Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Society Religion & Philosophy
521

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?


I apologize for sounding offensive; this wasn't my intention. I get what you are saying, I was on the other side of the fence once too. I understand the need to defend your scripture and your faith is great here. I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of the verses you have posted. You are absolutely right in saying that Dawkins and the like win either way because they really are not obliged to be truthful and they feel they have ^no one to answer to. When I said religious folks are hypocritical is because the scripture itself contradicts many things in it. Theres ^no point in arguing about it because you will never see them as contradictions or that the scripture is flawed. Hence, atheists think your logic is flawed and biased to begin with. Your side loses credibility quite quickly into a debate. That's what I mean when I said tableeghi religious folks are hypocrites. They find faults in science, which science welcomes but do not see their own shortcomings which is equivalent to being blesphemous. You can ask all the questions in the world because you feel Allah has given you this option but at the end you will choose tO believe the Quran. That is the ultimate truth for you! Hence, it's hypocritical that you wish to explore science but refuse to believe it's findings.

522

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

are tableeghi religious types the only religious muslims you know of?

523

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

^well, not in the literal sense but when it comes to issues like this, they are just stubborn and won't accept anything that contradicts their beliefs. Some of them really know what they are talking about. Some of them knowingly reject science, others just lash out and make stupid accusations. The ones that lash out the Most are usually the ones that don't understand Science nor do they really know their religion. Both types are equally stubborn though.

524

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Peace Theorist

Evolution is not science it is a belief system … science is about observing phenomenon - the key issue with evolution is that the phenomenon has never been seen and it will never be seen because of the time scales involved … Thus the question that we believe in God without seeing Him although we see signs of His existence is exactly transferable to the idea of evolution although we cannot see it we see signs of it … Now the difference is that in Islam we are told that we must believe in the unseen. However in evolution this belief is being passed off as science. But it is not science … Science is observed phenomena.

As long as it is possible that another explanation can be given to the evidence in the fossil records then it is apparent that the evolution angle is just one possible explanation. Another factor is that I’m weary of the quantities of specimens found. In order for it to make sense to me that the human race evolved from another species then we should see an abundance in that species that is less abundant than its ancestor and in turn its ancestor … in short there should be many many hominid specimens …

According to this wiki link … Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia

humans have existed in the current form for 200,000 years … for 300,000 years prior to that another form of humans were around … that means they lived longer on this planet than us … and if that is not enough … Homo Erectus and Neanderthals lived 2, 500,000 years ago and in that time since the first humans they were around for 2,000,000 years … with no change … and hence there must be many specimens of these creatures … but the first hurdle to overcome is were they another species in the first place? I’ve had enough of taking second hand science I want to do it myself … it is about time we do a cross-examination of the data … and methods of determining age of fossils and reviewing the other aspects within the theory as well.

525

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Good question.

Do evolutonists even know what it is let alone those who follow evolutionists blindly?

I have repeatedly said religion should not be a part of this discussion and yet I see religion is being dragged in this discussion and so many posts going back and forth.

The issue is purely scientific and even available scientific knowledge over centuries can only make few half baked or far stretched claims.

As for your other part of post, and sarcasm,

1- I would say for now that there is no such thing as ‘religious scientists’. If you make up this term then you should be able to accept the term as ‘athiest acientists’.

2- Because of some scientific discoveries and inventions, everything what is claimed without proof (by some scientists) should be accepted? What kind of logic is that?

3- There are scientists themselves who reject this ‘theory’. According to you they all are religious scientists? :hehe:

4- The comment about nuclear weapon was really a very low blow. My friend, there are people from every religion or background who do question this theory as valid theory. You just want to lash out certain group of people.

526

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

We have arrived at the scene some 4 billion years after the birth of this planet. Life forms have existed for some 3 billion years. I agree that means are always probed looking at the end results.. and end results are what we now know definitely:
!) Life forms are different from geological historical times on this planet.
2) With the lapse of geological time we have more complex life forms on this planet.
Now your argument that there is no lab/concrete/conclusive evidence of the evolution of these life forms.. therefore the literal description of the scriptures must be right. This is a major logical fallacy.. definitely does not suit a science scholar.

[quote]
When it comes to my position I agree with you I do favour my scripture in a somewhat close minded way ... that is what faith is all about, but my problem is with evolution trying to be scientific when indeed it too is a faith based approach to the origins of life. I favour my religion over the religion of evolutionism and if it turns out that something from evolution is true then I'll modify my understanding from scripture, but until that point I believe it to be a stronger bet to remain where I am ...
[/quote]

I am glad I helped you come out of this science closet. I have nothing against your faith based position.. but please do not relate it with science.

[quote]
With regards to the difference in species the explanation given by religious scripture is that He causes some things to thrive and others to die, kingdoms are replaced with new ones ... examples of how this happens can be seen in our own experiences ... we can see how the grey squirrel took over the red - we do not conclude that the red squirrel evolved into grey ones, we know that grey squirrels came from some other place and resettled in the area where there were red ones. This is the history of all things readily proven ... as before dinosaurs did NOT evolve into other creatures ... they died off. It would be insincere to say that on one hand dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid, yet on the other hand say that modern creatured evolved from dinosaurs that could not be possible because they would be dead. Unless that is those creatures that survived were the ancestors of the modern creatures, but then we need to demonstrate that we can prove which creatures survived the asteroid and then what route they offspring took to become modern creatures.

For me it is vital to my belief on many levels to say "God says to it Be and it is" - immediate creation from nothing. This statement is a literal one and cannot hold any metaphoric meaning. With a stretch you can say that "Be" means starting off the process of evolution ... which makes me shudder in my boots to such a degradation to the Might of Allah (SWT). It simply does not fit. As a Muslim I cannot compromise scripture because the understandings are calibrated together with each other - by messing with that calibration unwittingly in order to serve scientific ends we can create calamities with other aspects of the faith. What we need to do is be biased to our faith and have a small space for discovery to add new dimensions to our understanding ... I strongly believe that you will not find evolution to be satisfactory on a scientific level in years to come and it certainly isn't there today.
[/QUOTE]

Your last sentence is an indicator of your fixed ideas.. end results.. and you are trying to find means to suit your pre assumed ideas. Fine for someone who has nothing to do with science.. but hardly a suitable attitude for a science scholar. I bet you have never studied evolution with an open mind therefore already you have this pre concluded idea that it can not be a possibility.

You believe in a God of miracles. A God who is continuously breaking the laws of nature, a very hands on God who is running the universe with "be it" style for every petty stuff.. as per the literal description of scriptures. What I see are the laws of nature which are precise, exact, and harmonious.. and God is managing this universe through these softwares. The laws of motion, energy, composition of matter, relationship between all these different dimensions.. everything is managed through these precise laws of nature. I am sure the changes which occurred in life forms are also managed by some laws of nature. Already we know now about DNA, a software for the development every individual life form.. an other exact law of nature, and every aspect of development is written in it.

Your repeated example of these squirrels show your lack of knowledge about evolution and genes, in spite of the fact that you claim to be science scholar. It's not like you mix the yellow with blue to get a green. Genes do not mingle.. they shuffle.. every individual gene is passed on to the off spring in purest form. If your idea was correct, after sometime there will be no diversity within a certain specie.. mixing blue and yellow continuously will have all green.. and mixing green with green.. every individual within a specie will become identical to each other. Again this shuffling of genes within a gene pool is an exact law of nature which does not deviate. Every individual within a community of a specie is a carrier of genes from ancestors to off spring.

You could be right about this " be it " approach.. but this "be It" must have been to create these laws of nature from nothingness.. This could be the metaphoric meaning of "be It".. because how many deviations from these laws of nature (miracles) have you witnessed in your career as a science scholar.. probably never...

P.S.
The dinosaur example you quoted is again depicting that you haven't studied the evolution possibility with an open mind. The concept of evolution is based on common ancestors.. As there are no species in the world with ancestral evidence going back to dinosaurs.. therefore it is concluded that they became extinct by some natural calamity. Doesn't mean that dinosaurs did not share common ancestry with some other species.. if evolution is true..!!!

527

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Good to hear that you are ready to explore with an open mind.. I downloaded the audio versions from audible.. because sometime reading becomes a little boring.. at least for me..!!

Try "The Greatest Show on Earth" first.. it's shorter and simpler.. "Selfish Gene" is more technical.. and will be an easier listen after you have finished the first one..

528

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Peace yazdi

There is too much that you throw as assumption and assertion that I couldn't care to pick up on because I'm finding it hard to stop being distracted by it ... I don't believe for a second that I have ever been scientifically close minded, rather I believe that many supporters of evolution are being unscientific ... this is my stance and this will remain my stance when I analyse the details on evolutionary discourse - please note I have studied evolution but I have not analysed it ... and I know you have not analysed it either ... I will listen to the discourse with a critical ear and I will ask the questions that a true scientist will ask so be prepared ... :)

As for your statement above I am offended that you are behaving with selective summation on my responses ... I am spending more time clarifying myself and reconstructing your accusations than presenting a view point ... It is apparent that you do not understand what I am saying or I have been unable to portray what I am saying if all you can say is that I have concluded literal interpretation of scripture based on the idea that there is no conclusive evidence for evolution.

You agree and I agree that there is no conclusive evidence for evolution ... however if we look at the two possible options that explain why different animals dominate at different times they are both based on the survival of the fittest theory they can both be supported with the idea that chance events had a hand in selectively displacing species from the planet ... So let's write these two explanations down.

What explains the difference in animal types in fossil records of the same area but at different ages/depths?

Answer a)

An animal type thrives but when there is a change in condition some of its variant forms do better and hence compete with other forms and hence become dominant with this happening over time it leads to greater and greater changes so much so that the original form no longer appears to be the same as the previous. The assumption here is that the genetics also vary alongside the drift in appearance, another assumption is that the conditions remain in favour of the variant form long enough for the predecessor to die off and to die off in such a time scale that appears very abrupt in the fossil record.

Answer b)

There is no necessary need for change in conditions ... all that is required is another similar animal comes along from another region and competes with the same things as the original inhabitants ... this leads to the change as observed in the record.

Verification of a) The timescale required for the changing animal theory are too long to verify

Verification of b) We can see and measure that animals become extinct as a result of the activities of other species ... for example humans bringing in the dingo and hunting the dodo for food killed off the dodo ... or the grey squirrel red squirrel situation ... and so on.

Analysis of two explanations ... since a) is not verifiable and b) is verifiable the scientific approach is to favour the explanation that is verifiable, until a point when a) can be verifiable.

The next observation from the record shows that the creatures in later times are more complex than creatures of earlier times ...

Explanation a) Simpler organisms come first and the process of evolution means that they become more advanced from genetic mutation of their simpler kinds to become slightly more complex and in time there are not only differences but the variant forms are more complex.

Explanation b) The complex creatures feed off simpler ones, so complex organisms will only come in to an area when they see their food is present there.

Verification of a) Due to the fact that evolution takes a long time this idea cannot be verified.

Verification of b) We can see this to be the case since competing creatures can either be competing for the same source of food or the less developed animal is in fact a food source of another visitor to a region ... this is happening in the animal kingdom all the time.

Analysis on two explanations - It is more scientific to accept that what can be verified, hence b) is favoured.

Conclusion:

Although the evolution arguments cannot be verified they do approach an explanation of where animals came from, the problem with the external influence argument is that the question is still there where did the animals that came in to a region come from? On the other hand without answering where they came from the second argument shows a verifable explanation and the evolution argument does not ...

Now the dilemma is :

Do we accept an argument that explains the orgins but is yet not verifiable or do we accept an argument that is verifiable but does not explain the origins? To me it is more scientific to accept the verifiable argument, because science is about being able to reproduce the conditions to observe the phenomenon - it is not about making assertions that cannot be verified.

After all this then we ask the question about scripture ... we don't conclude that scripture is literal purely based on the idea that evolution is not verifiable ... In fact you ignored the alternative explanations that account for the patterns observed in the fossil record - I didn't ignore them. It is my duty as a scientist to entertain all possible explanations. Now in scripture we hear that God made us ... and we can interpret this statement in the light of the two explanations:

a) God made us systematically through evolution
b) God just made us

What we need now is more data from scripture to see which is more true to the scripture ... With the references of gradual development they may be present by I haven't seen them yet ... however there are a lot of verses that talk about creation without gradual development.

To interpret the verses with gradual development I would need a very good reason - i.e. that it is a proven fact that things develop ... that is not the case due to the above discussion ... hence I have to take the verses at face value UNTIL a point in time when more data comes my way .... How can this be interpreted as me being close minded? When I take a verse at face value it does not mean that I explain literally either ... it means that I accept them without trying to interpret them either literally or otherwise until more insight and information comes either through more scriptural verses regarding creation or through more scientific research or both ...

How all this is a logical fallacy evades me ... If anything my logic is sound ... only my conclusions may be unsound and my methods may be inaccurate - if they are then please comment on them and improve my discussion above ... but please don't misrepresent the discussion above to make it appear fallacious.

529

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

^^^^

I think we should open a new thread in science forum to discuss "evolution as a scientific possibility".. until now we have been discussing the philosophical approach to it.

You have been referring to the scriptures.. while I have been hiding behind the laws of nature. Let's take out these dimension from our discussion, and explore the subject on purely scientific basis.. as you are suggesting. Give me 3/4 days for preparation.. I'll open a new thread there.. and we can continue our discussion with an other angle. Without bringing God, theology, scriptures, laws of nature, and other distractions in a purely scientific debate. You have equated evolution with faith, and I'll show you that unlike faith this theory is not without any evidence at all..

The intention is not to make you sound fallacious. I simply do not agree with some of your opinions. As an individual I have my utmost respect for you. The examples you have been quoting were not corresponding with present day knowledge of science available to us. The grey squirrel example showed your total naivety with the subject. Again it is nothing against you so I request you not to feel sensitive to take it personally on yourself. It's not important if you are right or I am right.. let's try to discover what is right..

My point of argument will be to accept evolution as a scientific possibility.. while you will try to prove that evolution has no possibility.. It can simply not happen. mind you I am not presenting it like a scientific fact.. I am presenting it like a scientific possibility which was my stand from the beginning .. while you have concluded and as a science scholar advised me in your last post to stop looking at it as a possibility .. to make such a suggestion the burden to conclusively disapprove evolution is your responsibility... these were your exact words incase you have forgotten them..

So you have to show me why I have to look at evolution to be unsatisfactory on scientific basis by disapproving it totally and conclusively.. and should stop looking at it as a possibility.. on scientific level of course...

530

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

I Am starting to understand what you mean when you say it’s more like a belief system than a scientific theory because we can’t see it happen and can’t run experiments to prove the theory. The problem I see with this line of thinking is that someone like you should not even believe in anything that can’t be seen by your own eyes. Can you see the earth is a sphere? Yes? Why do you believe that since you have never seen it for yourself, you have never measured it yourself? There are million things that you will readily believe because it doesn’t shake the foundation of your faith or go against scripture but you won’t agree with anything we put forth as an evidence of evolution and you never will! In order for me to find an experiment that satisfies your inquiries, I need to know what is it that you are really looking for. What would serve as a satisfactory evidence. I have read most of thE thread and numerous examples have been thrown in but you refuse to budge. The example of cichlids was quite valid in my opinion. I get that you have an issue with fossil records not really showing the actual transition. You can believe an artificial experiment but won’t believe that it can occur naturally. So what is it that will prove to you that evolution is indeed a scientific theory and absolutely nothing like a belief system. If evolution is a faith then more than 90% of the what we know about things we haven’t verified ourselves but we believe the experts who have.

531

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

You are really noth worth my time but I will throw you a bone anyway.1. Yes, there are atheist and agnostic scientists. As a matter of fact most scientists now are indeed atheists. 2. Yes, because unlike you, scientists have devoted their entire lives to exPlain the mysteries surrounding our world. The problem is your logic stops the moment it contradicts your faith. There are things you would believe without a question that yourself cannot prove to be true but you won’t believe when a scientist shows you how evolution occurs because you have made up your mind about it. You don’t believe adaptation and mutations are part of evolution but will believe the terms if the word evolution is not attached to them. Your arguments have no substance, hence, you are not worth my time.3. Please tell us the names of the scientists that reject the theory and they must not be affiliated with any organized religion.4. Was it? I really feel nO shame in saying that, sorry. I am sure there are people that argue against the theory but I am sure their arguments are not childish like yours

532

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.

533

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

:smack:
You keep circling around faith and science issue here. Did** I **ever talk about ''creation" as alternative theory?
Did you ever see me talking about any faith anywhere in this thread?

I think you are in very deluded sense that ALL scientists who reject evolution are somehow basing their opposition to this retarded theory are somehow ‘religious’.
Faster you get out of this false belief, better for you to finally see the reality.

The fact of the matter is that they oppose evolution based on lack of scientific proof and as an alternative they have to agree with creation. They may even be reluctant to agree with ‘creation’ also.

The bigger fact is **there is no scientfic proof of this theory. Merely speculations, assumptions and silly enthusism to oppose the opposite view.

**Yes, adaptation is NOT evolution I have said that many times and any scientist who believes in evolution cannot prove this. Specualtions do not count as proof.

P.S. Be civil next time or do not respond to me. Thanks.

534

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

^ please provide names of the scientists that argue against evolution. Also the ones that say adaptation/mutations and evolution are unrelated. Our side has put forth examPles and evidence, you have yet to come up with a single example to show how mutations/ adaptation are unrelated to evolution. Unless you have something of importance to add, I refuse to waste my time with you. Like i said you are not worth it. I have others get into this mess with you, I am not about to go there. And whether you agree or not it is your faith that's scaring you away from wanting to believe evolution.

535

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

You want me to answer and yet you do not want to ‘waste’ your time. What kind of logic is that buddy? :hehe:

Read above why adaptaton is not evolution in this thread. Adaptaton does not change whole species to another. People extrapolate that to evolution.

How about I say you are scared that truth might shatter your false/unfounded belief on so called evolutionists and this theory?

536

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

^you are one of a kind, aren't you? It's like talking to a wall with you. Don't try changing the subject when you are asked to put forth a scientific scholarly piece of research that shows mutations and adaptations do not lead to evolutionary changes. It should be very easy for you to find because according to you there is an overwhelming amount of scientists that agree with your pov. I have read the threAd and you have no clue what mutations or adaptation even mean and how it affects evolutionary process. Evolution depends on mutations, adaptation, and natural selection. Prove to me that these Are absolutely unrelated to evolution and i will talk to you. If you address me again in this thread without having done your homework, I will not respond. Thanks for understanding!

537

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

I have applied Science and Scientific Knowledge all my life in my profession...relating to facts is simple ........

I cannot relate to the theory that "Worms" roaming around and one day being able to somehow aquire seing eyes!

eyes require a much larger brain than a worm has!

538

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Peace Theorist

You asked diwana a question: provide a "piece of research that shows mutations and adaptations do not lead to evolutionary change"

:) Do you not see the flaw in this request? It's like saying "provide me some research that shows dogs do not drive cars" - The begging question is not to show mutations and adaptations do not lead to speciation, but for those who claim that speciation occurs by this process to demonstrate it ... Mutations are mutations and every test in mutations has NEVER resulted in a change of species that has been "observed" or "reproduced" ... the pro-evolutionists claim that it does happen whilst we aren't looking ... LOL ... it only happens when we aren't looking you see ... Besides the human race are strong evidence of non-speciation ... We are millions in number and we cross-breed with different races and we still remain human ... we do not speciate. Is there any evidence that suggests people who are of different "race" - i.e. genetically removed from one another are less likely to have offspring with one another? I doubt it ... The apparent is apparent and you do not need to provide proof for it ... where proof is required is where something is not apparent ... we can't say speciation occurs, show us that it doesn't **.... we need to say **show us speciation in the making.

So Theorist ... please show us speciation in the making .... hmm ... I forgot .... you're only a theorist ...

539

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

^ obviously it's easy relating to the facts because facts are there in front of your eyes. Theories are a little more difficult to deal with. Some people do treat evolution as a fact though I disagree. I cannot pass something as a fact that even scientists have issues with. I believe evolution to be a real possibility and the likelihood because there's strong evidence for it. Also you can't prove evolution to be a fact because ^no evolution experiments/tests yield the same results. It makes sense that it doesn't because if it did it would dismiss the entire idea of random mutations and evolution itself. Like I said earlier I am no scientists but if I claimed there are a number of scientists that agree win me I would be able to find a few and bring their work to the table for discussion. I wouldn't make such claims if I can't fulfill them. I don't understand what you mean by worms acquiring eyes one day to be able to see. Mutations obviously occur randomly but there's a possibility that mutations are directed so that species over the period of thousands of years gain organs and abilities to do thing that were once impossible for them. This change obviously doesn't occur overnight.Nature is not predictable neither are mutations nor conditions on the earth will remain the same over billions of years.

540

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?


Good lord! How do you call yourself a scientist with so many flaws in your own theory? I am not a scientist and even I can google it and find something reliable, an experiment that has been done over and over again and surely shows speciation in the making. I am on my iPhone so can't post PDF files. Please look up Evolution experiment with Drosophila. If that doesn't Show speciation in the making then I don't know what does