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.
