Do you believe in evolution by natural selection? Is it haram?

[waters2100]

Do you believe in evolution by natural selection?
http://ncse.com/news/2009/12/evoluti...is-poll-005232
These are the results of a new Harris poll, but the survey lacks answers from Muslims. I think it would be beneficial to conduct our own survey.

"The results varied by religion: 51% of Catholics, 32% of Protestants, 80% of Jews, and 16% of born-again Christians believed in Darwin's theory of evolution, while 37% of Catholics, 56% of Protestants, 20% of Jews, and 68% of born-again Christians believed in creationism. Overall, the results were basically unchanged from 2007, when 42% of respondents believed in evolution and 39% of respondents believed in creationism. The poll was conducted on-line on November 2 and 11, 2009, among 2303 adults in the United States; figures were weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. "Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel," the report explains, "no estimates of theorical sampling error can be calculated."

[CosmicPathos]

I dont any problem with natural selection. Allah created nature. Nature selects us. There is a First cause. For me it is God. For a mulhid, he takes it as natural forces. Both do it on faith.

[Pomak]

Do you believe in evolution by natural selection?
http://ncse.com/news/2009/12/evoluti...is-poll-005232
These are the results of a new Harris poll, but the survey lacks answers from Muslims. I think it would be beneficial to conduct our own survey.

"The results varied by religion: 51% of Catholics, 32% of Protestants, 80% of Jews, and 16% of born-again Christians believed in Darwin's theory of evolution, while 37% of Catholics, 56% of Protestants, 20% of Jews, and 68% of born-again Christians believed in creationism. Overall, the results were basically unchanged from 2007, when 42% of respondents believed in evolution and 39% of respondents believed in creationism. The poll was conducted on-line on November 2 and 11, 2009, among 2303 adults in the United States; figures were weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. "Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel," the report explains, "no estimates of theorical sampling error can be calculated."

I find this subject a bit interesting, esp if we assume that the world was not created in 7 days.

[abu_musab461]

The concept of natural selection is acceptable because its what would logically happen in nature- the animal that is better at adapting to its enviroment will out live other animals that are less, hence this is the natural process of one animal becoming extinct...

But it doesnt mean that all of a sudden fish- in oder to survive will grow wings and start to fly or change into a different animal all together- there is not solid proof for this.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Rabi'ya]

:sl:

I havent completely made up my mind. But.....if we look to the natural world, we will find that any babies born to animals which are not 100% healthy are quite often abandoned by their mothers. This is different in humans because of how we have been made by Allah. also, even if these animals did survive beyond youth they would often die young as they would be unable to fend for themselves.

:)

[جوري]

your poll questions are ridiculously phrased that I am not sure who would partake?
ones beliefs as far as science is concerned should be evidence based and science based not religion based!

Haram doesn't belong into the folds of said questions, and moreover
it has all been discussed here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...tion-test.html

amongst many other threads..

I believe in the folds of 24 pages you are bound to encounter every opinion there is!

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

The concept of natural selection is acceptable because its what would logically happen in nature- the animal that is better at adapting to its enviroment will out live other animals that are less, hence this is the natural process of one animal becoming extinct...

But it doesnt mean that all of a sudden fish- in oder to survive will grow wings and start to fly or change into a different animal all together- there is not solid proof for this.

No sane scientist claims what you have just said. Strawman argument? No credible scientist says that all of a sudden fish would grow wings. It takes millions of years to develop wings and that is perfectly logical.

P.S.

[Karl]

Hi Waters, the big problem I have with "evolution" is why bother. This world is mostly covered in ocean which is high in minerals and is daily bombarded by solar radiation so algae is the most successful life form, pumping out most of the worlds oxygen. If this was the beginning of "life" from the Athiests point of view then why would it evolve? There seems to be no purpose in bio diversity. And in the scientific field you have to have observation from the beginning, if you know what or when that was. So all science without absolute proof becomes more a matter of faith, a Godless religion that is more swayed by politics and social control than real science. It is basically a cyber superstition for the masses to consume. The scientists with government backing become the new Pharisees.

[cat eyes]

i find that evolution theory dose not make much sense if you really study darwins theories there is alot of flaws in it:hmm: and ive always believed this even before reverting. id find myself laughing when id here people saying ''can you believe we use to be monkey's'' id just go into fits of laughing. one minute i thought they were going to start climbing trees and have a banana eating contest

[CosmicPathos]

i find that evolution theory dose not make much sense if you really study darwins theories there is alot of flaws in it:hmm: and ive always believed this even before reverting. id find myself laughing when id here people saying ''can you believe we use to be monkey's'' id just go into fits of laughing. one minute i thought they were going to start climbing trees and have a banana eating contest

sister, we did not use to be monkeys. monkeys were monkeys, we are we. Just related to them. Or so the evolutionary biologists say.

[Woodrow]

Evolution and Creationism are two totally different subjects. They are not related or even similar to each other. Evolution has no bearing at all on creationism. Evolution has nothing to do with how anything was created.

Creationism does not mean evolution did not nor does not occur. Creationism is not an antithesis of evolution.

Evolution never was a theory. Darwin never did propose a theory of evolution, evolution is an established fact and is verifiable. Do you agree Adam and Eve were a different size then the people of today. If you answer yes, you believe evolution is a fact. If you deny believing the descendants of Adam and Eve evolved into the different races and body sizes of today's humans, it only means you do not understand what evolution is. We do not believe humans evolved from another species we are one species and have always been the same species, but we did change somewhat in appearance from our long ago ancestors.

Evolution does not state how anything was created. It simply states that created living things can and have changed in appearance since they were first created.

While he made many mistakes in his "Origin of Species" especially when he proposed humans evolved from a different species. Darwin, simply offered his opinion of how animals and plants changed in accordance with the environment. He never made any claims about how things were created.

Creationism explains how life was created. It has no explanation for nor is related to how things change after they were created. Creationism does not rule out or deny evolution.

To state my own beliefs, I believe that Allaah(swt) created all things and as they evolved into today's forms the evolution took place through the intervention and/or guidance of Allaah(swt).

[CosmicPathos]

Evolution and Creationism are two totally different subjects. They are not related or even similar to each other. Evolution has no bearing at all on creationism. Evolution has nothing to do with how anything was created.

Creationism does not mean evolution did not nor does not occur. Creationism is not an antithesis of evolution.

Evolution never was a theory. Darwin never did propose a theory of evolution, evolution is an established fact and is verifiable. Do you agree Adam and Eve were a different size then the people of today. If you answer yes, you believe evolution is a fact. If you deny believing the descendants of Adam and Eve evolved into the different races and body sizes of today's humans, it only means you do not understand what evolution is. We do not believe humans evolved from another species we are one species and have always been the same species, but we did change somewhat in appearance from our long ago ancestors.

Evolution does not state how anything was created. It simply states that created living things can and have changed in appearance since they were first created.

While he made many mistakes in his "Origin of Species" especially when he proposed humans evolved from a different species. Darwin, simply offered his opinion of how animals and plants changed in accordance with the environment. He never made any claims about how things were created.

Creationism explains how life was created. It has no explanation for nor is related to how things change after they were created. Creationism does not rule out or deny evolution.

To state my own beliefs, I believe that Allaah(swt) created all things and as they evolved into today's forms the evolution took place through the intervention and/or guidance of Allaah(swt).

Interesting response. it also fits in with the observation of the world around us. Earth was not always present as soon as Big Bang occurred. It took time for Earth to to form, to cool down and permit life. I can call this "evolution," if you will, of material forms. From one form to another. If God creates Earth in such way, and is still an All-Powerful God, then why do we hesitate in saying the same thing regarding humans, which are merely a one creation among many of God? One of Allah's attributes is Evolver. Just a food for thought.

May Allah give me death on emaan. Ameen.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you waters2100; welcome to the forum.

I voted no, the Bible says that God created every living creature according to its kind. I take this to mean that Evolution by mutation and natural selection, did not occur, as God created each species separately, and in a complete way.

Although my beliefs may be at odds with science, I do not see this as a problem, the Bible inspires me to search for a way of life, and salvation.

Even if I believed in the theory of evolution, I cannot see what it would inspire me to do.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Woodrow]

Greetings and peace be with you waters2100; welcome to the forum.

I voted no, the Bible says that God created every living creature according to its kind. I take this to mean that Evolution by mutation and natural selection, did not occur, as God created each species separately, and in a complete way.

Although my beliefs may be at odds with science, I do not see this as a problem, the Bible inspires me to search for a way of life, and salvation.

Even if I believed in the theory of evolution, I cannot see what it would inspire me to do.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

Peace Eric,

To begin I believe this is a very important statement in yor post.

Even if I believed in the theory of evolution, I cannot see what it would inspire me to do.

Quite profound when I think about. As a theist who believes evolution occurs by natural selection through the intervention of God(swt), I can not think of one thing that would inspire me to do or not do.

Gads, I think I just said discussion about evolution is an unneeded topic.

[Karl]

Has God created or is God creating, I mean constantly generating reality and everything. And when God is gone would we have never been?
As it said in the Quran this is the second creation now.

If a baby thinks everything disapears when she or he closes their eyes, what are the delusions that adults may have?

[Al-Indunisiy]

:sl:

My (current) ideals about this:
1. Do not "believe" in science (i.e. don't treat theories like a dogma), but examine the methods and proofs.
2. Do not intermingle science with ideologies, politics, and religion. Vice versa.

So, even though evolution might be contradictory to religious doctrines(the three monotheistic/Abrahamic religions), ideologies, or politics, it should be left alone until other valid theories replace it.

In scientific discourse it is abhorrent in my opinion to use pseudoscience as to satisfy the above three. Do not politicize it, lest it be like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Let science be as the way it is, because belief is another story.

(BTW, I vote for none of the above. But I would make another choice: No, and maybe it is haram except in laboratories and the likes.

[Seeking-soul]

After 150 years of close scrutiny of the theory of evolution and masses of new evidence via genetics, DNA, the fossil record and a range of other sciences I dont think there is any doubt.
However on the up side all the above evidences do also provide proofs for creation as evolution only deals with speciation and has no answers to lifes beginings.
At the same time what this Earth has produced is ultimate evidence of a higher power.

[CosmicPathos]

After 150 years of close scrutiny of the theory of evolution and masses of new evidence via genetics, DNA, the fossil record and a range of other sciences I dont think there is any doubt.
However on the up side all the above evidences do also provide proofs for creation as evolution only deals with speciation and has no answers to lifes beginings.
At the same time what this Earth has produced is ultimate evidence of a higher power.

Is that a blind belief? I yet have to see tens of thousands of skeletons of species that provide a sequential picture of every single difference over generation, no matter how minute, that led to emergence of mankind from monkey-like ancestors. Whatever fossils we have, they are very few in number compared to what one would expect from the preservation of bones from the last 500,000 -100,0000 years or so. We have more fossils from pre-cambrian era and less from the recent ones?!! An escapist argument would be that pre-cambrian fossils were good at being fossilized compared to bones but there are alternate explanations for the lack of so many fossils as well.

[Woodrow]

Is that a blind belief? I yet have to see tens of thousands of skeletons of species that provide a sequential picture of every single difference over generation, no matter how minute, that led to emergence of mankind from monkey-like ancestors. Whatever fossils we have, they are very few in number compared to what one would expect from the preservation of bones from the last 500,000 -100,0000 years or so. We have more fossils from pre-cambrian era and less from the recent ones?!! An escapist argument would be that pre-cambrian fossils were good at being fossilized compared to bones but there are alternate explanations for the lack of so many fossils as well.

I agree the fossil record is very incomplete. Homonid fossils even scarcer and the few do not support any actual relationship between each other. From what I have seen, I can not see any connection between the homonid fossils and humans, but I am not a paleontologist.

[Seeking-soul]

Is that a blind belief? I yet have to see tens of thousands of skeletons of species that provide a sequential picture of every single difference over generation, no matter how minute, that led to emergence of mankind from monkey-like ancestors. Whatever fossils we have, they are very few in number compared to what one would expect from the preservation of bones from the last 500,000 -100,0000 years or so. We have more fossils from pre-cambrian era and less from the recent ones?!! An escapist argument would be that pre-cambrian fossils were good at being fossilized compared to bones but there are alternate explanations for the lack of so many fossils as well.

On the fossil record I agree that there is very little evidence, even though we have millions of them, the natural conditions needed for good fossils to have been left in the ground for us to find mean that the vast majority of creatures to live on this earth are now vanished to dust, but even if we had an exact linkage of fossils, fossils in themselves are the weakest body of evidence.
Though that evidence is remarkable.

If you look at the subjects of Taxonomy, Genetics and DNA, the evidence is fool proof without question.

It needs to be understood that no scientific theory has ever recieved such inspection by so many, and yet the evidence to support evolution far exceeds the evidence for the theory of relativity.

The scientific methods and rules for any theory, Law or hypothosis in science are the same for everything, the technology used to find evidence for these theories are the same as that used for making your plane fly to catching criminals, Evolution is a fact until anybody proves it otherwise by presenting a better supported theory, as yet all others have been jokes.

I dont see the need to fear this science, to me it is obvious that our creator wants us to know these things as this created earth contains everything we need to find these answers.

And evolution does not deal with creation only variation,

[CosmicPathos]

On the fossil record I agree that there is very little evidence, even though we have millions of them, the natural conditions needed for good fossils to have been left in the ground for us to find mean that the vast majority of creatures to live on this earth are now vanished to dust, but even if we had an exact linkage of fossils, fossils in themselves are the weakest body of evidence.
Though that evidence is remarkable.

If you look at the subjects of Taxonomy, Genetics and DNA, the evidence is fool proof without question.

It needs to be understood that no scientific theory has ever recieved such inspection by so many, and yet the evidence to support evolution far exceeds the evidence for the theory of relativity.

The scientific methods and rules for any theory, Law or hypothosis in science are the same for everything, the technology used to find evidence for these theories are the same as that used for making your plane fly to catching criminals, Evolution is a fact until anybody proves it otherwise by presenting a better supported theory, as yet all others have been jokes.

I dont see the need to fear this science, to me it is obvious that our creator wants us to know these things as this created earth contains everything we need to find these answers.

And evolution does not deal with creation only variation,

Again, similarity in genome does not necessitate sequential emergence from the previous species. Heck, even the presence of junk DNA in human genome, which is by far the largest amount of human genome, does not mean that it represents the emergence from lower species. Even if the sequences of junk DNA, spacer DNA and all other polymorphism are similar to plant transposons etc, I do not see how one can take that as an evidence of emergence from previous species .... that requires leap of faith. One can only admit the similarity between genomes and sequences; is that similarity by chance or by descent, that is up to one's belief.

[Santoku]

The evidence for evolution far outweighs the evidence against evolution.

But for the creationists no evidence is enough.

[جوري]

evidence = demonstrable/ reproducible truths...
before you set out on any particular path you need to define the terms.. I have no idea if this thread is discussing micro vs. macro evolution, whatever the case the previous thread which is linked into this one has quite expansive details from both sides.. adding a few vacuous assertions isn't conducive to dialogue!


all the best

[CosmicPathos]

The evidence for evolution far outweighs the evidence against evolution.

But for the creationists no evidence is enough.

^^ Emotional argument. Evolution through descent is interpretation of evidence. It can be interpreted in other ways. For a skeptic, no evidence is enough.

[Seeking-soul]

Again, similarity in genome does not necessitate sequential emergence from the previous species. Heck, even the presence of junk DNA in human genome, which is by far the largest amount of human genome, does not mean that it represents the emergence from lower species. Even if the sequences of junk DNA, spacer DNA and all other polymorphism are similar to plant transposons etc, I do not see how one can take that as an evidence of emergence from previous species .... that requires leap of faith. One can only admit the similarity between genomes and sequences; is that similarity by chance or by descent, that is up to one's belief.

Evolution really does not work by chance, but that is a side arguement,
Thing is this anything we say in this discussion here in this forum will never be anything new on the subject (unless there is a scientific giant in the room)
Science as a set of disciplines is not out to get anybody, its only job is to provide humans with answers to the natural.
For 150 years everyone with a vested religious interest in destroying the theory of evolution has tried there best to do so.
All have failed, and all scientific disciplines have yet to disprove evolution yet either.

We have two choices 1, accept evolution as a glorious instrument of our creator or 2, refuse to accept the theory of evolution and start looking like those american YEC chaps.

A third choice is to find scientific evidence against its that stands up to peer review in the science community, do that and there is a Nobel prize waiting, but as I say for 150 years nobody despite great zeal has come close.

I for one marvel at the truth evolution, the mind of our creator is without bounds.

[جوري]

Actually a Nobel Prize will be awaiting anyone from either party to come with irrefutable proof, if it were as you suggest, then I assure you the debate would have been long dead not subject for constant bickering:
A theory is as strong as its constituents.. having gaps not only denies it that irrefutable proof, but leaves plenty of room for folks to come up with research like this:



http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf


all the best

[Woodrow]

Even if we were to present indisputable proof of Creation by Allaah(swt) it would have no bearing on evolution. Evolution has no connection with how life began. The proof of divine creation does not prove evolution is wrong. The proof of evolution does not prove divine creation is wrong.

This idea of there being a debate between Creation and evolution is bordering on nonsense. It is like trying to argue that the existence of a grapefruit rules out existence of plants and if a person can prove plants exist it means grapefruit don't exist.

Creation is a facet of theology, evolution is a facet of science. Never shall the twain meet nor should there be any reason for them to.

[CosmicPathos]

Even if we were to present indisputable proof of Creation by Allaah(swt) it would have no bearing on evolution. Evolution has no connection with how life began. The proof of divine creation does not prove evolution is wrong. The proof of evolution does not prove divine creation is wrong.

This idea of there being a debate between Creation and evolution is bordering on nonsense. It is like trying to argue that the existence of a grapefruit rules out existence of plants and if a person can prove plants exist it means grapefruit don't exist.

Creation is a facet of theology, evolution is a facet of science. Never shall the twain meet nor should there be any reason for them to.

I agree with that in the context of micro-evolution or evolution within species. Evidence of changes in human genome over thousands of years is definitely irrefutable. That possibility is actually not against Islam. Mankind's height has been decreasing since Adam, as the Prophet said. Now this decrease can be due to minute changes in hormonal levels (growth hormone, TSH, TH etc) or genetic differences; the fact is that it is acknowledged in Islam that the "structure" of mankind changes ... hence, no problem in theologically accepting that genome of human population changes....

I think the problem arises in jumping around the inter-species loops and making broad generalizations.

Regarding Nobel Prize, the prize might appear to be prestigious or might truly be prestigious, but the strong lobby and bias among the people responsible for disposing it cannot be ignored. Not to accuse them of ill-intentions but that is how human judgment works. But yea, I am up for anyone who produces peer-reviewed evidence against inter-species evolution.

[MuhammadJihad]

this is the greatest example of the advanced evolution of humankind: DID YOU REALLY THINK I WOULD LET THE LINK TO THAT VIDEO STAY

[CosmicPathos]

seeking_soul: I appreciate your concerns. But I do not allow the duration of time for which science has "confirmed" evolution i.e. last 150 years to sway or influence my reason. Even if science had been irrefutably showing that evolution is the only reality for the 500 years, I would have a reason to think otherwise. I find generalizations made by the archeologists and paleontologists to the most absurd. Recently they made a conclusion that a bird-like dinosaur was venomous just based on speculation and experience without any hard facts.

A bird-like dinosaur that prowled an ancient forest 125 million years ago used venom to subdue its prey, according to a new theory.

Sinornithosaurus's upper teeth resemble those of "rear-fanged" snakes which bite their prey and channel venom into the wound.

The dinosaur probably fed on the abundant birds which inhabited what is now north-east China.

Sinornithosaurus had upper teeth that were similarly long, grooved and fang-like.

David Burnham, from the University of Kansas, US, and colleagues, say the dinosaur's upper jaw also contained a pocket that could have housed a venom gland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8425200.stm

Notice the use of words "probably" and "could have." This is not even from a journal. If you call such interpretations irrefutable then sure, conjecture at such level is indeed irrefutable for a sane man's attempt.

[CosmicPathos]

seeking_soul: I appreciate your concerns. But I do not allow the duration of time for which science has "confirmed" evolution i.e. last 150 years to sway or influence my reason. Even if science had been irrefutably showing that evolution is the only reality for the 500 years, I would have a reason to think otherwise. I find generalizations made by the archeologists and paleontologists to the most absurd. Recently they made a conclusion that a bird-like dinosaur was venomous just based on speculation and experience without any hard facts.

A bird-like dinosaur that prowled an ancient forest 125 million years ago used venom to subdue its prey, according to a new theory.

Sinornithosaurus's upper teeth resemble those of "rear-fanged" snakes which bite their prey and channel venom into the wound.

The dinosaur probably fed on the abundant birds which inhabited what is now north-east China.

Sinornithosaurus had upper teeth that were similarly long, grooved and fang-like.

David Burnham, from the University of Kansas, US, and colleagues, say the dinosaur's upper jaw also contained a pocket that could have housed a venom gland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8425200.stm

Notice the use of words "probably" and "could have." This is not even from a journal. If you call such interpretations irrefutable then sure, conjecture at such level is indeed irrefutable for a sane man's attempt.

[Dagless]

Evolution and Creationism are two totally different subjects. They are not related or even similar to each other. Evolution has no bearing at all on creationism. Evolution has nothing to do with how anything was created.

Creationism does not mean evolution did not nor does not occur. Creationism is not an antithesis of evolution.

Evolution never was a theory. Darwin never did propose a theory of evolution, evolution is an established fact and is verifiable. Do you agree Adam and Eve were a different size then the people of today. If you answer yes, you believe evolution is a fact. If you deny believing the descendants of Adam and Eve evolved into the different races and body sizes of today's humans, it only means you do not understand what evolution is. We do not believe humans evolved from another species we are one species and have always been the same species, but we did change somewhat in appearance from our long ago ancestors.

Evolution does not state how anything was created. It simply states that created living things can and have changed in appearance since they were first created.

While he made many mistakes in his "Origin of Species" especially when he proposed humans evolved from a different species. Darwin, simply offered his opinion of how animals and plants changed in accordance with the environment. He never made any claims about how things were created.

Creationism explains how life was created. It has no explanation for nor is related to how things change after they were created. Creationism does not rule out or deny evolution.

To state my own beliefs, I believe that Allaah(swt) created all things and as they evolved into today's forms the evolution took place through the intervention and/or guidance of Allaah(swt).

The problem is that evolution (as its widely accepted) does not just stick to evolution within a species, ie. size of people etc. It is saying that one species can arise from another. That if we go back far enough everything emerged from the water and one of those branches evolved into man.
The Quran, however, says that Adam (pbuh) was created and then later put on the earth. As far as I know he had human form. Therefore this goes against the generally accepted theory of evolution.

[Woodrow]

The problem is that evolution (as its widely accepted) does not just stick to evolution within a species, ie. size of people etc. It is saying that one species can arise from another. That if we go back far enough everything emerged from the water and one of those branches evolved into man.
The Quran, however, says that Adam (pbuh) was created and then later put on the earth. As far as I know he had human form. Therefore this goes against the generally accepted theory of evolution.

True that does go against what may be the generally accepted theory. But, at the moment there are many theories about how evolution occurs. We theists who accept evolution as occurring usually go along with the Theory of Intelligent Design. Accepting the changes as being guided and controlled by Allaah(swt)

While the Qur'an is very clear and specific that man did not descend from a lesser creature. I can not find any thing that shows other creatures did not evolve from other species. Although I am far from convinced that any lower creatures evolved from lesser creatures, I do not see were it would be in violation of the Qur'an if any did.

[Uthman]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already but, in the 9th century, an East African writer based in Baghdad by the name of al-Jahiz wrote:

"Animals engage in a struggle for existence, and for resources, to avoid being eaten, and to breed." He added, "Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming them into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to their offspring."

[CosmicPathos]

The problem is that evolution (as its widely accepted) does not just stick to evolution within a species, ie. size of people etc. It is saying that one species can arise from another. That if we go back far enough everything emerged from the water and one of those branches evolved into man.
The Quran, however, says that Adam (pbuh) was created and then later put on the earth. As far as I know he had human form. Therefore this goes against the generally accepted theory of evolution.

By the way, Quran also says something to the extent that "do not the disbelievers see that We created everything from water?" Technically, life did emerge from water. Aqueous solutions were very important for forming whatever structures were required for replicating initial forms of life. Without water, aqueous solutions cannot be formed.

Of course, no material theory will accept that adam came from the heaven because heaven does not exist as it has not been objectively seen. Neither do we as Muslims have seen it. We, however, accept that it exists on faith, Emaan bil Gayb.

[JBrickmann]

Ignoring the fact that Allah has the power to create and destroy plays an important role in causing some Muslims to believe in evolution. Such evolutionist Muslims are under the influence of naturalism, which asserts that the laws of nature are fixed and unchanging, and that nothing can take place outside of them. Yet this is a great error. What we mean by "the laws of nature" stem from Allah's creating and maintaining matter in a particular form. In no way can they be considered features that stem from within matter itself. As Allah has made clear, He can alter these laws at any time and act outside of their scope.

We call such actions miracles. That the above mentioned group of the cave remained alive for more than 300 years is a miracle beyond the laws of nature. Those whom Allah killed and then brought back to life are also miracles. Every event occurs because Allah wills it to occur. Those that occur within the bounds of certain laws are "normal," while the others are miracles.
The point that needs to be understood here is that Allah is not constrained by the laws He created. If He so wills, He can totally reverse all the laws of nature. That is easy for Allah to do.

Since Muslim evolutionists have fallen under the influence of naturalism, which forms the foundation of Darwinism, they try to account for the origin of human and other life in terms of natural laws. They believe that Allah brought living things into existence by means of a creation that is limited by natural laws, and thus imagine that creation was brought about by mutation, natural selection, variation, and one species turning into another. It is a grave error, however, for Muslims to accept such "naturalist" logic, for the miracles described in the Qur'an clearly reveal that such logic is ill-founded.
When we look at those verses that discuss the creation of living things and man, we see that this creation took place in a miraculous way and outside the laws of nature. This is how Allah reveals the creation of living things:

Allah created every animal from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Allah has power over all things. (Qur'an, 24:45)


This verse points to the main living groups on Earth (reptiles, birds, and mammals) and says that Allah created all of them from water. On closer inspection, these groups were not created "out of each other," as "foreseen" by evolution, but "from water." In other words, they were formed separately from a common material Allah shaped.

Modern science also has made it clear that this common material was water, the basic component of every living body. Mammals' bodies are about 70 percent water. Each living thing's bodily water enables contact between cells, as well as inter-cell and inter-tissue contact. It is an accepted fact that nothing can live without water.

And yet some Muslims misinterpret the above verse and try to give it a meaning more in line with evolution. However, it is obvious that the fact of creation from water has nothing to do with evolution, for that theory does not claim that every living thing emerged from water and evolved. On the contrary, it maintains that living species evolved from one another, an evident contradiction of the fact that all living groups were created from water (in other words, that they were created independently).