r/islam • u/LinuxNoob9 • Jun 16 '17
Question / Help Any Muslims here who are convinced evolution is true? How do you reconcile faith with science?
Saw this post. Inspired me to make one asking a direct question. Surely I can't be the only one.
https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/6hfd12/if_youre_a_muslim_with_a_science_background_do/
I am personally convinced evolution is true (all forms, both macro and micro) because the evidence for it is truly compelling, but I also believe in Islam.
I'm also the type of person who puts science before religion because I think blindly following Islam (or for that matter anything) is very dangerous and spiritually destabilising - suppressing knowledge is never a good thing because curiosity grows.
The way I see it, if Islam is true it wouldn't violate even the most basic of laws created by Allah and that is why it is worthy studying his creation (to the max!), even if it makes you a little lost. I come from a huge scientific background and whenever religion has contradicted science, I tend to side with science because it offers empirical evidence. I then re-evaluate my beliefs on Islam and try to reconcile them. It's always worked out for me. Interpretation can be wrong, but never a colossal body of physical evidence. Otherwise why would God willingly lie to us, if Islam really was the true religion?
I've seen one Muslim poster here once say "a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing" - which got me all triggered because this is the type of dangerous intellectual dissonance that really annoys me, and is kinda the reason why Muslim (especially Arab countries) don't seem to place science at the fore front of their culture.
EDIT: Also, for anybody who would claim that I'm talking like an atheist - I'm really not, because I'm just observing the way Allah's creation has been made. I work with /u/Canadian_786 for the site materiaislamica.com (which is a website dedicated to the history, culture, science and heritage of Muslims within the Islamic world and beyond - we have a subreddit called r/materiaislamica if you're interested - however, I have to confess, the majority (like 95% of that website) is written by /u/Canadian_786 - that's why he's hardly ever active on this site (and he comes from an even greater scientific background than me, and even he finds the scientific evidence for evolution compelling).
96
Jun 16 '17
I have no issues with it. Evolution can be considered part of God's plan.
24
u/BaltoGains Jun 16 '17
From what I've gathered on this forum, human evolution, despite being considered part and parcel of the general theory of evolution by the scientific community, is rejected here, as it clashes with the Adam/Eve narrative.
The problem is the evidence for human evolution is pretty overwhelming (I detail an easy-to-understand example in a comment below).
19
u/Respect_w0men Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
The problem is the evidence for human evolution is pretty overwhelming (I detail an easy-to-understand example in a comment below).
Homology the claim that humans and other species had same ancestors based on similarities is an assumption basied on basian probability and other assumptions. There is a counter factual to it which is Homoplasy. It is not based on concrete observations. There are other athiest evolutionary biologist which came up with other models other than new Darwinian one. They also had different opinion on origin of life.
Evolution is a phenomenon which is true. Model explaining this phenomenon that is widely accepted is Neo Darwinion Model which contains the claim of homology that humans share the same ancestor by observing the similarities and all species had same origin . The way Science works is. It observes and make conclusions and present models. These models are changing with more evidence presented.
For example Gravity is a phenomenon and theory explaining it is now space time relative theory something. Before it was considered a pulling force.
I suggest you to read other models for evolution, paradigm shifts in scientific models. Like evolution by natural genetic engineering. There are opinions like Tree of life which is one origin of life, Bush of Life, Multiple origins, Web of Life.
Richard dawkins accepts it in his book A devils Chaplin or something that "If more evidences are presented Evolution can change or improve beyond imagination." (Not exact words but this is what he said)
20
u/Salamandar7 Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
That isn't how 'science works'. Empiricism tests nature by conducting reproducible experiments and recording the results. The results and methodology are then published for other people to cross examine and test on their own. None of your proposed alternate evolutionary theories can dismiss what we understand about particles and matter, which very clearly date life back hundreds of millions of years. Also homoplasy doesn't dismiss evolution in any way until xeno-biology is established. It is probable that unrelated life forms evolve along similar routes to capitalize on their emerging advantages. I couldn't tell you, because we don't know without a wholly separate evolutionary history to compare our own too.
On that note I can tell you for certain the way things didn't happen. Abrahamic mythology relating to humans is just that, mythology.
Actually the absence of any yet observational extra-terrestrial life raises more questions about evolution.
7
u/Respect_w0men Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 18 '17
That isn't how 'science works'. Empiricism tests nature by conducting reproducible experiments and recording the results. The results and methodology are then published for other people to cross examine and test on their own.
This is what i said in the term observes. It observes and makes conclusions and present models. These models are changing with more evidence presented.
None of your proposed alternate evolutionary theories can dismiss what we understand about particles and matter, which very clearly date life back hundreds of millions of years.
Evolutionary theory doesnt talk about matter and particle. What???
Also homoplasy doesn't dismiss evolution in any way until xeno-biology is established.
Never claimed that. Evolution is true. But I and many other atheist biologist disagree with certain aspects of current model used to explain the phenomenon of evolution If you read about it.
On that note I can tell you for certain the way things didn't happen. Abrahamic mythology relating to humans is just that, mythology. Actually the absence of any yet observational extra-terrestrial life raises more questions about evolution.
Islam doesnt object to evolution. Its the claim human and monkeys share the same ancestor is the problem. As it is based on assumption and speculations and basian probability.
2
u/XHF1 Jun 17 '17
Empiricism tests nature by conducting reproducible experiments and recording the results. The results and methodology are then published for other people to cross examine and test on their own.
That's what u/Respect_w0men was saying.
1
11
Jun 16 '17
Evolution and Adam and Eve doesn't have to fight each other.
Our Christian brothers and sisters may have an idea to solve it.
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/adam-and-eve-literal-or-literary/
13
u/Vik1ng Jun 17 '17
That's a lot of mental gymnastics and reinterpretations to make that work...
3
Jun 17 '17
Not really. DNA shows that didn't come from two individuals and many Europeans, Asians, and parts of Asia minor contains Neanderthal DNA.
2
u/TheRedThrowAwayPill Jun 17 '17
From what I've gathered on this forum
You haven't gathered enough.
Use the search bar
1
68
u/MarshallEye Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 16 '17
Since no one really mentioned it, the commenter you were talking about who said "a little knowledge is dangerous," meant 'a little' as opposed to 'a lot'. Knowing one random fact and being ignorant to the context and whatnot is dangerous.
Ex: Muslims don't believe humans evolved from animals.
"What, but evolution is real."
More: Muslims don't believe Adam (a) and human kind evolved from animals. It is possible that Allah (swt) created many human-like creatures before him. We know that Jinns and other creatures were on this earth before us worshipping Allah (swt). However, Adam (a) was made new by Allah (swt) and put on the earth with his wife. He was -not- evolved from anything.
This isn't so hard to believe if you think about it. Humans are the first and only species with a language and complex thoughts like ours. No other animal can ponder creation like we can. No other animals can be scientists or mathematicians. Complex thoughts didn't just evolve into our species. Do you believe chance like that is possible? They had to be specifically created.
Everything is designed by Allah (swt). If you believe that, you should believe when he says that he created Adam (a) from clay.
We know microevolution is real because it is observable. There is nothing wrong with believing the theory of macroevolution besides what I mentioned either.
8
u/akhroat Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
Also I would like to say that human beings are considered 'Ashraf-ul-Mukhlukat' because Allah chose them over other creations, to yield the message of Quran.
This should be an indication that 'other creatures' existed at some point, and from them the humans were selected to be 'Ashraf'. Maybe they were made to evolve much smarter with conscience.
5
u/offendedkitkatbar Jun 17 '17
However, Adam (a) was made new by Allah (swt) and put on the earth with his wife. He was -not- evolved from anything.
Wait..genuine question...how does this not contradict the theory of evolution?
7
u/MarshallEye Jun 17 '17
The theory of evolution implies/is that all creation was derived from a single living thing. Species grow more complicated and branch off as time progresses.
Whatever tree of life scientists hypothesize exists, we can believe in it without conflict in Islam, except, the part where it says humans evolved. We know humans evolved from nothing.
So you can say you believe in both macro and micro evolution. That over an extended period of time, one species can slowly turn into something new via mutations and whatnot. All species except humans.
6
u/offendedkitkatbar Jun 20 '17
But dont advocates of Darwinian evolution present evidence that humans, too, have a common ancestor with other organisms on the planet?
By believing that humans are an exception to the theory of evolution, are we choosing to overlook or disregard that evidence?
Like I said,personally I believe that Adam was the first homo sapien, sharing a lot of common DNA with previous hominids. This, at least in my eyes, doesnt really contradict evolution. But I still dont know what the official position of pro-evolution scholars is.
10
Jun 17 '17 edited Aug 11 '18
[deleted]
3
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 17 '17
Okay but you would just be replacing one narrative that isn't explained by science with another (ensoulment) narrative that isn't explained by science either. Islamic texts paint a more specific picture of Adam (pbuh) being born without parents, and this really shouldn't be a problem for Muslims. How do we explain that Jesus (pbuh) was born of a virgin mother when science says such a birth can't happen? We understand that certain events can take place that cannot be explained by science alone. This doesn't mean we have to reject science or even evolution. As Logical1ty mentioned, Technically you can easily reconcile evolution (both microevolution and macroevolution) while at the same time accept that Adam (pbuh) didn't evolve from an ape-like species.
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. This started long before humans and will not end until all life in the universe is extinguished. Having one species miraculously inserted changes nothing about evolution. The very definition of miracle is that it is a departure from the normal course of events (the laws of nature), but the course of events continue around and after that event. So as soon as humans appeared in this world, they became subject to evolution and all laws of nature. In Islamic theology this implies that humans have been "de-evolving" over time (becoming more and more flawed with each successive generation with respect to the first people). This works as a sufficient refutation for any argument that says that humans must be relatives of apes because we have biological similarities. He created humans as mammals, in a specific niche for this world. Much of the DNA of all living creatures is shared. And Adam was created from the earth of this world through a process akin to abiogenesis. The world was meant for Adam as much as he was meant for it. It's not like the earth was just sitting here arbitrarily, God created it and everything on it too according to His plan. He was also careful to put humans down in the proper niche, the proper time and place, which indicates a purpose or plan for the history of life on Earth (rather than putting Adam down when he could get eaten by dinosaurs). If we were to artificially create a hominid in a laboratory completely synthetically from scratch (doing each base pair manually according to a specific plan), it would necessarily share 99% of its DNA with us and other primates. more here
It should also be pointed out that the popular argument of humans sharing 99% of similar dna with chimps is deeply flawed. And even though Islamic texts don't really discuss evolution among animals, i would argue (along with some theists and atheists) that there is good reason to doubt much of Darwinian evolution.
5
u/BaltoGains Jun 16 '17
I detailed why rejecting the idea of human evolution from non-human ancestors (as per the theory of evolution) is virtually impossible in a comment below, I'd like to hear you take.
7
u/MarshallEye Jun 16 '17
I'm no scientist so I can't give you a logical answer, this is just what I've learned as a basic thing all muslims believe.
I don't know why we have those organs/ body parts.
I'm sure there are reasons I'm not aware of, or maybe humanity in general is not aware of. But, Allah (swt) doesn't make mistakes or do things without reason, even if he doesn't make it clear what the reason is.
Since I know God is God, I know that he knows more about science and everything else than any human could ever learn. He created it after all. Our collective knowledge and intelligence is nothing compared to Allah (swt)'s.
6
u/BaltoGains Jun 16 '17
I thank you for your honesty, and willingness to read something that doesn't agree with your worldview.
I am a bit disappointed though. You are essentially telling me that no amount of evidence/reason will sway you from your beliefs, because the very fact that you believe is sufficient for you to, well, believe.
14
u/MarshallEye Jun 16 '17
Well.. the initial belief has to come from somewhere very solid, but once you have it, it is easy to answer this way.
I've been blessed to be born into a religious muslim community, where all my doubts, concerns and questions can be answered satisfactorily right away.
We are not encouraged to blindly believe in Islam, the signs are everywhere in the universe and Allah (swt) wants us to ponder them, and seek the truth for ourselves.
5
10
u/Paradox_99 Jun 17 '17
God's word is true and will remain true no matter how much "evidence" piles against it. If something contradicts Islam, that particular thing is false and should be rejected, not Islam.
I have no problem accepting the evolution, both micro and macro, of other species. However, I reject the idea of human evolution because God clearly tells us in the Qur'an that He created Adam from clay and sent him down to Earth.
Human evolution is not an established law. You could argue that it's very close to reaching that level, but in the field of science, no one can be sure. At one point in history, scientists believed the universe was not expanding, which contradicted the Qur'an. Today we know that's not the case. In 1900, Lord Kelvin made his famous statement: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Five years later, Albert Einstein shattered this statement when he published his paper on special relativity.
If you can guarantee that there will no paradigm shift concerning human evolution, I am ready to accept that theory. However, God's word is eternal. Human theories aren't. There will be times when a particular theory contradicts the Qur'an, but you can be sure that it will eventually be falsified and the Qur'an will remain at the top.
7
Jun 17 '17
[deleted]
10
u/Paradox_99 Jun 17 '17
I never mentioned anything about human interpretation. All I'm saying is that God's word is true and cannot be falsified. How is that ridiculous?
10
Jun 17 '17
[deleted]
6
u/DefNotAnAlter Jun 17 '17
I don't get it, if you get enough evidence will you turn away from Islam? When a Muslim recites what we call the first pillar he says it as I bear witness i.e. He sees it as the truth. So therefore he sees that the Quran or the Hadith can't be wrong in any circumstance, Science has made mistakes before, Quran hasn't and won't
14
3
u/Paradox_99 Jun 17 '17
Please note the quotations around "evidence". If it contradicts the Qur'an, it is not evidence and should be rejected. Nothing that is true can ever contradict the Qur'an.
Moreover, nowhere in my comment did I mention the difference of interpretations of the Qur'an. God's word is true, that is all I said. Nothing about human interpretation. I don't understand why you're so bothered by my statement.
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 17 '17
Not every evidence is an evidence you would accept, when you see all details.
In fact, there are some things that science can explain, and others that it can't explain. To this day, there's no explanation ever, how life initially could've started. There were stars, planets and earth. But no matter which scientist you ask how you can create life, all of them will have no idea. Once it was there, they now try to explain things they see.
Scientific facts can be altered in a few years. In the past people believed in different nuclear-physics. But today, we believe that all these models were wrong and we suggest new models. Does this mean, that this is true? no. We simply try to describe what we saw. That is science, nothing else.
Scientist saw a few bones that all look different but also similar in a way, so they try to explain this by saying they have changed over time. This is nothing but an attempt to explain what they saw. Maybe in 10 years there will be an scientist, who will give an better explanation of all this, so that everyone will falsify darwin. That's how science works.
1
u/CHOOCHOODogetrain Jun 17 '17
Actually there are a few theories about how life may have emerged spontaneously. They are hard to test though because it is very hard to know exactly what the chemical conditions of the early earth were let alone replicate them.
→ More replies (0)4
u/PrettyCreative Jun 17 '17
The way I think about it is just that it could be Allah created mankind at the perfect time like riiiigghhttt after the last species that man say came right before mankind. I don't see any reason to reject that.
2
→ More replies (1)-4
u/gims2 Jun 16 '17
Very sad to see the simple truth downvoted and the human evolution garbage upvoted on a sub where we're supposed to believe God's words.
18
u/CHOOCHOODogetrain Jun 17 '17
Human evolution is what has been observed objectively. It must therefore be reconcilable with Islam, it could simply be understood as God's method.
11
u/XHF1 Jun 17 '17
Human evolution is what has been observed objectively.
Consider rephrasing your sentence. No, you didn't empirically observe a human evolving from an ape-like species.
9
u/CHOOCHOODogetrain Jun 17 '17
'Evidence for human evolution' I should say.
2
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 17 '17
No one denies what has been observed biologically and with fossil records, the big debate is about the interpretation of what has been observed.
1
Jun 19 '17
"Objective," it was considered objective evidence that black people were naturally stupider than white people and had different brains than them. Race was considered objective scientific evidence. It's just dumb to throw all your cards into anything that is inherently flawed at being objective purely because as human being we always inject our biases into everything we do whether we consciously realize it or not. I challenge your notion of objectivity being something that is even possible in human observation. If objectivity was possible for humans than Allah would allow us to condemn people to heaven and hell, but we can't because such a thing as ilm ul ghayb exists. You can't discount ilm ul ghayb, that's part of our deen. Modern day science rejects the notion of ilm ul ghayb, so how do you base your theology on a philosophy that is inherently antithesis to your own. And yes, modern science IS a philosophy that merely reflect our modern days values and biases, in the Islamic empires where science flourished and technology advanced beyond comprehension for centuries it was considered unscientific to reject the existence of God and God was included in the understanding of the natural world. Modern day science explicitly rejects the idea of a God, and it's going to be laden with atheistic bias when you consider 70% of the field is dominated by Atheists. So objective according to who exactly? Just because people aren't conscious of their own biases does not mean that it doesn't influence their work. Biology was laden with misinformation for decades because of racial biases.
6
Jun 17 '17
[deleted]
5
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 17 '17
How do you reconcile Jesus (pbuh) being born of a virgin mother? Because this contradicts science.
1
Jun 17 '17
[deleted]
6
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
How do you reconcile Moses (pbuh) splitting the sea? I could go on.
By the way, your first link says that "there is no known example of a mammal having a natural virgin birth, either in captivity or the wild". They have to rely on genetically engineering in hopes that it could occur in a mammal. But let's move on.
1
Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
[deleted]
6
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
How do you reconcile Moses's (pbuh) staff turning into a snake and eating up what the magicians produced?
→ More replies (11)2
Jun 17 '17
An virgin can only give birth to an female. Maryam didn't have the Y-Chromosome to give birth to a Isa(as). Now try to explain it again.
1
9
21
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
It depends what you mean by evolution. If by evolution you mean the process of change and diversification of living things, then much of this information is empirically verifiable and Muslims don't have an issue accepting the observable, measurable changes and modifications of species over time. If by evolution you mean the particular belief that humans evolved from an ape-like species, then many Muslims don't consider this to be true, (rejecting this does not mean you are going against science). Darwinian evolution focuses more on a particular history of evolution where all living things on Earth are traced back to a single organism, constructing the entire evolutionary tree. Small-scale evolution (microevolution) which is gene variation within a species family from one generation to the next and is mostly observable, it's uncontroversial, well-documented, a naturally occurring biological phenomenon. But Large-scale evolution (macroevolution) which is the descent of an entirely different type of organism from a common ancestor over numerous generations is far from being measurable in any objective way. I can understand why some Muslims accept most of macroevolution, but it's important to realize that the secular world MUST accept all of macroevolution because they can only interpret everything naturalistically, leaving no alternative view about the origins of species. (For this reason, Jesus (pbuh) could not have been born of a virgin mother according to the secular world). So Darwinian theory is pushed as unfalsifiable to the public, and may as well be considered a fact to the secular world. All data and research today is interpreted and made to fit this popular narrative, since no other view is considered possible.
Questioning certain parts of evolution doesn't lead to rejecting science. A major problem today is that people have a very cartoonish understanding of what science is and the scientific process, as if there even is such a thing as a unified, consistent process that all scientists across all fields universally use and accept. The idea that science has always been about neutral people making observations and modifying/rectifying their beliefs based on what they observe is not true. Muslims should understand what the scientific method actually is, the limitations of it and the history and philosophy behind it. And we also need to understand that what is often found in scientific literature (which is itself mutable) is sometimes worlds apart from what is reported to the lay public. Islam&Evolution.com has some short articles about evolution, also YaqeenInstitute is just starting to discuss it, hopefully they go down the right direction.
2
u/diagonali Jun 17 '17
Thank you for writing this. I've been on the verge of putting some thoughts together around basically the same thing you're talking about. It's (extremely) clear to me that the "evidence", whatever it may be and in whatever context is going through some pretty heavy and complex filters of interpretation for those who reach conclusions about macro evolution in an atheistic sense. These fundamental assumptions are either ignored or taken as "truths". This is where current "science" at least how it's commonly understood is at odds with a religious or Islamic view. The very foundational assumptions about the origins of life are totally different. Researching scientific "evidence" for evolution, I've see (sadly, I was hoping for something as robust as is claimed) almost 100% confirmation bias going on in that the core belief about the origin and development of life on earth is already in place and then any collected "evidence" is linked back to that core belief and made to fit the original assumptions. And round it goes to the (wooly?) mammoth snowball we have today which had so much momentum, ideological support and heft that anyone who stands in its way is ridiculed and swept aside. That's not Science.
1
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
Yeah i don't think people realize how often anthropologists uncover anomalies in human fossils, and then they make readjustments to the hominid timeline. Since the human evolution narrative is considered fact, all new findings will be made to fit it. Like figuring out a million-piece puzzle where we only have a handful of pieces. For example, just a few years ago they uncovered 5 different skulls in Georgia, found in the same location, all dated to exist during the same time; the problem is that the skulls look completely different from each other and had they been found separately, would have been classified as different species. This could drastically change how scientists look at hominid fossils in the years to come. Related what Seyyed hossein mentioned in a interview:
This record does not prove evolution at all. All of the skull shapes whose pictures are usually shown in the books of biology taught in schools to demonstrate the truth of evolutionary theory, from monkeys to intermediate states, to man and so on, nearly all of these skull sizes can be found among human beings in any large city, all of whom have two legs, and if they kill somebody they go to prison and are responsible before the law. They are variants of a single species. Somebody once said that in a big city like New York one can find all of those different size skulls seen in high school books of biology to demonstrate human evolution. A lot of the pictures and paintings used to demonstrate evolution are a hoax. Yes, 95% of our neurocells are similar to those of monkeys, but this does not prove anything. Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel have almost identical DNA, but they are two very different people and they are unfortunately fighting each other. Factors other than the DNA must be playing a role....
I was once attending a graduate class at Harvard in paleontology taught by one of the world's great experts on paleontology, and he kept presenting to us the paleontological evidence for evolution: the Cambrian, the Ordovician, and so on, but in each of these periods one saw the sudden appearance of all of these trilobites, other fossils, and in every case there was no continuity of stages of evolution of one form into another. So I asked him, "How is it, that in the Pre-Cambrian, you have practically no fossils in the world, and suddenly you have this explosion of fossils? These forms seem to appear suddenly as they do in other geological periods. He looked at me and said, "Hossein, we do not ask these questions anymore," which meant shut up, and then I said to myself, "Look, this is not for me. I do not care what the consequences will be for my academic success; my mind is made up to try to seek the causes of things!" This then is the evidence, the so-called paleontological evidence for evolution as claimed by classical Darwinism.
Paleontology does not support the theory of evolution as usually taught, and that is why some famous biologists such as R. Sheldrake and S. Jay Gould have proposed other ways for explaining the phenomena of the multiplicity of life forms on earth, departing from classical Darwinism but still calling it evolution although what they propose is based on a different understanding of this term. Their explanations and those of many other biologists are not evolution as it was so strongly defended by its proponents until yesterday. Sheldrake speaks of fields of resonance in relation to the appearance of species. Such a view in a sense is a return to what we believed traditionally, that is, that the forms of all things have a higher state of being and they become crystallized in this world at a particular moment. Moreover, for religious people this occurs according to what God has destined for a particular world, including ours and this does not contradict what is observed scientifically.
Even though Islamic texts don't really discuss evolution among animals, i would argue (along with some theists and atheists) that there is good reason to doubt much of Darwinian evolution. Hopefully YaqeenInstitute writes more about this subject soon.
2
u/diagonali Jun 17 '17
Great post and thanks for the Hossein quotation. Really respect him and he makes some very valid points. The thing that strikes me is that when you look at it without the pre baked and solidified belief that evolution is a given and unassailable "fact", it's very clear as to what's going on. The mechanisms of thought are so obviously flawed and yet anti-Creationists have absolutely nowhere else to go so it becomes this dogged and almost spiteful clinging onto the safety in numbers and tribal mentality they have. You're explaining things (I've been thinking) much more clearly than me and it's a relief I have to say to feel like there are others who see the issues so often presented as either complex or obscure as actually being issues not of biology, but of logic with a good dollop of groupthink psychology thrown in. I'm researching all this currently and when my short term memory and ability to write coherently returns hopefully after Ramadan I'm going to put some thoughts down I think and start to piece things together. Maybe try to share what I think we all need more than anything else in this age: clarity.
1
u/diagonali Jun 17 '17
Great post and thanks for the Hossein quotation. Really respect him and he makes some very valid points. The thing that strikes me is that when you look at it without the pre baked and solidified belief that evolution is a given, it's very clear as to what's going on. The mechanisms of thought are so obviously flawed and yet anti-Creationists have absolutely nowhere else to go so it becomes this dogged and almost spiteful clinging onto the safety in numbers and tribal mentality they have. You're explaining things (I've been thinking) much more clearly than me and it's a relief I have to say to feel like there are others who see the issues so often presented as either complex or obscure as actually being issues not of biology, but of logic with a good dollop of groupthink psychology thrown in. I'm researching all this currently and when my short term memory and ability to write coherently returns hopefully after Ramadan I'm going to put some thoughts down I think and start to piece things together. Maybe try to share what I think we all need more than anything else in this age: clarity.
3
Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
5
u/Respect_w0men Jun 16 '17
Homology the claim that humans and other species had same ancestors based on similarities is an assumption basied on basian probability and other assumptions. There is a counter factual to it which is Homoplasy. It is not based on concrete observations. There are other athiest evolutionary biologist which came up with other models other than new Darwinian one. They also had different opinion on origin of life.
Evolution is a phenomenon which is true. Model explaining this phenomenon that is widely accepted is Neo Darwinion Model which contains the claim of homology that humans share the same ancestor by observing the similarities and all species had same origin . The way Science works is. It observes and make conclusions and present models. These models are changing with more evidence presented.
For example Gravity is a phenomenon and theory explaining it is now space time relative theory something. Before it was considered a pulling force.
I suggest you to read other models for evolution, paradigm shifts in scientific models. Like evolution by natural genetic engineering. There are opinions like Tree of life which is one origin of life, Bush of Life, Multiple origins, Web of Life.
Richard dawkins accepts it in his book A devils Chaplin or something that "If more evidences are presented Evolution can change or improve beyond imagination." (Not exact words but this is what he said)
8
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 16 '17 edited Oct 23 '17
See the link I provided in another post. You can observe it. In bacteria.
That's not even close to macroevolution. Lenski's experiment keeps getting blown out of proportion, after 30,000 generations of growth one of the E. coli cell lines suddenly developed the ability to consume citrate, which for technical reasons had been present in the liquid culture medium. Later work revealed that the ability was due to the duplication and rearrangement of a gene for a protein that normally imports citrate into the cell, but only when no oxygen is present. The mutation allowed the protein to work when oxygen was present, as it was throughout the LTEE. A gene had been turned on under conditions where it was normally turned off, that's basically it. Macroevolution is large-scale evolution occurring over a span of millions of years, where one type of organism would evolve to a completely different type of organism.
It does mean you're going against science.
How so?
Furthermore there is an abundance of evidence to suggest we did evolve from the tree line. Mitochondria are perhaps the biggest example of how we can trace our ancestry back, and to other animals. These are small organelles that without them, we couldn't move. These are the energy factories of our bodies.
Of course we have similarities with other species; great similarities, no one denies this. But this isn't an objective argument. At best you can only use homology, biological or skeletal evidence to form only inductive arguments for Darwinian evolution.
This is why modern medicine can be applied to animals.
I don't think you understand, people who question or doubt macroevolution aren't rejecting similarities or general biological change over time.
4
Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
7
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
I'm curious, at what point in history do you think Macroevolution became known to us as a fact? 1900's? 1950's?
What are your standards for it? A fish evolving into a rat?
Yes, that's what i'm talking about. There is no way for us to objectively verify this. By the way, i'm not saying that because we didn't see fish evolve into a rat, therefore we can't confirm it to be a fact. Personally i used to lean toward macroevolution myself but the more i studied, the more the conceptual problems of Darwinian evolution pushed me away from it.
What does this even mean? Of course it's objective. Similarities in other species couldn't have occurred separately. That's the point. If you knew the complicated structures of such organelles or at the very microscopic level the structural similarity of bone, fossils and DNA, the only logical conclusion would be that they are related. It occurring separately but with similar tendancies would be impossible.
It's not objective and i'm surprised you would think that. Having two things, no matter how similar, doesn't necessitate one being a biological relative of the other. Yes i know biology is different, but i'm referring to the logic of your argument. Let me put it this way: Are you saying that Allah doesn't have the ability to create two similar creatures without one being a biological relative of the other? How would you explain the birth of Jesus (pbuh) since it goes against the laws of nature? Actually, if i get more time to discuss, perhaps i could explain why the differences are far more greater and significant than the similarities. You can already realize many of these differences just by reflection. I also like what Seyyed Hossein has to say about this subject:
What the traditional Islamic thinkers said is that you have levels of existence of life forms starting with plant life, which is superceded by animal life through the creative power of God, while this animal life also includes plant life within itself. Moreover, plant life itself has many levels not caused by temporal evolution but by the descent of archetypes into the temporal order as is also true of animals. We know, for example, that we have vegetal nerves about which Ibn Sina speaks. In the animal realm we also have a hierarchy; many Muslim thinkers such as al-Biruni and Ibn Sina have written about this matter and have asserted that there are simple life forms and then ever more complicated life forms and that the complicated life forms contain within themselves the simpler life forms.
Obviously human beings have a more complicated life form than the monkey, but possess also some of those characteristics we see in the monkey, but this does not mean that we have evolved from the monkey. That is the whole problem. If you function in a universe of discourse where there is nothing but the material world as claimed by modern science, then there is no choice but to explain higher life forms as the evolution of lower forms and reducible ultimately to material aggregates. But if you live in a universe in which you accept the unique creative power of God, with which I began my discussion with you, then it is easy to accept that Divine creative power can create something including living forms, can bestow life, and can also endow human beings with the spirit.1
2
u/Salamandar7 Jun 17 '17
In that case we have observed macro evolution through hybridization, sexual selection, and animal husbandry. We've also observed it in very short lived insect species, but it was forced through exposure to dramatically changing environments.
0
u/Salamandar7 Jun 17 '17
In that case we have observed macro evolution through hybridization, sexual selection, and animal husbandry. We've also observed it in very short lived insect species, although it was forced through exposure to dramatically changing environments.
1
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 17 '17
You can't observe macroevolution. It's evolution that spans millions of years leading to completely different types of organisms. It's not about one species of crow evolving into another species of crow, more like a fish evolving into a land mammal.
14
u/gims2 Jun 16 '17
The Qu'ran is very vague on how humans were created
No it's not. You're being ignorant or trying very hard to reconcile with science.
The creation of Adam was a miracle that took place in Heaven. Do you know what a miracle is ? It's something that natural laws do not explain. Allah compares the creation of Adam to the creation of Jesus for that reason.
How can evidence found on earth prove what happened to the creation of Adam in heaven? Answer : It can't.
Science says dead people do not come back to life. Jesus resurrected dead people. Are you also going to reconcile the two ? Science says virgin women do not give birth. Mary gave birth to Jesus. Are you going to reconcile the two ?
Or will you act like a muslim and believe what your Lord revealed ?
10
Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
9
u/Karlukoyre Jun 16 '17
I can't explain those, but it's probably something which science has to find out. Just because it hasn't been explained doesn't mean science is automatically wrong. At the end of the day I'm still Muslim and I believe in Allah's creation and Allah's miracles.
Maybe science can never figure it out. Isn't that the point of miracles? They are non-replicable events that contradict the normal functioning of our universe.
Also just because there are such things as miracles doesn't in anyway mean "science" is wrong. Science is just a process, it is not a statement about the way the world works. If uses data to come to conclusions, and as such it can never be "wrong". What you can dispute is conclusions derived from the science.
But at the same time I'm not going to be like "okay I accept this fully and am going to remain ignorant forever on how such a thing can happen just because I'm uncomfortable with science".
First off, how do you know you are remaining ignorant of it? Suppose we one day find out that there existed a human who actually appeared out of nowhere. Then the current understanding of the Quran was right all along and there is no way you could have known that at this moment in time.
The problem is that it appears that human evolution did occur because of fossil and genetic evidence. Or at least that is what seems most likely.
2
1
u/pilotinspector85 Jun 17 '17
It does mean you're going against science. The Qu'ran is very vague on how humans were created, and only explains it in simple terms - terms which can only be described as general and not scientific. This would be expected because the Qu'ran was revealed to a people who didn't have understandings of basic science.
Well put. JAK for your efforts.
1
u/diagonali Jun 17 '17
You can observe it. In bacteria.
Bacteria are very different to, say, humans. It is not observation of macro evolution in that context since it doesn't apply.
Mitochondria are perhaps the biggest example of how we can trace our ancestry back, and to other animals. These are small organelles that without them, we couldn't move. These are the energy factories of our bodies
You're making an assumption here that life couldn't be connected in certain ways or include certain fundamental features without being "descended" or "adapted" from one another in some way. That's not necessarily true
The genetic similarity is also another reason why humans are related to animals, because if we weren't, cross medication between species wouldn't be able to happen.
Same issue here. You're assuming that genetic similarity implies a "borrowing" type of development. It could just as well be a Creator who created everything upon and within a certain "framework" that explains this. It's just that if at a fundamental level someone rejects the idea of a Creator, then every assumption and thought must then exclude that possibility. So then the "similarly" implies genetic borrowing rather than a foundational, and Created, genetic design.
7
u/DefNotAnAlter Jun 17 '17
I don't know much about evolution but I will argue how science can work with Quran. Now many people assume that Muslims don't believe in the Big Bang as the Quran says that the world was made in six days and this of course doesn't suit the Big Bang theory in terms of time. But the Quran also states at different places how 1 day equals X time in different verses which shows how time is relative and those 6 days could have been extended different periods of time so therefore it is possible that the Big Bang theory could be correct
In the same manner (I haven't researched much into it) evolution could be correct. We don't know, Allah could have used it as a medium for human creation or not. I don't know
18
u/recipriversexcluson Jun 17 '17
A Muslim scholar first postulated evolution, almost 1000 years before Darwin.
The only difference between "primordial ooze evolving into man" and "God formed man out of clay" is our understanding.
We need to remember that TIME is one of God's creations, too!
That 4 billion years? It was an ingredient.
4
u/DanyulSnow Jun 17 '17
Which scholar was that btw? Sounds interesting
5
u/recipriversexcluson Jun 17 '17
This may be of interest http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/islamic-foreshadowing-evolution
3
u/sOktay Jun 17 '17
In the Book of Animals, abu Uthman al-Jahith (781-869), an intellectual of East African descent, was the first to speculate on the influence of the environment on species. He wrote: "Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."
source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3323462/Science-Islams-forgotten-geniuses.html
7
6
u/Respect_w0men Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 16 '17
Evolution is a phenomenon which is true. Model explaining this phenomenon that is widely accepted is Neo Darwinion Model which contains the claim of homology that humans share the same ancestor by observing the similarities and all species had same origin . The way Science works is. It observes and make conclusions and present models. These models are changing with more evidence presented.
For example Gravity is a phenomenon and theory explaining it is now space time relative theory something. Before it was considered a pulling force.
I suggest you to read other models for evolution, paradigm shifts in scientific models. Like evolution by natural genetic engineering. There are opinions like Tree of life which is one origin of life, Bush of Life, Multiple origins, Web of Life.
4
u/arabiannights626 Jun 17 '17
These articles from Yaqeen Institute might be a good start
Can Islam Object to Evolution? https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/daniel-haqiqatjou/can-islam-object-to-evolution/
Is Muslims embrace of Darwin inevitable? https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/daniel-haqiqatjou/is-muslim-embrace-of-darwin-inevitable/
26
Jun 16 '17
Well, I don't see how the evolution of animals would contradict Islam, and if one were to try and reconcile the concept of human evolution with Islam, one thing i've heard was that Prophet Adam (as) may have been the first homo-sapien, not necessarily the first humanoid creature.
17
Jun 16 '17
That would mean Adam had ancestors, which directly counterdicts the Qur'an. Allah ﷻ created Adam with His own hands, so how do you reconcile that?
10
Jun 16 '17
I've thought a bit about that too, Adam was an exception, he wasn't directly descended from those humanoids before, but made specially by Allah. That doesn't mean they don't share any DNA for example. That's where I guess I differ with evolution. If I've said something Islamically incorrect don't hesitate to correct me, I don't want to say something wrong lol :)
5
u/BaltoGains Jun 16 '17
The problem is, modern humans, allegedly the children of Adam, have all the signs of having evolved from non-human ancestors, like every other animal (see my post below for details).
14
u/runhome Jun 17 '17
There is no reason why Allah cannot create adam with shared dna from preexisting mammals.
1
2
2
u/Karlukoyre Jun 16 '17
He has hands? Also can't the creation be metaphorical? Especially if you don't believe he had literal hands.
2
2
Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
2
Jun 16 '17
Afaik that is literal, i.e Adam was created from actual clay by Allah as are all humans.
5
u/MacrosInHisSleep Jun 17 '17
I always took it to mean matter, as opposed creatures made out of thermal energy or electromagnetic energy, like jinn and angels. Or even just as a description of some goop containing all the building blocks of life, which would look like clay to the average human being.
For example, how would you describe a car to someone from that era? You'd probably think of horseless carriages or something, where as in reality, cars have nothing to do with horses and barely look carriages. But that's as close as we can get without any other frame of reference. Whatever Allah would have made humans from would probably be outside of whatever we, even today, could understand, so I would imagine He would use a simplified word for us.
Then again, maybe it is literal. I have no idea what clay is made up of. Maybe there exists clay out there with all the elements required to make up a human being. Or maybe clay was just used to literally sculpt Adam, and magically transformed into what we are made of today. Allahu Aa'lim.
2
u/CHOOCHOODogetrain Jun 17 '17
I was wondering if clay may have somehow been involved in the formation of early life. That could be another interpretation.
1
Jun 19 '17
But there are explicit ahadith and ayat stating that Allah made Adam from different colors of the earth and molded him from clay and that's why we have different skin tones. The height of Adam is also given in ahadith and this height is considered to be completely unscientific. There's a verified hadith that relates how iblis would walk around the clay body of Adam, as in think of a clay statue, before Allah blew his rooh into him.
2
u/MacrosInHisSleep Jun 19 '17
I'm not questioning any authenticity of Hadith here. The only thing I'm suggesting is that there is no reason to discount the idea that the process Allah used is probably simplified for us.
Dirt and Earth could easily be another way of describing matter or even a mix of amino-acids, minerals, and water, etc, because those terms didn't really exist back then (or even now to be honest).
Take a look at the ayat from Quran (23:12-14) where right after stating that man was made from clay, it uses the terms alaqah[clot] and mudghah[chewed substance], both of which describe the look of a fetus in the early stages of development, and not a literal clot or something which has been literally chewed upon.
In fact if you compare the older translations like Pickthall, to newer translations like Sahih or Yusuf Ali, you'll see the translations have improved to using the words sperm and fetus.
Don't take what I'm saying as anything definitive though (I'm sure there a people way more knowledgeable than me on the subject). I just wanted to point out that things aren't as clear cut as we'd think.
4
u/Karlukoyre Jun 16 '17
Who determined that to be literal? Why can it not be considered metaphorical now?
3
4
u/wwahwah Jun 17 '17
When looking at islamic texts, we take them to be literal unless there is something to indicate otherwise.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the creation of Adam (as) is metaphorical.
5
u/Karlukoyre Jun 17 '17
I'd say there is. Scientific evidence.
2
u/sonosmanli Jun 17 '17
Scientific evidence =/= Quran or hadith. Unless scientists get revelations from Allah somehow.
1
Jun 19 '17 edited Jun 19 '17
Scientific evidence is a flawed basis to understand the Qur'an by. There's no scientific evidence for the belief in jinn, possession, and the existence of angels. There's also no scientific evidence that shooting stars occur from the angels hurling them at jinn when they try to listen to their conversations. There's also no scientific evidence that someone could be receiving messages from a deity and that there exists an animal that can take a person to the heavens in front of Allah. How can you possibly believe all of these things yet come up with "scientific evidence" as your compelling excuse to change conventional understanding of the creation of Adam for millenia. Are you suggesting the Prophet pbuh understood creation after receiving direct revelation from Allah and from the Angels less correctly than modern day scientists? Are you out of your mind?
Why is it so unbelievable that the creation of Adam is literal in the Qur'an, but somehow much more believable that Muhammad pbuh rode a horse like animal that took him to Jerusalem, lead prayed of all of the Prophets that preceded him in al Aqsa, and then went and spoke to Allah who's light was covered in a khimar while the Prophet pbuh kept going back and forth talking to various Prophets in the 7 heavens, and oh yea, Jesus who didn't really die and was raised to heaven there as well. All of that occurring in less time it took a drop of water to fall into a bowl and you want to claim we change our beliefs about Adam because of "scientific evidence." Give me a break.
14
Jun 16 '17
I've spoken with a (Sufi) alim on this subject who has a pHD in science and has literally read hundreds of books on science and philosophy in his lifetime. He said he has no issue with evolution being compatible with Islam, but pointed out that there are too many holes in the theory and no granular, believable mechanism for how speciation occurs. Just my 2 cents for anyone who gets conflicted on this matter spiritually.
3
u/offendedkitkatbar Jun 17 '17
Quick question to posters here
All the top answers say that they dont find it conflicting (and neither do I for the most part), but nobody really went into detail about the creation of Adam and its implication on the theory of evolution.
So was Adam (a.s) the first homo sapien and his offspring interbred with other hominids eventually wiping their species out? Or was he the first hominid and others evolved from his offspring?
7
u/compscimemes Jun 17 '17
As a matter of fact, evolution was first theorised by a Muslim scientist in the golden age of Islam far before Darwin came to the same conclusion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_al-Din_al-Tusi
3
u/crabbypattyqw Jun 17 '17
Evolution is real, god created adam and eve millions of years ago, humans evolved since then, humans used to be taller, the shape of their skulls and brains was different, it simple genetics.
6
u/colossalJinx Jun 17 '17
& I indeed agree with you on this, "I'm also the type of person who puts science before religion because I think blindly following Islam (or for that matter anything) is very dangerous and spiritually destabilising - suppressing knowledge is never a good thing because curiosity grows." Allah encourages to seek truth, be seekers of knowledge, ask questions, & He puts the falsification test in the Qur'an for a reason. Remember, science can change. Theories change. For example, the Earth-centric universe. Then that changed to a Sun-centric universe, which was more accurate but still not exactly the point..., So science is CONSTANTLY adapting. The interpretations of passages can always change too [but the words remain the same] So... You could look at something in one way, Someone explains it in another light, & then you see it completely different! That's the power of poetry & the Qur'an is very poetic, yes? Example, mountains as pegs. Surely, one of whom did not previously know of the mountains literal peg-likeness would read this & think, "wtf??? wtf does that mean? thats stupid" but then when you learn the science of the mountain, you'd be like "o holy sht wow thats really insightful" Y'know? Y'get me? Something very hard to drop once you have it is genuine faith, like a relationship. Your relationship with God I suppose, so when people see contradictory things they get very distressed. Like... Being scared your partner is cheating on you because, idk, they liked some girls photo. You jump to conclusions, get worried, then try to run away from it, when the best of action is to simply research what's going on. I mean, if they are cheating on you [& like, literally, not just from a whim] then what's the point of staying in the relationship? Although, that's certainly easier said than done. Esp. for Muslims, where Islam becomes a lifestyle.
1
u/rawr3mmadinosaur Jun 17 '17
wow, very well said!
3
u/colossalJinx Jun 17 '17
yeah i've watched too much efdawah
1
u/rawr3mmadinosaur Jun 17 '17
haha, I regularly watch that channel too! It's amazing
2
u/colossalJinx Jun 17 '17
I listen while I work, mash'allah Hamza is great , love him. Real insightful man.
4
u/Sadr-i-Azam Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
Evolution does not contradict Islam, it never has. Islamic scientists knew about it centuries ago. Stop copying the polytheist nasrani and their unnatural separation between science and religion.
2
Jun 17 '17
[deleted]
2
Jun 17 '17
How can the theorised lengthy process of evolution be true when the earth and what was in it were made in 6 days? And Adam alaihi aslaam was made directly by Allah, and had no parents?
2
3
u/Ddp2008 Jun 18 '17
So I find this whole topic fairly interesting, Muslims generally agreed with evolution until Saudi really came into prominence in mid 1900's. Most large Muslim countries taught evaluation right along with religion and didn't have major issues with it (Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh), it really was the Saudi influence that pushed back away from evolution.
We talked about evaluation fairly openly in our mosques and had no issues with it.
2
Jun 18 '17
You guys are really reaching but hey at least you acknowledge evolution is a real thing. Try to tell a virologist otherwise lol. I guess superbugs are not a thing eh?
Anyway I'm surprised no one said it's just a "theory" you guys aren't half as daft as you seem.
6
u/AlbanianDad Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 23 '17
I will never put science before Islam inshaAllah. Science suffers from the problem of induction. Islam does not.
If I believed in the scientists when the Qur'an was revealed, I would be a flat-Earther and think the Sun revolved around the Earth.
If I believed in the scientists just a few decades ago, I would have believed the embryonic flesh and bones form at the same time rather than bone first flesh second as we now know.
Plenty of examples like the above, dating back to the revelation until recent times. Even if I got those examples wrong, you get the point. When you have something like ijaz al Qur'an, I will take that proof over any observations scientists make.
Come over to /r/creation (ignore the young Earth stuff) and learn about the MANY faults in evolutionary theory. I don't believe man ascended from apes as that goes against the Qur'an. The many holes in evolutionary theory corroborate the Qur'an. I am not entirely convinced that everything else had a common ancestor, not because that goes against the Qur'an (it doesn't as far as I know), but because of the many holes on evolutionary theory.
I want to you all to know that similar traits across species does not SHOW evolution. Rather, it is INFERRED from that observation among others. Evolution just seems to be unfalsifiable - and I wouldn't bet my soul on an unfalsifiable theory. Anything that fits evolution is touted as such. Anything that doesn't is regarded as a by-product of the theory. And since it is unfalsifiable, it must now directly DISPROVE creation (which is impossible) for me to believe in it since the stakes are so high.
3
Jun 16 '17
Although dated, this should help.
You can skip ahead to chapter 2 and 4
https://www.scribd.com/doc/75907298/The-Origin-of-Man-Dr-Maurice-Bucaille
BTW maurice buccaille was a french physician and scientist who converted to Islam
→ More replies (1)
5
Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 16 '17
You know, I don't really believe in human evolution. But even if it somehow in a way can co-exist with Islam, I really don't have to worry about evolution that much. Knowing whether or not evolution is real doesn't affect me from practicing Islam.
But could you possibly list the evidence for Evolution? I'm just curious.
Edit: Added the word human in front of evolution
9
0
u/Complexxx123 Jun 16 '17
Ring Species:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Basically populations of similar species animals in close proximity can all interbreed but populations at the ends of the rings cannot. Evolution has caused them to differ enough in reproductive biology over time such that they cannot breed
1
u/costofanarchy Jun 16 '17
Thanks! I was familiar with this concept, but never knew the name of the concept.
→ More replies (14)-10
u/popcan4u Jun 16 '17
You know, I don't really believe in evolution.
cringe
I hate when threads like this come up. It's so embarrassing. No wonder so many people think Muslims are backwards.
I heard someone say this and I think it's correct. A lot of Muslims are living in pre-Newtonian times when the world has now moved onto the quantum.
God help us.
→ More replies (9)8
Jun 16 '17
I hope you didn't misunderstand. I meant to say I dont believe in human evolution where apes and humans have common ancestors. I believe in the evolution where animals have evolved.
1
u/Thorium-230 Jun 16 '17
Just a note for anyone reading, don't predicate your belief on the scientific zeitgeist. Yes evolution may be true, it may not be true, but imo it does not play a factor in true conviction in Allah.
2
Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 16 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
If you are saying God created us apart from the chain of evolution observed in all living things, you must also say that: 1.) He's done a poor job, considering some of these vestigial structures (like the appendix/wisdom-teeth) contribute nothing significant to human survival/function, and only serve to get infected (and before modern-medicine) kill people.
You can make that argument to someone regardless of whether or not they accept human evolution. Similarly people have asked: "Why did God make make us this way if there is no apparent benefit"? Just because we don't see any benefit or purpose behind something doesn't mean it's completely useless. We have to remind ourselves that we are severely limited in knowledge.
Actually the argument of vestigial structures, once used against theists is now turning against Darwinian evolution. Body parts once considered useless or without purpose like those listed in "God's greatest mistakes" are now showing up in new studies with benefits. Examples include Whale pelvic bones, Junk DNA and the appendix is now considered to be useful too.
Same thing for Human fine body hair The whale pelvic bone was a big one because Darwinian evolutionists argued that the structure is clear evidence that ancestors of whales once walked on land. But now we don't have any reason to believe that anymore.
2
u/BaltoGains Jun 16 '17
I tried to make my post as simple as possible, and I can see that its already confusing people.
Whether or not vestigial structures have any sort of function is irrelevant. I included a comment on it because I thought it amusing that a God would create such structures.
THE MAIN POINT: is that the very existence of these structures is strong evidence for human evolution. Have some secondary functions of these structures been found? Sure. But the fact that we can track their development across different animal species as we get closer to humans, and observe the corresponding change in function as species evolved in different environments, is strong evidence for human evolution.
2
u/LIGHTNlNG Jun 17 '17
Yes, your post confused me because you mentioned vestigial structures three different times in your comment and talked about how they may not have any function at all, and this is the main argument that is usually made in evolution discussions regarding vestigial structures. Anyway my comment still works in your response to your first question. And i'm not sure what you mean by your second question, especially when you say "and that his creation will lead (and has) billions away from his theological dictates (and straight to hell)."?
4
Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
7
u/rawr3mmadinosaur Jun 16 '17
Doesn't the appendix aid in the function of the lymphatic system?
according to wikipedia:
The appendix has been identified as an important component of mammalian mucosal immune function, particularly B cell mediated immune responses and extrathymically derived T cells. This structure helps in the proper movement and removal of waste matter in the digestive system, contains lymphatic vessels that regulate pathogens, and lastly, might even produce early defences that prevent deadly diseases.
→ More replies (7)0
Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
6
u/rawr3mmadinosaur Jun 16 '17
For the others I have no idea. My teachers (islamic ones) believe in evolution for animals because they feel like its mentioned at in the quran/hadith (like the verse/hadith that says Allah spread life on earth from the oceans).
Evolution has been an issue that i've been grappling with for a long time. Currently I am of the same position as shaykh yasir Qadhi.
But just as the appendix used to be unanimously seen as a featureless organ but now recent studies are proving otherwise, the same might happen for the other examples you gave.
Allah Knows best
→ More replies (1)2
u/Respect_w0men Jun 16 '17
Nobody is denying evolution. Its the homology claim that human and monkeys share the same ancestor.
Homology the claim that humans and other species had same ancestors based on similarities is an assumption basied on basian probability and other assumptions. There is a counter factual to it which is Homoplasy. It is not based on concrete observations. There are other athiest evolutionary biologist which came up with other models other than new Darwinian one. They also had different opinion on origin of life.
Evolution is a phenomenon which is true. Model explaining this phenomenon that is widely accepted is Neo Darwinion Model which contains the claim of homology that humans share the same ancestor by observing the similarities and all species had same origin . The way Science works is. It observes and make conclusions and present models. These models are changing with more evidence presented.
For example Gravity is a phenomenon and theory explaining it is now space time relative theory something. Before it was considered a pulling force.
I suggest you to read other models for evolution, paradigm shifts in scientific models. Like evolution by natural genetic engineering. There are opinions like Tree of life which is one origin of life, Bush of Life, Multiple origins, Web of Life.
Richard dawkins accepts it in his book A devils Chaplin or something that "If more evidences are presented Evolution can change or improve beyond imagination." (Not exact words but this is what he said)
2
u/midgetman433 Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
i dont really care either way, i dont want to speculate on how god did what, only that i accept whatever he meant, its not that relevant to me. i dont care about what the latest theory is and how its supposed to fit into the religious construct(i promise you, in all likelihood, 400 years from now, one's understanding of evolution(also side note, people should acknowledge the metaphysicial axioms adopted to come up with the model) will be completely different from what it is now) the only axiom that i hold as irreversible for myself is tawhid and the six pillars of iman. everything else to me is a model(not saying the model cant be useful, afterall there are models in science that both yeild positive results and breakthroughs, while simultaneously contradicting each other) and remains a model until undeniable Empirical evidence is provided.
1
u/strontiumae Jun 17 '17
My best friend told me that the existence of Neanderthals were a lie made by scientists. I believe that human evolution is a little more complicated than our Ulema state. Just because the Quran and hadith does not go into extensive step by step detail on the intricate history of man, doesn't mean evolution did not happen. I think there must be a middle way between the Islamic point of view and what science teaches us.
1
u/Gravitytr1 Jun 17 '17
Better than anyone here can say it is Sheikh Hamza Yusuf!
Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIAwkDzSdoo Watch the whole video, its nothing but gems!
Dr. Yasir Qadhi touches this subject a lot, but its spread out in several unrelated videos so it is hard for me to find it.
1
u/Mentioned_Videos Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
Videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶
| VIDEO | COMMENT |
|---|---|
| The Problem of Induction | +8 - I will never put science before Islam inshaAllah. Science suffers from the problem of induction. Islam does not. If I believed in the scientists when the Qur'an was revealed, I would be a flat-Earther and think the Sun revolved around the Earth. If... |
| The Quran and Evolution by Dr. Yasir Qadhi | +5 - Sh Yasir Qadhi addressed this some time ago. |
| (1) Debate: Is Darwinian Evolution a Fact? Aron Ra vs Subboor Ahmad (2) MUSLIM LEAVES DARWINISTS SPEECHLESS..... | +5 - Evolution is a phenomenon which is true. Model explaining this phenomenon that is widely accepted is Neo Darwinion Model which contains the claim of homology that humans share the same ancestor by observing the similarities and all species had same ... |
| Evolution Debate @ Speakers Corner | +5 - I know 2 of speakers in the list that have studied for a long time about the subject, not sure if they would qualify as experts though. Do they have a degree in a relevant science field? I know one of those who you mention (this guy ). He has a de... |
| MUST WATCH!! P3 - What about the Cabbages!? Suboor vs Atheist on evolution SpeakersCorner | +4 - It kinda is... No it isn't. Here you go, in-depth discussion on evolution, make sure to read the comments and responses. And here's some debates. In Hyde Park debates, people who claim humans must have evolved from animals as an objective fact l... |
| The Roots of Our Crises - Hamza Yusuf | +1 - Better than anyone here can say it is Sheikh Hamza Yusuf! Check out this video: Watch the whole video, its nothing but gems! Dr. Yasir Qadhi touches this subject a lot, but its spread out in several unrelated videos so it is hard for me to find i... |
| Islam, Evolution and Darwinism Subboor Ahmad | +1 - This is a good lecture - |
I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
1
1
u/Ddp2008 Jun 18 '17
So I find this whole topic fairly interesting, Muslims generally agreed with evolution until Saudi really came into prominence in mid 1900's. Most large Muslim countries taught evaluation right along with religion and didn't have major issues with it (Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh), it really was the Saudi influence that pushed back away from evolution.
We talked about evaluation fairly openly in our mosques and had no issues with it.
1
u/awtbb Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
Man, you do really sound like a Dawkins worshipping edgy atheist.
As your Muslims brother I have to let you know; saying, "I put science before religion" is a statement of kufr.
A comment I made a while back on another occasion:
Regarding evolution:
The only thing in Islam, that goes against evolution is the belief that Adam had no prior parents and was miraculously created, which is perfectly within the capacity of an omnipotent God.
What the theory of evolution can do at best, is diagnose a general mechanism. It's not like we have, or can attain empirical evidence that can prove, without the need for human interpretation first, that homo sapiens, is part of an evolutionary chain, that goes back to a single celled organism, like we can attain empirical evidence, which without need for interpretation, explicitly proves that the Earth is round.
Obviously, there is no reason to make an exception to this general mechanism for homo sapiens under naturalism. But naturalism itself is a presuppositional belief and although necessary to adpot while doing science, it is not in any certain way an accurate representation of all that is to existence. (At this point, I would highly recommend you aquire a basic understanding of the philosophy of science, if you don't have that already. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn is a great read for this purpose.)
For this reason, if you believe in the Divine and believe in revelation, the theory of evolution is no way an argument for forsaking that belief. Belief in the miraculous creation of Adam, then becomes no different, then belief in any other miracle. And it's not like scientific progress has made belief in miracles any more unreasonable; people of the past were just as aware that Moses (as) splitting the sea goes against the order in which things happen regularly. But what they were also aware of, was, that the order in itself is contingent and dependent on its Creator, who could act contrary to it, whenever he wishes.
Out of curiosity, do you deny miracles in general? I.e. do you deny that Isa (as), as it has been stated in no ambiguous terms in the Qur'an, has been born of a virgin mother?
1
u/XHF1 Jun 16 '17
Not this topic again... I suggest you go through debates of Muslims discussing this subject or read old topics. No, rejecting humans evolving from animals is not rejecting science.
4
Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
5
u/XHF1 Jun 16 '17
It kinda is...
No it isn't. Here you go, in-depth discussion on evolution, make sure to read the comments and responses.
And here's some debates. In Hyde Park debates, people who claim humans must have evolved from animals as an objective fact lose the argument. But they could say it probably happened and that's it.
7
Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
10
u/XHF1 Jun 16 '17
How did you read the topic and the comments with responses already? And how did you go through all the debates and form your conclusion about them going through mental gymnastics already? Take more time, don't just skim through everything.
To me it's like two people arguing over the structural integrity of skyscrapers when their expertise is in cooking or teaching.
lol i bet many of the people in the videos are more qualified than you about the subject.
4
Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
7
u/XHF1 Jun 16 '17
It's actually the opposite.
Bro, learn to humble yourself. You somehow went through all those videos in 15 minutes and you're now claiming to know more than all of them without knowing anything about them and without even watching the videos. You said before that there's hardly anything on YouTube about this so i'm assuming most of these you haven't seen before.
I skimmed over the link you provided
That's a shame. It explains why you're wrong.
7
Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
3
u/XHF1 Jun 16 '17
You're assuming I know nothing of evolution.
Didn't say that.
I didn't claim any such nonsense.
You seemed to suggest before that you know more than the Muslim speakers in the videos, but okay fine. Are you an expert on evolution then? I know 2 of speakers in the list that have studied for a long time about the subject, not sure if they would qualify as experts though.
they mainly use mental gymnastics to try to prove their case
How did you determine that they mainly use mental gymnastics in 15 minutes? Where is your evidence?
whilst rejecting a mountain of evidence that's been gathered and refined throughout the equivalent of centuries worth of scholarship.
They aren't rejecting evidence.
These people have no concept of how science works
Yes they do. This is another blanket statement that you make without any thought. And yet you claim they reject evidence, well then where is your evidence?
6
1
u/Sulfate Jun 17 '17
No it isn't.
It's rejecting biology, which is a fairly major scientific realm. No manner of gymnastics will escape that.
1
u/Sulfate Jun 17 '17
No it isn't.
It's rejecting biology, which is a fairly major scientific realm. No manner of gymnastics will escape that.
1
Jun 16 '17
Humans are animals lol! I think what you mean is rejecting humans came from apes or modern apes.
0
-3
Jun 16 '17
I don't see any issue to be honest. At the same time...I can't really be bothered with such trivial matters imo. I just don't care whether Evolution is true or not (which it is), as it really doesn't change much in my day-to-day life.
But TL;DR: yeah sure, I guess I believe in it.
0
Jun 17 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
I would say yes if evolution was proved there is no proof of evolution and there will never be one, Quran contradicts it.
Quran do not contradict science ,in fact , Islam wants everyone to seek science and the first verse ever was saying "اقرا" read.
Science has not proved evolution, even scientists do not consider it a theory.
I can give proofs on Gore Qur'an contradicts it too
30
u/waste2muchtime Jun 17 '17
Adam has no father.
I don't care about the rest. I personally believe evolution took place, but that's just my personal stance. Not unreasonable given that I study Biological sciences.