose one could consider the koran itself a miracle, but so could oe consider the young prodigy mozart composing his first concerto when most others his age could barely tie their shoes. And sure its a blessing and a sort of miracle to have the prophets pbuh resting place to,this day, but then we also still have the remains of king tut, ramses, etc aswell, and they were around nearly 3000 yrs before the prophet pbuh.
Now I dont want to sound dismisive, but we really need to be honest with ourselves.
Personally I dont claim to have any evdence, nor do I claim Islam is a certainty. I adhere to the belief that one should believe for the sake of belief, ever heard of pascals gambit?
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Your smart enough to know how blatantly stupid these statement are… Nothing from nothing, and belly buttons… I honestly thought this sort of self deluded bs was confined to
To rt wing christians. Its disappointing to hear the same sort of cut and paste rhetoric frm Muslims.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Its all very eloquent brother psych, but im sorry, I dont see anything in all that which I or anyone else could consider to be the smoking gun. Many religous people point at trees and dirt and claim its all miraculous and proof of god. I look at these and think of a myriad explanations for these things besides god. And I dont know which prophesies u are refering too. Somehow I seemd to have missed them. And we know why objects of mass produce gravity, its bcs they distort the space around them. And yes I suppose one could consider the koran itself a miracle, but so could oe consider the young prodigy mozart composing his first concerto when most others his age could barely tie their shoes. And sure its a blessing and a sort of miracle to have the prophets pbuh resting place to,this day, but then we also still have the remains of king tut, ramses, etc aswell, and they were around nearly 3000 yrs before the prophet pbuh.
Now I dont want to sound dismisive, but we really need to be honest with ourselves. Personally I dont claim to have any evdence, nor do I claim Islam is a certainty. I adhere to the belief that one should believe for the sake of belief, ever heard of pascals gambit?
Peace Med911
Talk about mixing up my response for "proof" and my response for "miracle" ... I never claimed that the burial chamber of RasoolAllah (SAW) was a miracle !!! I said that it is the evidence we have ... just like if we analyse the Qur'an for truth we will have evidence ... A miracle is evidence of one kind only ... The Qur'an is a subtle miracle, but it transpires through time that other miracles do not - i.e. they are event based. To compare Mozart with the Qur'an is ludicrous ... The Qur'an is the corpus for Islam it's miraculous nature points as evidence to the authenticity of its message ... Mozart being a prodigy is an arbitary thing, that Muslims will see is the power of God and Atheists will see as a natural variance in humans ... the same cannot be applied to the Qur'an. Besides amazing things happen all of the time, but they are not miracles ... a miracle is when a law of nature breaks ... it is not a predictable event, it is an irreproducible event, a human can never make a miracle ... I hope you understand this.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Peace Med911
Talk about mixing up my response for "proof" and my response for "miracle" ... I never claimed that the burial chamber of RasoolAllah (SAW) was a miracle !!! I said that it is the evidence we have ... just like if we analyse the Qur'an for truth we will have evidence ... A miracle is evidence of one kind only ... The Qur'an is a subtle miracle, but it transpires through time that other miracles do not - i.e. they are event based. To compare Mozart with the Qur'an is ludicrous ... The Qur'an is the corpus for Islam it's miraculous nature points as evidence to the authenticity of its message ... Mozart being a prodigy is an arbitary thing, that Muslims will see is the power of God and Atheists will see as a natural variance in humans ... the same cannot be applied to the Qur'an. Besides amazing things happen all of the time, but they are not miracles ... a miracle is when a law of nature breaks ... it is not a predictable event, it is an irreproducible event, a human can never make a miracle ... I hope you understand this.
The burial chamber is evidence of what, the authenticity of Islam? If that's the case, then the burial chamber of king tut should be evidence of the authentication of the ancient Egyptian religion. I dont see how Mozarts is ludicrous. The only difference I see is that we assume the Koran is divine, while Mozart is not. If Mozart had started a religion, we would have considered him a miracle. Had the RasoolAllah (SAW) wrote a major symphony at age 8, you would have used that as evidence of his authenticity as well.
Mozarts talent may well be a demonstration of the power of God or a natural variation, but you I assume take the extraordinary leap to conclude that it most definitely was an act of God, and not just any God, but God as portrayed in Islam. The belief that Mozart's talent was a demonstration of Gods power is just an assumption, its not based on any amount of evidence. And in the same sense, the Koran itself, cannot be proven to be thee evidence to support the existence of God or the validity of Islam. Just as an Atheist could assume Mozarts is a natural variance, so could they say of RasoolAllah (SAW), and the Koran. The Koran in and of itself does not break any laws of nature. And as far as I can tell, there has been nothing so extraordinary in the history of Islam so as to lead us to believe that any law of nature has ever been broken. Yes we have second and third hand accounts, but these alone, you know as well as I are not evidence to make definitive conclusions. My point is, it may well be true, and Islam may well be the true relgion but where you see certainty, I see nothing more then extraordinary events, that could have played out with or without a God.
And going back to the topic of evidence, for the sake of argument, forget that evolution is a science, and religion a faith, lets put evolution and your faith on the same pedestal. Why do second or third person narratives constitute irrefutable evidence in the case of your relgion, but not in the case of evolution? I understand your point on they being opposite ends of the spectrum and not confusing the two. But just for sake of argument. Lets for a moment, understand them to be just two beliefs, without any prejudice.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
The burial chamber is evidence of what, the authenticity of Islam? If that's the case, then the burial chamber of king tut should be evidence of the authentication of the ancient Egyptian religion. I dont see how Mozarts is ludicrous. The only difference I see is that we assume the Koran is divine, while Mozart is not. If Mozart had started a religion, we would have considered him a miracle. Had the RasoolAllah (SAW) wrote a major symphony at age 8, you would have used that as evidence of his authenticity as well. Mozarts talent may well be a demonstration of the power of God or a natural variation, but you I assume take the extraordinary leap to conclude that it most definitely was an act of God, and not just any God, but God as portrayed in Islam. The belief that Mozart's talent was a demonstration of Gods power is just an assumption, its not based on any amount of evidence. And in the same sense, the Koran itself, cannot be proven to be thee evidence to support the existence of God or the validity of Islam. Just as an Atheist could assume Mozarts is a natural variance, so could they say of RasoolAllah (SAW), and the Koran. The Koran in and of itself does not break any laws of nature. And as far as I can tell, there has been nothing so extraordinary in the history of Islam so as to lead us to believe that any law of nature has ever been broken. Yes we have second and third hand accounts, but these alone, you know as well as I are not evidence to make definitive conclusions. My point is, it may well be true, and Islam may well be the true relgion but where you see certainty, I see nothing more then extraordinary events, that could have played out with or without a God.
And going back to the topic of evidence, for the sake of argument, forget that evolution is a science, and religion a faith, lets put evolution and your faith on the same pedestal. Why do second or third person narratives constitute irrefutable evidence in the case of your relgion, but not in the case of evolution?
I'm talking about evidence not proof ... stop playing games Med911 ... Let's look at your post from the beginning.
The burial chamber is proof of the existence of Muhammad (SAW) - I'm not making huge leaps here many persons from the Bible are denied by people that they even existed because there is no body. So you are mistaken if you think I'm saying that the existence of a body means proof of Islam ... However proof of the body of the prophet of Islam has a bearing as "evidence" for Islam's authenticity ... yes it does, not that I'm saying it bears on the message of Islam as true just that Islam was brought to us by a person whose body (SAW) we have with us today. Some people will object to this being the body we have documented evidence to show this is the case ... fully scientifically ratifable documentation. I'm not at the stage claiming evidence for the truth of Islam.
Next ... we have documentation on the narratives of what was said and what happened mass transmitted - scientifically this is called authentic reporting. When multiple sources agree on the occurrence of something it is taken as strong evidence for that occurrence. We have strong evidence that miracles happened because multiple sources saw them. We can prove the multiple sources through the narrations and their chains.
Now we can say that we have evidence that Muhammad (SAW) existed and that his message is in tact and what he said we can say with considerable evidence that it was him (SAW) who did indeed say it. So we have the Qur'an that has been brought to us in accordance with the transmission process ... we can say that the text of the Qur'an is as per revelation. We can say that revelation occurred we can say that a stone spoke, trees bowed and fire failed to even inflict pain on a person let alone burn them. We can say that Surah Rum was revealed before the Rome came back to defeat the Persian pagans. This Surah foretold that it would happen in a number of years and it did. We can say that Muhamamd (SAW) was truthful and never lied ... we can say that the Sahabah saw Jibreel (AS) in the form of a man. We can say that the birds ababeel flocked together with small pebbles in their beaks and dropped them on the elephant battalion destroying them.
This is all evidence for the truth of Islam ... not proof ... however each piece of evidence has to be in itself provable ... so it is evidence when an authentic reference states that Muhammad (SAW) was truthful and then if Muhammad (SAW) says Allah (SWT) Exists and that he is a prophet of Allah (SWT) then we believe that based on the authenticated statement that he (SAW) was trustworthy and truthful.
The King tut thing that you present ... well it could mean a lot of things but it doesn't measure up ... there are no extensive multiple narrated records, a few at the most ... these are not in an unbroken chain of transmission either, however since the writings about him are in themselves scientifically historic then we can conclude they existed at the same time and hence are about him ... using evidence about his description and cross-referencing it on the body. Whether the pagan religion existed is based on the interpretation of the Egyptologist ... there is no legacy of the religion that has been passed on to successors.
Mozarts ability is a sign for the existence of God, because it is out of the ordinary and it is hard to concieve that he learnt his things as any other child would ... in fact he is called a prodigy for that reason ... science cannot explain how he was so good. However it is different to the Qur'an due to the status of the Word of God revelaed directly to the heart of Muhammad (SAW) there is a claim that goes alongside the scripture which is that it is from God ... but also it is stil statistically viable that every now and again some people will be good a various things that outclass the best of their times ... Not with scripture! These sort of things do not happen on a statistical basis.
Moreover the authenticity of Muhammad (SAW) also stems from his lineage being in the family of Ismail (AS) linking him to the family line of prophets ... which is also documented authentically.
Another thing that the fossil records lack is true insight of the day - there is no "documentation" to say what happened ... it is merely a line in the sand ... we are totally subject to the interpretations of the archaeologist as we are in the case of King Tut ...
If evolution was to be brought up to par with Islamic evidence then it would need to have reports written by scientists thousands of years ago who were themselves knowledgeable about genetics and their written words would tell us that such and such an animal gave birth to a slight variant and so on through the years to see that it had become something different. Even then it would not be proof - it would be evidence up to par with Islam.
Neither evolution nor Islam has proof - for Islam that would defeat the purpose of faith so it is plus plus for Islam, but for evolution the lack of proof is a major problem, the level of evidence in Islam about its message outwieghs the evidence for evolution about its mechanism. Yet, evolution is spread as if it is scientific.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
I thought as much ... His figures were wrong that is why ... Just because someone agrees with Creationism it does not mean that I will naturally ignore their false claims ... I will scrutinise any claims 'scientifically' in an unbiased way ... and I laughed because he stated with a lot of authority yet there were at least two major problems with his post. I wasn't laughing to ridicule him, it was more of a gesture of disbelief.
How did you conclude the probability of life happening by spontaneous from inanimate matter which is one to a number with 40,000 zero's (i.e whch means it is impossible even to the craziest scientist) is incorrect?
Instead of laughing get your calculator out refute the probability equation.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
How did you conclude the probability of life happening by spontaneous from inanimate matter which is one to a number with 40,000 zero's (i.e whch means it is impossible even to the craziest scientist) is incorrect?
Instead of laughing get your calculator out refute the probability equation.
Peace bro javedmiandad
This is what you wrote
[quote]
what is probaility of evolution happening it is 10(40000)i.e 1 to a number which has 40,000 zero's after it can you even imagine such a number you will need a computer to get to that number.
[/quote]
You wrote that the probability of "evolution happening" (whatever that means) is 10 times 40000 written like this 10(40000) ... then you said that this expression is equivalent to "1 to a number which has 40,000 zero's" - 1 to the power of any number remains 1. What you meant to have written was 10 to a number which has 40,000 zero's ... since 10 has 1 zero, 100 has 2 zeros, 1000 has 3 zeros then we can say that ... since 10 ^ 0 = 1 then 10^1 = 10 and 10^2 = 100 and so we have
10^30 = 1000000000000000000000000000000
so really you are saying 10^40,000 - but it is not that at all ... you are supposed to say there is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 which translates to
1/(10^(40,000)) which is the correct way to write it and say it.
Perhaps you came to this number using the number of possible iterations of different arrangements of a DNA or RNA molecule and that was not explained ...
The part I found funny however was when you said you will need a computer to get to that number. I was not disagreeing with you I was just troubled by the quality of the response.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
As for the evolutionary theory Darwin was not the first or the last but the idea that humans are from Monkeys just doesn't make sense...
Heres something I cant understand... civilistation seems to have stemmed from the Middle Eastern deserts right? The Horse and the Dog as we know them appeared through Desert landscapes... as did the first human on earth... literally everything seems to have popped out of the desert at least if you follow the blood trail.
So in a place where there are hardly any trees where the hell did monkeys become humans...?
To me it makes hardly any sense... Sure if we all popped out of Africa after the last Ice Age how does anyone explain why the first humans appear not in forests as you would imagine but in wastelands much further North?
Please note that I am not endorsing theory of evolution.. but just to put the things in right prospective..
According to the theory humans are not decedents of monkeys.. they share common ancestors.. todays monkeys are also evolved.. but in a different way to humans..
Our planet is 4 billion years old. The first life form on the planet was a form of bacteria which could survive in high temperatures some three billion years ago. According to this theory every form of life as we see on earth today has evolved from these common ancestors. Dogs, horses, and humans came much later.. and they did not appear in the desert. geological time scale is much longer than ice ages and other natural changes which have occurred on our planet. Life evolved through natural selection and by chance mutation of genes..
Einstein was opposed to this theory.. he was a creationist but not in religious terms. His logic was that the laws of nature are so precise that it can not be by chance. He observed that speed of light, gravitational force, and other forces are very precise and accurate and can be mathematically calculated with no deviation. Therefore he concluded that this universe must be the creation of an extremely intelligent being.. who created a very intelligent design..
So this is actually ID (Intelligent Design) theory versus Evolution Theory.. both sides have strong arguments.. in scientific terms..
At present due to limited human capabilities we can not prove beyond any shadow of doubt any of these theories.. at least scientifically..!!!
Even the fossils available to us are not significant on geological time scale..
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Please note that I am not endorsing theory of evolution.. but just to put the things in right prospective..
According to the theory humans are not decedents of monkeys.. they share common ancestors.. todays monkeys are also evolved.. but in a different way to humans..
Our planet is 4 billion years old. The first life form on the planet was a form of bacteria which could survive in high temperatures some three billion years ago. According to this theory every form of life as we see on earth today has evolved from these common ancestors. Dogs, horses, and humans came much later.. and they did not appear in the desert. geological time scale is much longer than ice ages and other natural changes which have occurred on our planet. Life evolved through natural selection and by chance mutation of genes..
Einstein was opposed to this theory.. he was a creationist but not in religious terms. His logic was that the laws of nature are so precise that it can not be by chance. He observed that speed of light, gravitational force, and other forces are very precise and accurate and can be mathematically calculated with no deviation. Therefore he concluded that this universe must be the creation of an extremely intelligent being.. who created a very intelligent design..
So this is actually ID (Intelligent Design) theory versus Evolution Theory.. both sides have strong arguments.. in scientific terms..
At present due to limited human capabilities we can not prove beyond any shadow of doubt any of these theories.. at least scientifically..!!!
Even the fossils available to us are not significant on geological time scale..
Peace yazdi
On one hand you say that Einstein was creationist and on the other you say that he was a supporter of intelligent design - (or evolution by God) ...
However you have helped realise one important thing ... if evolutionists were true to their trade they would except "intelligent design" as a possible reality. The reason they do not is because it presupposes Deity and their whole attempt of presenting evolution to the masses is to infer the opposite of the existence of Deity.
For me it is not a matter of ID vs Neo-Darwinian evolution - you might as well call it (Theistic evolution vs Atheistic evolution) ... it is about the idea of evolution itself. There is simply not enough evidence for it yet - intelligent or otherwise. It is not to say there is enough evidence of Creation either ... but I'm obliged to believe the latter due to the fact that my beliefs are based on Islamic scripture which can only be contextualised when the contextual information is available.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Peace bro javedmiandad
This is what you wrote
You wrote that the probability of "evolution happening" (whatever that means) is 10 times 40000 written like this 10(40000) ... then you said that this expression is equivalent to "1 to a number which has 40,000 zero's" - 1 to the power of any number remains 1. What you meant to have written was 10 to a number which has 40,000 zero's ... since 10 has 1 zero, 100 has 2 zeros, 1000 has 3 zeros then we can say that ... since 10 ^ 0 = 1 then 10^1 = 10 and 10^2 = 100 and so we have
10^30 = 1000000000000000000000000000000
so really you are saying 10^40,000 - but it is not that at all ... you are supposed to say there is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 which translates to
1/(10^(40,000)) which is the correct way to write it and say it.
Perhaps you came to this number using the number of possible iterations of different arrangements of a DNA or RNA molecule and that was not explained ...
The part I found funny however was when you said you will need a computer to get to that number. I was not disagreeing with you I was just troubled by the quality of the response.
sorry yaar your english explanation is better than mine clearly :)
but you acknowledge the point : 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 probability of life happening spontaneously from inanimate matter how can people who claim to defend evolution accept such ridiculous odds. They will mock anyone who refuses to belive evolution theory but when posed with these numbers they feel the fools then!
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Peace yazdi
On one hand you say that Einstein was creationist and on the other you say that he was a supporter of intelligent design - (or evolution by God) ...
In the Scientific communities word "creationist" is used for a person who believes that a creator has created the Universe and the life.. hence the use of word creationist for Einstein..
Einstein was a creationist who believed in a supreme all intelligent Creator.. although he did not believe in a theocratic God who is concerned with the morals and aims of human beings.. Einstein's concept of a Creator can be understood from his following quote:
" I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."..
He did not believe in any sort of evolution.. by God or natural selection..
The difference between a creationist and evolutionist is that the former believes the presence of Intelligence from the beginning .. while an evolutionist believes that intelligence comes after the evolution.. and ultimate intelligence will come at the end of hypothetical end of evolution..
[quote]
However you have helped realise one important thing ... if evolutionists were true to their trade they would except "intelligent design" as a possible reality. The reason they do not is because it presupposes Deity and their whole attempt of presenting evolution to the masses is to infer the opposite of the existence of Deity.
[/quote]
Richard Dawkins is the most vocal advocate of evolution in present times.. Even he describes himself as agnostic with only 70% tilt towards evolution. I heard one of the his lectures on TED in which he described his agnostic orientation. If you want I can search that lecture for you, although it will be a little time consuming for me because there are I think a million youtubes related to Dawkins..
[quote]
For me it is not a matter of ID vs Neo-Darwinian evolution - you might as well call it (Theistic evolution vs Atheistic evolution) ... it is about the idea of evolution itself. There is simply not enough evidence for it yet - intelligent or otherwise. It is not to say there is enough evidence of Creation either
[/quote]
We know for sure now that life existed on our planet much before the human being evolved or arrived here. Although we do not have a complete chronological record of fossils from the species.. but we know for sure that species come and eventually become extinct on our planet. Even bacterias and simple micro organism which existed billions of years ago are extinct and new form of species populate our planet today. Taking bacterial fossils from deep ice layers and radioactive dating of these fossils have given us a lot of insight on the life forms which existed a long time ago. Even these are insignificant on geological time scale. So basically we have no way of knowing with 100% certainty about how the evolution occurred. It is just assumed by evolutionist that because of the changes which have occurred over the years in life form.. evolution must have occurred..
[quote]
... but I'm obliged to believe the latter due to the fact that my beliefs are based on Islamic scripture which can only be contextualised when the contextual information is available.
[/QUOTE]
My take on this is more in line with Dr. Israr than Zakir Naik.. I differ with Dr. Israr on a lot of things.. but agree with him when he said "Scriptures are not books of Science.. They should be read as spiritual guidance, and one should not take them in literal sense as far as Science is concerned."..
While Naik is all the time trying to take out scientific explanations from Quran like a magician. He twists and changes the meanings to suit his showmanship. He would tell you that Quran said 7 heavens, thus explaining seven layers of earth's atmosphere 1400 years ago.. but deliberately omits the next Ayah in which Quran says all the stars are present in the first heaven. He would tell you that Quran predicted moon to be borrowed light by calling it noor.. but deliberately omits the fact that Allah called himself Noor in Quran..
I am more at peace with myself after I have stopped taking scriptures as books of Science. I don't believe Scriptures are against Scientific research or discourage you to study/discuss the Sciences with an open mind..
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
In the Scientific communities word "creationist" is used for a person who believes that a creator has created the Universe and the life.. hence the use of word creationist for Einstein..
Einstein was a creationist who believed in a supreme all intelligent Creator.. although he did not believe in a theocratic God who is concerned with the morals and aims of human beings.. Einstein's concept of a Creator can be understood from his following quote:
" I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."..
He did not believe in any sort of evolution.. by God or natural selection..
Richard Dawkins is the most vocal advocate of evolution in present times.. Even he describes himself as agnostic with only 70% tilt towards evolution. I heard one of the his lectures on TED in which he described his agnostic orientation. If you want I can search that lecture for you, although it will be a little time consuming for me because there are I think a million youtubes related to Dawkins..
We know for sure now that life existed on our planet much before the human being evolved or arrived here. Although we do not have a complete chronological record of fossils from the species.. but we know for sure that species come and eventually become extinct on our planet. Even bacterias and simple micro organism which existed billions of years ago are extinct and new form of species populate our planet today. Taking bacterial fossils from deep ice layers and radioactive dating of these fossils have given us a lot of insight on the life forms which existed a long time ago. Even these are insignificant on geological time scale. So basically we have no way of knowing with 100% certainty about how the evolution occurred. It is just assumed by evolutionist that because of the changes which have occurred over the years in life form.. evolution must have occurred..
My take on this is more in line with Dr. Israr than Zakir Naik.. I differ with Dr. Israr on a lot of things.. but agree with him when he said "Scriptures are not books of Science.. They should be read as spiritual guidance, and one should not take them in literal sense as far as Science is concerned."..
While Naik is all the time trying to take out scientific explanations from Quran like a magician. He twists and changes the meanings to suit his showmanship. He would tell you that Quran said 7 heavens, thus explaining seven layers of earth's atmosphere 1400 years ago.. but deliberately omits the next Ayah in which Quran says all the stars are present in the first heaven. He would tell you that Quran predicted moon to be borrowed light by calling it noor.. but deliberately omits the fact that Allah called himself Noor in Quran..
I am more at peace with myself after I have stopped taking scriptures as books of Science. I don't believe Scriptures are against Scientific research or discourage you to study/discuss the Sciences with an open mind..
SubhanAllah yazdi
That is great response and one to which I agree ... it seems that we are in violent agreement, which is that we can't conclusively say whether evolution occurs or does not occur ...
Also I agree with the idea that Qur'an is a book of guidance and not a book of science ... however I also hold that Qur'an will resonate truths beyond the immeidate wisdom of humans that we can stumble across in time. For example I believe there to be a better explanation than what Dr Naik gave regarding the 7 heavens ... and this is in the idea of systems in space that are beyond the visible stars. I also hold that where a reference is intended to be "literal" then it will never conflict with scientific facts and where a reference in the Qur'an is not meant to be "literal" which is usually in where analogies are used then a different set of rules should be employed ...
I view the Qur'an as a miracle and for it to be a miracle it has to be perfect - my tools to view it however are not always good enough.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
I'm talking about evidence not proof ... stop playing games Med911 ... Let's look at your post from the beginning.
The burial chamber is proof of the existence of Muhammad (SAW) - I'm not making huge leaps here many persons from the Bible are denied by people that they even existed because there is no body. So you are mistaken if you think I'm saying that the existence of a body means proof of Islam ... However proof of the body of the prophet of Islam has a bearing as "evidence" for Islam's authenticity ... yes it does, not that I'm saying it bears on the message of Islam as true just that Islam was brought to us by a person whose body (SAW) we have with us today. Some people will object to this being the body we have documented evidence to show this is the case ... fully scientifically ratifable documentation. I'm not at the stage claiming evidence for the truth of Islam.
Next ... we have documentation on the narratives of what was said and what happened mass transmitted - scientifically this is called authentic reporting. When multiple sources agree on the occurrence of something it is taken as strong evidence for that occurrence. We have strong evidence that miracles happened because multiple sources saw them. We can prove the multiple sources through the narrations and their chains.
Now we can say that we have evidence that Muhammad (SAW) existed and that his message is in tact and what he said we can say with considerable evidence that it was him (SAW) who did indeed say it. So we have the Qur'an that has been brought to us in accordance with the transmission process ... we can say that the text of the Qur'an is as per revelation. We can say that revelation occurred we can say that a stone spoke, trees bowed and fire failed to even inflict pain on a person let alone burn them. We can say that Surah Rum was revealed before the Rome came back to defeat the Persian pagans. This Surah foretold that it would happen in a number of years and it did. We can say that Muhamamd (SAW) was truthful and never lied ... we can say that the Sahabah saw Jibreel (AS) in the form of a man. We can say that the birds ababeel flocked together with small pebbles in their beaks and dropped them on the elephant battalion destroying them.
This is all evidence for the truth of Islam ... not proof ... however each piece of evidence has to be in itself provable ... so it is evidence when an authentic reference states that Muhammad (SAW) was truthful and then if Muhammad (SAW) says Allah (SWT) Exists and that he is a prophet of Allah (SWT) then we believe that based on the authenticated statement that he (SAW) was trustworthy and truthful.
The King tut thing that you present ... well it could mean a lot of things but it doesn't measure up ... there are no extensive multiple narrated records, a few at the most ... these are not in an unbroken chain of transmission either, however since the writings about him are in themselves scientifically historic then we can conclude they existed at the same time and hence are about him ... using evidence about his description and cross-referencing it on the body. Whether the pagan religion existed is based on the interpretation of the Egyptologist ... there is no legacy of the religion that has been passed on to successors.
Mozarts ability is a sign for the existence of God, because it is out of the ordinary and it is hard to concieve that he learnt his things as any other child would ... in fact he is called a prodigy for that reason ... science cannot explain how he was so good. However it is different to the Qur'an due to the status of the Word of God revelaed directly to the heart of Muhammad (SAW) there is a claim that goes alongside the scripture which is that it is from God ... but also it is stil statistically viable that every now and again some people will be good a various things that outclass the best of their times ... Not with scripture! These sort of things do not happen on a statistical basis.
Moreover the authenticity of Muhammad (SAW) also stems from his lineage being in the family of Ismail (AS) linking him to the family line of prophets ... which is also documented authentically.
Another thing that the fossil records lack is true insight of the day - there is no "documentation" to say what happened ... it is merely a line in the sand ... we are totally subject to the interpretations of the archaeologist as we are in the case of King Tut ...
If evolution was to be brought up to par with Islamic evidence then it would need to have reports written by scientists thousands of years ago who were themselves knowledgeable about genetics and their written words would tell us that such and such an animal gave birth to a slight variant and so on through the years to see that it had become something different. Even then it would not be proof - it would be evidence up to par with Islam.
Neither evolution nor Islam has proof - for Islam that would defeat the purpose of faith so it is plus plus for Islam, but for evolution the lack of proof is a major problem, the level of evidence in Islam about its message outwieghs the evidence for evolution about its mechanism. Yet, evolution is spread as if it is scientific.
I could give yu a point by point response, but my intention isnt to try to refute Islam or God.
Let me simply state this clearly. You have two beliefs. Both claim to have evidence of their validity.
You claimed to believe your faith is irrefutable and backed up by genuine evidence. Evolution claims the same.
You say you have evidence tp point you in the direction of believing that you faith is a valid truth. Your conclusion is inferred from evidence you provided. This evidence can be interpreted in a multiple number of way, yet you conclude it is evidence to validate you beliefs.
The evidence of Evolution, however, you dismiss. The evidence may be up to par with Islam in your estimation, something I definitely don't agree with, but leaving that aside, you choose to believe in the validity of your faith, but question Evolution.
Also, you give me evidence, and conclude that this evidence is not proof, but does point in the direction of validating you faith. That means that as far as your concerned, the propnderance of evidence, means there is a high probability, nearly 100 percent probability in your mind, of the truth of your belief. Now I gave you evidence of evolution, I said the same thing, that this evidence is pointing in the direction of validating evolution. That given the preponderance of evidence, there is a very high probability of evolution being fact. To this you became extremely indignant and asked for an exact probability because its apparently your day job. Yet here you are using more or less the same argument, except in this case, the conclusion suits your own ends. Drawing any conclusion based on the solid evidence in the case of evolution is simply conjecture , but concluding that your faith is real based on what you claim is evidence is logical?!?!
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
I could give yu a point by point response, but my intention isnt to try to refute Islam or God.
Let me simply state this clearly. You have two beliefs. Both claim to have evidence of their validity. You claimed to believe your faith is irrefutable and backed up by genuine evidence. Evolution claims the same. You say you have evidence tp point you in the direction of believing that you faith is a valid truth. Your conclusion is inferred from evidence you provided. This evidence can be interpreted in a multiple number of way, yet you conclude it is evidence to validate you beliefs. The evidence of Evolution, however, you dismiss. The evidence may be up to par with Islam in your estimation, something I definitely don't agree with, but leaving that aside, you choose to believe in the validity of your faith, but question Evolution.
Also, you give me evidence, and conclude that this evidence is not proof, but does point in the direction of validating you faith. That means that as far as your concerned, the propnderance of evidence, means there is a high probability, nearly 100 percent probability in your mind, of the truth of your belief. Now I gave you evidence of evolution, I said the same thing, that this evidence is pointing in the direction of validating evolution. That given the preponderance of evidence, there is a very high probability of evolution being fact. To this you became extremely indignant and asked for an exact probability because its apparently your day job. Yet here you are using more or less the same argument, except in this case, the conclusion suits your own ends. Drawing any conclusion based on the solid evidence in the case of evolution is simply conjecture , but concluding that your faith is real based on what you claim is evidence is logical?!?!
Peace Med911
Yes I think you are getting the true picture now ... I am doing entirely that ... To clarify on a few points ... Islam is refutable (as can be seen by the many non-Muslims) but not so using sound thought and logic ... the same applies with evolution. We can't prove or disprove evolution until someone either witnesses "creation" in the making or "evolution" in the making.
However Islam is a belief system and the scripture is guidance and talks of itself as providing signs ... it never claims to provide certainty of sight ... a good scientific theory on the other hand should do so ... at least it needs to be falsifiable ... In some aspects Islam does provide this level of assurance - i.e. by providing falsification tests ... for example by stating that it is by God, and to demonstrate that no human will be able to come with verses like it. Evolution theorists would never dear to provide us with something on par with that.
Another thing that Islam dominates evolution over is the moral aspect and for me morality is a form of evidence ... because I believe in a Creator who has established the law for those who have choice to be one of moral fibre ... I can't see that in evolution, which then undermines the concept of a Creator who I would say is Compassionate and Merciful. Then I have a basis for my belief which is scripture - the nature of scripture itself is miraculous then it provides justification that the content in such miraculous words would be true. However where a theory develops through many years, making many u-turns and behaves very self-sympathetically and apologetically and goes through many persons - top minds in fact - merely to be just another belief - yes - I do expect more from it and evolution does claim to provide more than guidance it aims to be providing the actual answer to our existence without use of metaphor or symbolism it does not appeal to emotion and hence needs to stand its ground - it has to be measurable and testable, whereas Islam does not.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^^^
Thanks for sharing.. superb video..!!!
It clearly points out what I stated in my earlier post..
Science has a problem with literal Biblicans or I would say literal religious.. (See minute 30 onwards)
Religion and Science can coexist if we stop treating the scriptures as books of science, politics, governance etc..
Evolution is a strong possibility.. and has no conflict with religious scriptures.. unless we start taking these books in literal sense..
Same is true for cosmology and many other sciences..
Quran was not written for some next generation human beings which we can not understand due to our limited capabilities. It was never meant to teach you sciences. We should understand the true essence of the book which is moral and spiritual guidance.. We should separate religion from sciences and politics for the sake of religion..!!!
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Quran was not written for some next generation human beings which we can not understand due to our limited capabilities. It was never meant to teach you sciences. We should understand the true essence of the book which is moral and spiritual guidance.. We should separate religion from sciences and politics for the sake of religion..!!!
Peace yazdi
Right Allah (SWT) said He made Adam from Dust/Clay ... how do we take that? What guidance is there in that statement? Trust me we cannot relegate the whole of Divine Scripture to nothing but wise words that do not carry literal significance ... there is a miracle in the concept "Adam from dust" and we need to reflect on it to discover it.
It is a misnoma that "next generation human beings" is who the Qur'an is meant for - because this implies that humans are evolving in to smarter beings ... that is not true. We are just building on previous knowledge. The smarts are the same. As technology unveils new things to us so the Qur'an can be viewed with those new things in a light that was previously not understood in the same way. Note: I didn't say that it was not understood - simply not in the same way. The miracle in the Qur'an is that upon each new technological step change the Qur'an itself remains relevant and its Words do not need to change.
Some people see this as trying to make the Qur'an in to a science text book ... that is not the case ... we are showing to ourselves that Qur'an stands the test of time - it remains relevant in all ages and cannot be proven false.
For example humans thought that the sun went around the Earth, the verse that states the sun is in a fixed course makes sense to this understanding, then later we said that the Earth goes around the sun so we said the meaning was from the viewers perspective, next we learnt that the sun is travelling around our galaxy and then realise again that the verse is better than any description because "having a fixed course" both omits the information that pins down which course we are talking about - perception or actual around galaxy or perhaps another or a combination of them and yet it provides enough information to be meaningful. This is not only perfect for our needs but when viewed scientifically i.e. linguistically the Qur'an cannot be faulted. Much of the Qur'an is in this way ...
The problem in the video I have is that they have taken the Bible - it's the easy target - I would like them to take the same approach with the Qur'an.
I think where we differ is that you will readily accept a scientific theory if it is supported in the community without much evidence and I on the other hand take reservation to any theory unless it has testable evidence. Both of us agree that religion and science are separate albeit in subtly different ways ... No scientific law, theory or otherwise established fact can be both "true" and in contradiction with the Qur'an - not literally not metaphorically. I don't think you accept that about the Qur'an - may be I am wrong about what you think.