What are you smoking? Did you even read what I posted? Perhaps you haven’t evolved to comprehend yet?
I believe in evolution. I was commenting on the thread that asked why are muslims against evolution. It’s because Islam (and other abrahmic religions for that matter) are incompatible with theory of evolution.
What you posted is garbage and doesnt even relate to what I was saying. So shut your trap and stop wasting my time.
I don't think you said anything wrong at all ... Sometimes it takes a bit of a re-evaluation by stepping out of a sea of complexity to get a reality check ...
... What are we really doing when we say evolution is not incompatible with Islamic creation ... ??? We are indeed giving support to evolution as a method that we believe is better than simply taking the Qur'an literally ...
Your post basically says pick one OR the other. Why so black and white?
Islam can walk with evolution. Various things in the Quran conform with the definition of evolution. The whole chimps and man debate is old hat. There’s a post in this thread earlier somewhere with a whole lot of Quranic verses that tend towards evolution. You can’t discount that possibility. No Abrahamic religion conforms with evolution? Do enlighten us. Religion is not hard and fast, religion evolves, it provides room to breathe, room to debate and experiment. You’re stuck in your own definition of what religion is which is why you fail to see it.
Eek I posted garbage? You are the one that denies another option. You can’t be a man of science and stick to one definition. Science isn’t proud, it does not suffer from what clergy suffers from. It is humble and it accepts evidence as it comes. So you can leave room for a universe that is created to be chaotic. Read Einstein’s thoughts on that (Planned Chaos). Eye opening.
Your post basically says pick one OR the other. Why so black and white?
Islam can walk with evolution. Various things in the Quran conform with the definition of evolution. The whole chimps and man debate is old hat. There's a post in this thread earlier somewhere with a whole lot of Quranic verses that tend towards evolution. You can't discount that possibility. No Abrahamic religion conforms with evolution? Do enlighten us. Religion is not hard and fast, religion evolves, it provides room to breathe, room to debate and experiment. You're stuck in your own definition of what religion is which is why you fail to see it.
Eek I posted garbage? You are the one that denies another option. You can't be a man of science and stick to one definition. Science isn't proud, it does not suffer from what clergy suffers from. It is humble and it accepts evidence as it comes. So you can leave room for a universe that is created to be chaotic. Read Einstein's thoughts on that (Planned Chaos). Eye opening.
Ugh... Good try with the Multi, buddy.
So were you created by Allah with clay or do you thnk you evolved from an ancestor we shared with chimps? just answer this for me.
My point is, do not discount the possibility of reconciling religion with evolution. You can’t say Abrahamic religions strike off evolution. There’s plenty of room for interpretation if one only expands their minds. But that is true only if you believe in religion, if you don’t then whatever 'eh?
I don't follow you. Islam says that Allah created Man with clay (i think). Evolution theory holds that man and chimp shared the same ancestors. Unless you consider Drawin to be a islam prophet, i cant see any converaance between islam and human evolution.
I know you dont follow me. I gave up trying to explain science to people like you about 4 pages back... You live in delusion and fantasy my friend.
I don't think you said anything wrong at all ... Sometimes it takes a bit of a re-evaluation by stepping out of a sea of complexity to get a reality check ...
... What are we really doing when we say evolution is not incompatible with Islamic creation ... ??? We are indeed giving support to evolution as a method that we believe is better than simply taking the Qur'an literally ...
Psyah, thats nonsense. You yourself said that Science (ie Evolution) and religion are two separate domains. You also said your opposition to Evolution is not informed by any religious bias. Yet here you betray that very bias.
You claimed that evolution as a process is devoid of compassion and meaningfulness that you find in Islam. Your premise itself is flawed, by claiming that evolution is a rival to Islam. Yet evolution never claims to be such a rival.
Quran says God made man. It does not elaborate on the mechanism. Evolution is simply the nuts and bolts. Evolution is never claimed to be the answer to how man was created from a hodge podge of Carbon Atoms, Amino Acids Proteins etc. It does not challenge the philosophical and spiritual boundaries of Islam or any other religion. Evolution simply attempts to explain how we developed, not how or why we were created. Your confusion seems to lie in associating things to evolution that are not within its domain.
Sure in Islam we are taught that God breathed life in to man, and created Adam, and taught the names of all things etc etc. But this is all symbolism, poetry. Its not meant to be an explanation. You seem to have taken the poetry and made it literal.
Now you say your a scientist, but here you are giving credence to someone who clearly doesn't understand evolution or science in general. It undermines your credibility.
Have you ever seen clay turn into anything other then a mutka?
Quran was revealed 2000 years ago! People did not understand science, and so Allah SWT explained things to them in poetic terminology because that is what they understood. He couldnt explain things to them in a language they could not understand right? The Prophet PBUH said “Speak to people according to their level of understanding…”
Fortunately, our depth of understanding today is far more concise and EVOLVED.
The strange irony is that Muslims constantly cite the complexity of the Universe as evidence of God, but where it no longer suits us will cite the simplistic clay model to explain how man with all his complexity was made. Everything in the Universe is complex, but man was made out of mud!
In order to be a muslim you have to deny evolution and undoubtedly believe that there is one Allah but Allah and Muhammad (PBUH) is the last messenger of Allah.
Med/awesome - you are seriously delusional if you think islam and evolution are compatible. I dont have the time/will to argue with you over this. So believe in what ever you want to and good luck.
When science comes with 'proof' of this theory, we will all be long dead....I mean thousands, millions and billions of years. :(
It is funny that when so called science lovers could not prove this lame theory, they try to bring a new idea to mix religion with this theory( to gain popularity) which is nowhere to be found in religious texts.
Again religion here is not to be argued upon,
FIRST this theory needs to be proven scientifically.
But, even these avid lovers have confusion what it takes to 'prove' something scientifcally.
I know you dont follow me.** I gave up trying to explain science to people like you about 4 pages back**... You live in delusion and fantasy my friend.
I gave up long time ago after trying for few pages. there is nothing you can do when people dont open their minds and accept the facts. they keep on asking same question no matter how many times you respond to it.
plus they want all sorts of proofs for what you saying but wont give any proof for what they come up with.
No you are selectively quoting how this conversation presented itself …
First and foremost … on the literal level evolution conflicts with the Qur’an … there is no doubt about that …
Next if we view the Qur’anic version as not literal then we need to ask the question why the metaphor? What guidance or wisdom is there in that? How do we prove that it is meant as metaphor?
At the moment those who assume (and they are most definitely assuming) evolution to be “fact” they will view the verses in that context, those who do not assume them to be “fact” are either considering “evolution” as possibly viable or like me “abstaining from having an opinion” …
This leads on to the side discussion about whether evolution is or is not proven … and diwana talked at length on this to show that it is not proven … a deeper philosophical discussion stems from this which was me showing that the so called “scientific proposal” of “evolution” is not a solid “scientific theory” let alone “scientific fact” … to be a solid theory that we can call scientific it should be “falsifiable” … evolution is not … it’s proposal structure resembles a “belief” just like “creationism” is a belief. Due to this we can’t cross-examine the theory we can’t ever prove it but it can’t be disproven either … unless it is reformulated to be a “make or break” theory.
However if then we turn a blind eye to this inability of the theory to present itself as fact we look to how the Qur’an and dominant version of science can be made to fit together with a bit of imagination (which is not wrong, but there is time and place to do this) … we arrive at the door of something called “intelligent design” which is the “creationist” sympathisers view of the universe.
The dominant scientific community has heavily confronted “intelligent design” they call it a means to “hold on to God” … whereas they are adamant that “evolution” is sufficient to deny God. Because of “intelligent design” the atheistic pro-evolutionists created their own “religion” in jest … they call it … “The Church of the flying spaghetti monster” Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia whose adherents are called “Pastafarians”.
you will see the Icthyus fish used by Baptist Christians Ichthys - Wikipedia … to symbolise Jesus Christ … but the atheistic Darwinists modify this symbol probably again in jest to show that they **DO NOT believe in God **… it has evolved feet …
In essence the modern community of pro-evolutionists are God rejectors … and if I am presented to take one “belief” over another … and it is just that … because “evolution theory” is really an “evolution belief” then I will choose “Islam/Qur’anic belief” every time … because the pupose of creation is evidently for a greater wiser end … evolution undermines that “purpose” of creation … evolution tries to show that we are result of random events … that we have no purpose … “other than to suit our own ends” …
The dominant scientific community has heavily confronted "intelligent design" they call it a means to "hold on to God" ... whereas they are adamant that "evolution" is sufficient to deny God.
The most dominant scientist of our age Albert Einstein subscribed to Intelligent Design theory... and believed in a God who created the laws of nature.. So this argument is not valid to criticize the whole scientific community of purposely/intentionally using science to defy/deny the possibility of the existence of such intelligent being. His idea of this intelligent Designer did not coincide with the religious God.. who is interested in punishing or rewarding human beings for making an honest judgmental error in recognizing the right religious God.
Most of the dominant scientific community remains skeptical about the possibility of existence of such an Intelligent being. Some believe intelligence is a product of evolution.. and ultimate intelligence will come at the hypothetical end of evolution. And it could have happened in some other universe, at a different time, in another dimension which is beyond the capacity of human comprehension with five limited senses..
Let's for argument sake assume for a second that both "Intelligent Design theory" and "evolution theory" to be actual scientific facts. Can they coexist.. in this case evolution can be one of the laws of nature created by Intelligent Designer to modify life forms.. how do you explain the creation of Intelligent Designer.. according to Einstein it is beyond human ability at present times to comprehend the Intelligent Designer... who certainly is not an old man sitting on cloud who looks/thinks/acts like humans..
So hypothetically both these theories can coexist, and be true simultaneously without conflicting each other.
The most dominant scientist of our age Albert Einstein subscribed to Intelligent Design theory... and believed in a God who created the laws of nature.. So this argument is not valid to criticize the **whole scientific community **of purposely/intentionally using science to defy/deny the possibility of the existence of such intelligent being. His idea of this intelligent Designer did not coincide with the religious God.. who is interested in punishing or rewarding human beings for making an honest judgmental error in recognizing the right religious God.
Most of the dominant scientific community remains skeptical about the possibility of existence of such an Intelligent being. Some believe intelligence is a product of evolution.. and ultimate intelligence will come at the hypothetical end of evolution.
Peace yazdi
I am indeed part of the scientific community ... If I was criticizing the whole of it I would be doing so of myself ... it was never my intention to portray that the whole community are "God averse" - but the dominant ones are ... Let me explain what I mean by dominant ... I mean the people who have the power to vat and edit publications and have the biggest media machine to portray their ideas ... I do not mean the ideas of "geniuses" in history. Even Darwin believed in God, it is irrespective to me what a person of high intelligence believes ... true belief comes from guidance ... this way Allah (SWT) has not given any unnecessary advantage to people of lower intelligence. Be it Einstein or Abu Jahl both were extremely intelligent - Einstein didn't accept Islam as truth which logically you would expect a genius to conclude and neither did Abu Jahl ... before this monicker was given to him he was known before as Abu al-Hakaam (Father of Wisdom) ... Just because Allah (SWT) makes Einstein a genius in some matters it does not given him a license to be prophet like in everything he says or believes. However the people who control the way information is obtained about the Einsteins and Darwins they make sure it fits their agenda of "godlessness" ...
Then you say intelligence is an evolution there is absolutely no indication in this regard ... if so we have not increased in intelligence over the past 5000 years at least ... our advancement has been a result of guidance and building on discovery - never has it been about increasing in intelligence. Besides above I have highlighted the statement above ... "ultimate intelligence" - this concept being associated with "humans" - so even if the community is not undermining God by rejecting Him they are undermining God by saying that an Attribute of His - "Ultimate Intelligence" can be shared by humans - which is shirk.
Some people even say that God is the product of our intelligence ... that we developed imagination and then there was God. For sure all of these are supporting my argument ... evolution has been promoted in such a manner that the dominant scientists of today can undermine and deny the existence of God.
Please don't take my post in literal sense, and certainly I am not insisting these ideas to be ultimate facts of science.. these are just analysis of different opinions including some imaginations on my part. Use of the term "ultimate intelligence" is the view point of evolutionist like Dawkins.. and I do not necessarily subscribe to it..
Yes I agree with you that even most intelligent men can not be taken as prophets.. they can be wrong or right... in spite of their intelligence. I agree with you 100% on these political scientist of modern age doctoring/editing the publications to suit their personal agendas.. Dawkins has become a money making machine after he became vocal critic of religions. He charges mind boggling amounts for lectures with a very busy itinerary around TV shows/Princeton/Harvard/Oxford etc etc...
... And it could have happened in some other universe, at a different time, in another dimension which is beyond the capacity of human comprehension with five limited sense..
Let's for argument sake assume for a second that both "Intelligent Design theory" and "evolution theory" to be actual scientific facts. Can they coexist.. in this case evolution can be one of the laws of nature created by Intelligent Designer to modify life forms.. how do you explain the creation of Intelligent Designer.. according to Einstein it is beyond human ability at present times to comprehend the Intelligent Designer... who certainly is not an old man sitting on cloud who looks/thinks/acts like humans..
So hypothetically both these theories can coexist, and be true simultaneously without conflicting each other.
According to my knowledge of intelligent design theory - it is that God enabled creation through evolution which has been mapped by the neo-darwinian theory of evolution. So if we are to assume the two - yes they are compatible ... my point earlier was that intelligent design as a theory is not the same as the idea coined by Einstein "God does not play dice" ... He was merely recognising a God - impersonal yet intelligent. There is a major flaw in his idea of God however that is another discussion.
Stressing again ... "Intelligent Design Theory" is a "creationist" response to "evolution without God" ... It so happens that evolution does not prove anything ... it cannot prove itself nor cannot disprove God ... in this way the creationists have attempted to hijack evolution from the atheists ... they say "ok .. evolution may be true, but it was God doing the evolution all along" ...
With that said we will have to see if "intelligent design" is conflicting with scripture ... we can't just say ... yes we agree to evolution but evolution doesn't deny God ... we have to reason it ... we have to say ... ok let's give evolution due regard. Is it or is it not confirmed by out scripture. Can we adopt evolution on the basis that it was instigated by an Intelligent Designer?
We can't just make the claim "Intelligent Design Theory" is true without consulting scientific research for evidence or proof (as we would for evolution) and we can't speak for God without consulting our scriptures ... (as we would in our faith) ... In the aim to grasp at saving the concept of God by accepting "intelligent design theory" without the ground work is being rash and hasty ... and it demonstrates a lack of strong faith and conviction in our scriptures, and an impulsive acceptance in second hand science mostly championed by "godless" people who I will say will not hesitate to mix fabrications or extortions in to their research. Let's cross examine before we accept.