Well you cannot twist my words to make your point. i didnt say adaptation is evolution. Here is what i said
“Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats”
facts are out there for you to see, you just have to take the first step.
BTW i am still waiting on adam and eve proof. i have done my homework, searched it all over but couldnt find it.
PS. i am not saying that only muslims are against evolution, since quran got creation theory from bibile i think bibile is the origin of this conflict. but then again that is not the topic of this thread.
Honestly, I fail to understand why there would be a conflict between Islam and theory of evolution.
Allah says that He sent Adam to earth, but He does not tell us the mechanism which was followed to make it happen. That mechanism could be evolution.
It is like Allah saying that He provides rizq or food to people. But He does not do it by actually passing the food Himself to everyone. Rather there is a worldly mechanism available which makes it happen. People work on their jobs and they get paid.
The ultimate Being which created these worldly mechanisms is Allah. And evolution is just one such mechanism which resulted in Adam's coming to earth.
Thats what i am trying to tell people but they dont have enough faith in intelligentsia of god to create a complex mechanism. weak faith i say.
Peace jaanaan
That fact that you can make a statement the context of which spans millions of years shows that no one has been around to witness the validity of the argument - hence it is a belief - not a fact. Fossils do not show there have been intermediaries - people have picked up fossils that appear to be intermediaries and then they have connected the dots to arrive at this belief - it is not proof - just dot to dot. Proof would be if they can show that these alleged intermediaries really did come from the parent group of another species and really did give birth to the new one. Fossils being like snapshots in the ground can never show this mechanism.
Following the same logic we should not believe in adam and eve either because no one was around to see them and nor have we found their fossil. in science as you said they connected the dots but for me to believe you there are no dots.
you are painting a picture in air without any proof and against all the known norms.
btw Fossils does show that there have been intermediaries. EVery day we find some missing link and it answers further questions.
Bhai, I said adaptation is not evolutionary process at all.
Did not twist your words, did not need to.
To repeat what is said above in some posts:
No religion needs to be brought to refute evolution theory. Science itself is enough for that.
No one from any religion has to provide any proof of Adam and Eve AS. Believe or not its up to you.
Religious beliefs should not be put to same standard of proving as scientific beliefs. Sceintists claim they can prove their ideas hence the queston is for those who believe it, to prove their theory. And they cannot!
I tend to disagree. The title of the thread is: "Why are Muslims against Evolution"?
So it is precisely about conflict between Islam and evolution.
Hmm no ... The title of the thread is a half statement ... Read the first line by Med911 ... he says that he finds that the "koran" is not against evolution. Hence according to the OP Islam is not against evolution ... but Muslims are ... so I was giving the reason for this ... that Muslims are generally against those ideas that are not proven, but when it comes to faith i.e. belief we employ a different set of rules, which are based on other parameters, we look for signs and guidance when it comes to belief not PROOF.
So we believe that the Creation is true because our faith says so, if someone can demonstrate that Islam says evolution is true then we will believe that - no worry.
Some people are saying that God Creates through evolution, again - I believe the first part of that sentence, but I don't NEED to believe the latter because that is "interpretation" ... it is not scripture" - Scripture says "He Created" - if we answer the "how" then we need to prove it, either by using the Qur'an like we did in embryology, or science - with experimentation. Then we can acknowledge the science and say that Allah (SWT) Created this way.
Some people think the reason why Muslims are against evolution because it contradicts Islam, that is not the case for why. Science makes U-turns one day it says something another it says something else. Religious text does not. First the atom was indivisible now - today it is divisible. Although science makes newer discoveries it can create problems for the older ideas. Newtonian physics is known to be only applicable for objects that a human eye can see and above. Any smaller and we need a new set of physical laws. Quantum physics has answered the subatomic level but created a problem for the macroscopic level.
Evolution as we know it undermines the idea of Creator, but I expect it too will make a few more modifications, until then I abstain from accepting it ... One thing is for sure - anything that is provable NEVER contradicts the Qur'an. Anything that does contradict the Qur'an must by definition be unprovable and hence an untrustworthy concept.
To the poster asking for proof of Adam and Eve, TA DA - The Quran!! And mr kaka, you keep saying that religious people who dont believe in evolution are afraid it will disprove their faith and therefore have weak faith, i find this assumption a tad insulting. I have a very strong faith in the quran and my god, THATS why i dont support the idea of evolution.
Hmm no ... The title of the thread is a half statement ... Read the first line by Med911 ... he says that he finds that the "koran" is not against evolution. Hence according to the OP Islam is not against evolution ... but Muslims are ... so I was giving the reason for this
So according to Med911 Muslims are against evolution, and you are explaining why they are against evolution.
Did I understand it correctly?
So according to Med911 Muslims are against evolution, and you are explaining why they are against evolution.
Did I understand it correctly?
Peace khoji
Typically yes ... There are many Muslims some don't have a problem with evolution believing it to be the method of Creation by God, others have an issue of accepting it at the moment because of lack of real proof. I have a really hard time trying to show die-hard evolutionists that it is unlike science and more of an alternative belief system and hence my reason is why I should be expected to accept something that does not offer me anything more than my own beliefs already. Others believe that evolution contradicts religion and will reject it out-right with bias and without studying it. As a result I have another problem convincing die-hard evolutionists that I am not rejecting evolution out of fear or bias, but out of being a good scientist.
Whether they are convinced of the proof or not, the acceptance of evolution still would not effect Islam's position at all. Isn't it?
Peace khoji
Although the current most widely accepted version of evolution is not directly at loggerheads with the idea of God, it DOES undermine the idea of God and hence I choose to remain aloof of all things that bear any resemblance of criticism to the idea of Deity. The acceptance of evolution by Muslims who know about evolution would send the wrong message to those who do not know about evolution. Although in reality there may not be a bearing on the position of Islam, the deceivers will however attempt to justify that Muslims aught to believe in modern science without recourse to scripture and hence try to detach the believer from his orientation to the religion.
It is paramount for Muslims who know about evolution to affirm that it is not a fact but a sophisticated theory that is being developed and refined in an attempt to explain how life came about. And at no stage should this replace what we understand to be the case from the holy scriptures.
those that don't believe in evolution, how do you explain how the kids of a single couple, adam and eve, managed to form into such distinct human races? lets try one thing at a time - how or why did some people become dark skinned, and some light skinned, and some in-between?
those that don't believe in evolution, how do you explain how the kids of a single couple, adam and eve, managed to form into such distinct human races? lets try one thing at a time - how or why did some people become dark skinned, and some light skinned, and some in-between?
Peace queer
They were black. The names both bear a resemblance to blackness - Adam and Hawa.
Genetic drift and natural selection mainly caused variations in races and and essentially all humans no matter what race they are can procreate with one another and all humans have the capacity to be black or white because these codons are either swithed on or off - giving colour to skin.
They were black. The names both bear a resemblance to blackness - Adam and Hawa.
Genetic drift and natural selection mainly caused variations in races and and essentially all humans no matter what race they are can procreate with one another and all humans have the capacity to be black or white because these codons are either swithed on or off - giving colour to skin.
Yes and:
1- Black/Brown/White whatever, still they are human.
2- This also proves that adaptation is NOT Evolution.
it is so unscientific to ignore simple evidence in front of us - the blacks, whites, mongols and browns are so very different from each other ther there is no way they evolved or adapted from one. otherwise we would have millions of races wich each looking very different, not just these 4 or few!
Secondly the so called adam eve theory is also very wrong - because it makes the entire human race product of incest - I am sure religious people who swear by this theory do not mean to make all humans products of incest
That leaves the possibility that we really do know know how humans came about
it is so unscientific to ignore simple evidence in front of us - the blacks, whites, mongols and browns are so very different from each other ther there is no way they evolved or adapted from one. otherwise we would have millions of races wich each looking very different, not just these 4 or few!
Secondly the so called adam eve theory is also very wrong - because it makes the entire human race product of incest - I am sure religious people who swear by this theory do not mean to make all humans products of incest
That leaves the possibility that we really do know know how humans came about
The question is not about morality (which has been defined over time), it is about possibility.
*Evolution is not possible and science cannot prove it. That is the conclusion.
*
That's not right. You can say it's not **probable **but you can't absolutely disprove it.
Off course anything is possible. A man can jump from 1000 feet cliff and survive. But that is not the point.
I would keep my point based on available knowledge. Why it is not possible is just by knowing genetics.
A whole genome in parts cannot be changed over time to make another species. Since there would be a possibility of unstable intermediaries which would die before even become full bown intermediate species.
Besides no one can even define what 'nature'/mother nature is and we assume things happen without anyone actually doing it. (Sorry off topic, that will lead discussion very far) Needs another thread.
Right, anything is possible. But I don't think it's that unlikely that evolution could be true. I don't know for sure, nor do you.
People on either side who say, "it's so obvious" are wrong IMO. Evolution is a theory, which seems promising, but like people have said, there has never been a transition from amoeba to something more which has been seen.
I think natural selection is a given, which is what some people seem to mean by evolution, which may be the cause of the disagreement.
Right, anything is possible. But I don't think it's that unlikely that evolution could be true. I don't know for sure, nor do you.
People on either side who say, "it's so obvious" are wrong IMO. Evolution is a theory, which seems promising, but like people have said, there has never been a transition from amoeba to something more which has been seen.
I think natural selection is a given, which is what some people seem to mean by evolution, which may be the cause of the disagreement.
Like the way you discuss in safe way and keep options open. Nothing wrong with that.
Bring absolute evidence to show something could make evolution theory even PROBABLE and we will talk. :)
So as it stands, at the expense of repeating, by knowing genetics and genetical make up of different species, one should be very confident in saying Evolution theory is an absurd theory let alone it be a fact. :)
The 'scientists' who try to bring half baked ideas to fool people are nothing but 'madaries', 'Chakkar Baaz' and money makers. They have nothing substancial to prove their idea. Neither did Darrwin.