Evolution.

[saqattack]

Assalamu alaikum brothers and sisters.
As you can see from the title this is about evolution.
All i would like to know is your views on evolution, i know its been here alot of times but the last one thread i read endes in 2009 and now its 2013 anything new in your views or is it all the same? From my understanding we can believe in evolution and common ancestor for every species alive except humans, do any of you see differently

[saqattack]

Spelling mistakes are because im writing from a iphone, if there are any. :)

[Good brother]

salam alaikum,proof ?

[Abu Loren]

From my understanding we can believe in evolution and common ancestor for every species alive except humans, do any of you see differently

Wa Alaikkum As'alaam

I don't know if you read the Holy Qur'an but it says that Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala created all living things. Evolution is not compatible with Islam nor any of the other Abrahmaic faiths. Evolution is an easy ticket for the atheists in denying our Creator. As it says in the Holy Qur'an 'evidence' is all around us, you just need to look.

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

[Al-Mufarridun]

:sl:

Evolution is a very broad subject. There are parts of Evolution that don't contradict with Islam, and parts of evolution that are far away from Islam.

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum,

It depends on what you mean about evolution. Evolution is an undeniable fact. For example, the English language has definitely evolved a great deal since the time of perhaps Shakespeare. Even our means of transport has evolved at a phenomenal rate, I don't see many people riding horses anymore. And there are many other things which have definitely evolved around us. But when you talk about species evolving from different species - that is something which isn't a fact but just a theory, and that is something I don't accept.

And Allah (s.w.t.) knows best.

[sister herb]

As some remark; if evolution of species is impossible (now I mean inside of same species), then how it is possible that a horse was very different about 52 million years ago (Eohippus) than it is now (Equus). Or maybe they haven´t nothing to do together as the stage of development of same animal.


But what means "evolution of different species"? Not inside of one and same?

[saqattack]

Im talking about biological evolution and all that about everyone having a common ancestor, ive read and heard also that the quran does not deny nor confirm that all species evolved from a common ancestor, besides humans, they are a speciel creation.

[Good brother]

Assalam alaikum
Proof that all species evolved from a common ancestor ??

[Abu Loren]

Proof that all species evolved from a common ancestor ??

Indeed why would all species need to evolve? Why can't all life be as they were created by Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala. Evolution is a false science.

[saqattack]

Im not saying i can prove anything nor am i here too, i just wanted you peoples view on the subject lol :D

[Independent]

There have been more recent threads on evolution, perhaps under different titles so they didn't show up in your search. Based on what was said there, I would say that the view adopted by many Muslims is to distinguish between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution.

Macro evolution involves the development of a whole new species that is distinct from and unable to breed with other species. This is not accepted by most Muslims in this forum.

Micro evolution refers to the smaller changes within a population - eg bigger and smaller dogs, different colours etc. This is accepted by most Muslims.

In other words, you can breed a dog into a rottweiler or a pekinese, but they're both still dogs. You can't breed them into a cat.

The principle technical objections by Muslims and also Christian Creationists to the theory of evolution (besides scriptural reasons) is:

1. That science has not put forward a satisfactory explanation for the original creation for the first life.
2. There is no suitable mechanism for evolution by gradual mutation and selective breeding (because according to the existing mathematical mutation rate it would take too long).

Apologies if I got any of that wrong - the resident expert on this forum is MustaphaMc. (I myself do believe in evolution.)

[Muhaba]

Cars evolved. compare the first cars with todays and tell us how today's cars are different from the first ones and how are they the same. did cars evolve from each other without human interference? did they come into being by themselves? Why not! In the future it's even possible that cars will drive by themselves. I can hear one car saying to another, we have no proof that human exists!

[sur]

Assalamu alaikum brothers and sisters.
As you can see from the title this is about evolution....

A conference on this topic:-
=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbynBJVTWKI
.
.
.

[Abu Loren]

Cars evolved. compare the first cars with todays and tell us how today's cars are different from the first ones and how are they the same. did cars evolve from each other without human interference? did they come into being by themselves? Why not! In the future it's even possible that cars will drive by themselves. I can hear one car saying to another, we have no proof that human exists!

Not really. They were 'made' with different designs and different materials in a new way.:p

[saqattack]

A conference on this topic:-
=
Insert youtube video link here cause im not allowed to post or quote links yet... Lol
.
.
.

I saw that the day it came out, that was some of the longest 4 hours ever!!

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

There was a recent paper out on it by Hamza, which is pretty good. - http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-...and-certainty/

And I know of some students of knowledge that are working on what's been described as the "most comprehensive work" on the subject of evolution and Islam. I'll post it once it comes out Insha Allah.

[MustafaMc]

I am a cotton breeder and my views on macro evolution are not positive. For example, cultivated cotton, Gossypium hirsutum, is a tetraploid (4 sets of 13 chromosomes) and another species, Gossypium longicalyx, is a diploid that has a gene for resistance to a nematode (microscopic worm) pest of cotton. These 2 species are related, meaning genetically similar, but they are sexually incompatible. A university in Belgium has gone through highly specific scientific methods and a lot of effort to transfer this gene into cotton as detailed in this paper http://wcrc.confex.com/wcrc/2007/techprogram/P1190.HTM . Given the extreme difficulty that they had in successfully breeding this gene into cotton, I believe that the probabilty of this happening naturally through evolutionary principles is in fact zero despite the obvious advantage of having resistance to this pest. This is a simple example of impossibility of natural transferring of a single gene from one related plant species to another.

Another extreme example is modern genetic engineering whereby scientists have taken a gene from a bacteria, Bacillus thuringensis, that produces an insecticidal toxin and reverse engineered it into corn and cotton plants such that the plant expresses a bacterial gene. There is, again, zero probability of this ever having occured naturally without an intelligent being directing the process.

I believe in Allah as our Creator and I believe He likewise created all living and extinct species of life. Now, by what means was taken to create the different species doesn't really matter to me whether it was instantaneous or over millions of years I still believe that it required a Creator. I am aware of the complexity of genetics down to the molecular level and the process by which a sperm and egg unite resulting ultimately in a new individual is nothing short of miraculous to me. If one looks at it from an individual perspective we are living examples of so-called evolution as we started off as 2 unicellular entities that joined and went through an amazing transformation to yield a new sexually potent individual within merely 12-14 years. My strongest belief is that the system of life, and the various species of life down to the most minute bacteria, is too complicated to have arisen by mere chance.

[Good brother]

Jazakum Allahu khaira ,this is true, just google "Hybrids And Hybridisation"

[Muhaba]

Not really. They were 'made' with different designs and different materials in a new way.:p

That's what you say! But cars don't know that. They may as well believe they evolved from motorcycles that evolved from bikes that evolved from the buggy that evolved from the wheel (single cell) that came into being by itself when different material somehow mixed. where that first material came from is unknown. It's possible that it was a continuous cycle of beginning and ending.

[Independent]

Cars evolved. compare the first cars with todays and tell us how today's cars are different from the first ones and how are they the same. did cars evolve from each other without human interference? did they come into being by themselves? Why not! In the future it's even possible that cars will drive by themselves. I can hear one car saying to another, we have no proof that human exists!

This is an aspect of language. The word evolution has a clear definition in a scientific context but it's also a descriptive verb meaning 'progressive change' in general.

The difference between the two definitions and uses of the word is perfectly well understood, there's no confusion.

[Muhaba]

^I am trying to put it in your head that evolution cannot happen by itself. everything needs something to create it and make it evolve.
The universe didn't come into being by itself, mankind didn't come into being by itself, just as a car didn't come into being by itself.

[sister herb]

^I am trying to put it in your head that evolution cannot happen by itself. everything needs something to create it and make it evolve.
The universe didn't come into being by itself, mankind didn't come into being by itself, just as a car didn't come into being by itself.

Salam alaykum

We as muslims will of course know that Allah has created all what is or has been on the earth. Evolution is then just as part of the creation. We don´t know paths of Allah as He knows them and thats why we made science to explain all this to us - by the way as we understand it better. The science is human way to understand knowledge of Allah all nature.

Just my opinion.

[Muhaba]

^thank you for your opinion sister. humans have a curious mind and strive to understand everything. and Allah tells us to look at nature and the Signs of Allah all around us and in our ownselves and reflect on thm and consider the Greatness and Wisdom of the Creator. Science should bring us closer to Allah than taking us away. But the theory of evolution attempts to place a veil over the eyes and make mankind blind! Just think of clouds and the rain cycle - if mankind pondered over it, they would realize that cloud formation and rain doesn't happen by itself. One of my teachers said that the water quantity on earth is the same as it was from the beginning - that is, water doesn't leave the earth's atmosphere. Water evaporates from the earth and turns into clouds and then rain comes down from clouds back to earth, so the whole is a repititive cycle. But what keeps water locked in the earth's atmosphere? why doesn't it leave? water is so necessary for life but what if water evaporated and left the earth's atmosphere, getting lost in space? what then? of course that doesn't happen becuase Allah made it that way.

so by studying all these amazing signs of Allah in nature we should realize that there is a Creator, the Creator is One, the Creator is Very Powerful, the Creator is Very Wise and the Creator is Very Kind. A lot of signs of Allah are mentioned in the Quran.

[Ahmad H]

^thank you for your opinion sister. humans have a curious mind and strive to understand everything. and Allah tells us to look at nature and the Signs of Allah all around us and in our ownselves and reflect on thm and consider the Greatness and Wisdom of the Creator. Science should bring us closer to Allah than taking us away. But the theory of evolution attempts to place a veil over the eyes and make mankind blind! Just think of clouds and the rain cycle - if mankind pondered over it, they would realize that cloud formation and rain doesn't happen by itself. One of my teachers said that the water quantity on earth is the same as it was from the beginning - that is, water doesn't leave the earth's atmosphere. Water evaporates from the earth and turns into clouds and then rain comes down from clouds back to earth, so the whole is a repititive cycle. But what keeps water locked in the earth's atmosphere? why doesn't it leave? water is so necessary for life but what if water evaporated and left the earth's atmosphere, getting lost in space? what then? of course that doesn't happen becuase Allah made it that way.

so by studying all these amazing signs of Allah in nature we should realize that there is a Creator, the Creator is One, the Creator is Very Powerful, the Creator is Very Wise and the Creator is Very Kind. A lot of signs of Allah are mentioned in the Quran.

I do not think that evolution theory is made to keep us blind from the truth. If you look at the Holy Qur'an, it says that every living thing has been made out of water (21:30, Holy Qur'an), and consequently, scientists have understood this now hundreds of years later. Furthermore, the Holy Prophet (saw) said that every living thing has been made out of water in a Hadith (don't remember where I read it, it was in one of the Sunans), so how can we deny that scientists have learned rationally what the Holy Qur'an has already said by revelation?

If you look at religion, it has evolved as well. Humans went through stages of progressive intellectual and spiritual development through the centuries, and so Allah sent Prophets who came with laws that were fit for those lifestyles. Islam came when the spiritual evolution of man was complete and reached its zenith. Thus, Muslims follow the best law for mankind, whether mankind understands the "how" or not. This is the simple truth. Evolution occurs. just like species who were wiped out before don't exist now, so do evil generations of men cease to exist now and have been wiped out by Allah when they could not adopt to the new stage of evolution of the spirit.

If any Muslims say that belief in evolution is against Islam, then they are committing a sin, since they think that they know the exact meanings of the Holy Qur'an, while there are new and fresh signs of the truthfulness of the Holy Qur'an being observed all the time with more discoveries from science and in biology. Evolution does not go against the Holy Qur'an, but the Holy Qur'an certainly agrees with some of the concepts of it when you look into it carefully enough. Not every verse of the Holy Qur'an has been fully understood yet. It is a book with unlimited knowledge and signs. It will continue to be this way until the Day of Judgment. This is why it is the biggest miracle ever to happen to mankind. Evolution is simply another way to grasp this miracle. Allah is the Creator of the universe no matter what. It is possible that the way in which He created us is seen in the theory of evolution.

The Holy Qur'an says:

18:51 And remember the time when We said to the angels, ‘Submit to Adam,’ and they all submitted, except Iblis. He was one of the Jinn; and he disobeyed the command of his Lord. Will you then take him and his offspring for friends instead of Me while they are your enemies? Evil is the exchange for the wrongdoers.
18:52 I did not make them witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation; nor could I take as helpers those who lead people astray.

Thus, these scientists, who think they can figure out the exact creation of men as if they saw it cannot do so. The theories of our creation will always remain theories, since scientists cannot directly observe the creation of mankind, as Allah says above. Thus, the theory of evolution will remain a theory, but it will only be recognized as true because the revelation of Allah to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) speaks of the stages of human development in agreement with some parts of the theory. Science is all about observation, but when one reads this last verse above, they get a sense of Allah's profound wisdom, in that these people who worship their own egos and rational minds do not see that they can never completely satisfy themselves with the actual witnessing of their own creation. They will never have direct knowledge of how they came to be, only a theory.

In fact, they will never completely witness the creation of the universe in their laboratories, since the verse above says they did not witness the creation of the heavens and the earth. Thus, this verse limits the wisdom of scientists, and reassures Muslims that these men cannot claim to be all-knowing above Allah. The verse before it is telling us that these people are enemies to mankind, by trying to reject the Prophets of Allah and rely on their own knowledge to try and come to the answer about their own selves and how they got here. Man is severely limited, and no laboratory tests can give them the full knowledge of the evolution of man and the creation of the universe. So no Muslims should obey these Satans who are trying to deceive mankind into telling them that they have the answers, and that religion has no answers.

honestly, volumes can be spoken of about these two verses, since I think they really apply to our age. In fact, to try and recreate what happened in the creation of the universe is a much harder thing to do than to try and understand the creation of mankind:

40:57 Certainly, the creation of the heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of mankind; but most men know not.

These scientists do not understand how difficult it is to know the creation of the universe. The Holy Qur'an describes the frustration that scientists will feel at trying to grasp the full understanding of the universe:

67:3 Who has created seven heavens in harmony. No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Seest thou any flaw?
67:4 Aye, look again, and yet again, thy sight will only return unto thee confused and fatigued.

This means no amount of astronomical observation will be able to satisfy the curiosity of man. Man will only find himself confused because he cannot fully grasp the harmonious laws of the workings of the universe. This might mean that men will never know the M-theory, where they get a theory that explains everything.

So read the Holy Qur'an and reflect on science. Mankind is only now learning of their inability to fully observe nature, but the Holy Qur'an has perfectly described the limits of observation on mankind, and thus our inability to ever be able to fully understand what only Allah knows perfectly well.

[Abu Loren]

I think people are inadvertantly moving away from the subject matter. The OP meant evolution as in the Darwinian sense, human beings evolving from apes etc. and not coke turning into pepsi. There is absolutely no evidence of evolution and in my opinion it is incompatible with creation.

Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala tells us that He created Adam (Alayhi Salaam) and not that He created an ape and that ape became Adam (Alayhi Salaam) over time.

[MustafaMc]

Science should bring us closer to Allah than taking us away.

Yes, you are exactly correct.

[MustafaMc]

There is absolutely no evidence of evolution and in my opinion it is incompatible with creation.

You are exactly correct in that naturalistic evolution relies strictly upon natural processes for the origin of species and that it is incompatible with creation by Allah even though we do not know the details of the process or means by which He deemed that human or any other living species came into eistence.

[MustafaMc]

I do not think that evolution theory is made to keep us blind from the truth. If you look at the Holy Qur'an, it says that every living thing has been made out of water (21:30, Holy Qur'an), and consequently, scientists have understood this now hundreds of years later. Furthermore, the Holy Prophet (saw) said that every living thing has been made out of water in a Hadith (don't remember where I read it, it was in one of the Sunans), so how can we deny that scientists have learned rationally what the Holy Qur'an has already said by revelation?

I am not sure whether you accept evolution or not, but Darwinian evolution as it is understood today is inconsistent with Allah actively creating the species of life.

[Abu Loren]

even though we do not know the details of the process or means by which He deemed that human or any other living species came into eistence.

Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala tells us in the Holy Qur'an how He made us.
Sahih International

And certainly didWe create man from an extract of clay.
Then We placed him as asperm-drop in a firm lodging.
Then We made the sperm-dropinto a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made[from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developedhim into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.
23:12-14

تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn

Then We transformed the drop [of semen] into a clot, congealed blood. Then We transformed the clot into a [little] lump of flesh (mudgha), a piece of flesh, about the size of what one would be able to chew (mā yumdagh). Then We transformed the lump of flesh into bones. Then We clothed the bones with flesh (a variant reading in both instances [instead of the plurals ‘izāman and al-‘izāma, ‘the bones’] is [singular] ‘azman [and ‘al-‘azma], ‘the bone’; and in all three instances above khalaqnā, means ‘We made it become’ [as opposed to ‘We created’]). Then We produced him as [yet] another creature, by breathing into him [Our] Spirit. So blessed be God, the best of creators!, that is, [the best of] determiners (the specificier noun for ahsana, ‘the best’, has been omitted because it is obvious: khalqan, ‘in terms of creation’).

[Futuwwa]

Assalam alaikum
Proof that all species evolved from a common ancestor ??

Well, there's the fact that all species are made of the same basic building blocks of life - DNA and amino acids.

[Independent]

There is absolutely no evidence of evolution and in my opinion it is incompatible with creation.

Even if you reject evolution, I don't think it's reasonable to say there is 'no evidence'. For example...

The fossil record is incomplete, has many twists and turns, and can be read in different ways, but it does show a broad tendency from simple life forms to more complex. If there was no evolution, you would have expected it to show something else.

There are many mechanisms which could play a part in an evolutionary process, even if they are not complete right now - including DNA, reproductive systems, natural selection etc.

There is the issue of redundant organs such as the appendix, although this is disputed.

The theory has been successfully 'predictive' - eg the science of DNA and the gene was unknown in Darwin's time.

And there is evidence in the way nature re-uses and adapts certain structures, rather than inventing new ones - eg the re-use of the jaw bone in the inner ear.

All of these things don't prove evolution outright, but they certainly constitute evidence. If you look at things the other other way round, it would have been astonishing if people hadn't come up with something like the theory of evolution at some stage. However it turns out.

[Good brother]

Well, there's the fact that all species are made of the same basic building blocks of life - DNA and amino acids.

Assalam alaikum
we already know this, so what :phew

[Good brother]

Even if you reject evolution, I don't think it's reasonable to say there is 'no evidence'. For example...

The fossil record is incomplete, has many twists and turns, and can be read in different ways, but it does show a broad tendency from simple life forms to more complex. If there was no evolution, you would have expected it to show something else.

There are many mechanisms which could play a part in an evolutionary process, even if they are not complete right now - including DNA, reproductive systems, natural selection etc.

There is the issue of redundant organs such as the appendix, although this is disputed.

The theory has been successfully 'predictive' - eg the science of DNA and the gene was unknown in Darwin's time.

And there is evidence in the way nature re-uses and adapts certain structures, rather than inventing new ones - eg the re-use of the jaw bone in the inner ear.

All of these things don't prove evolution outright, but they certainly constitute evidence. If you look at things the other other way round, it would have been astonishing if people hadn't come up with something like the theory of evolution at some stage. However it turns out.

The mechanisms of theory of evolution are excellent to describe diversty within the same creature, while the is absolutely no evidence for your evolution from a common ancestor with bacteria.
Please explain the jaw "example" of evolution ?!

[Independent]

The mechanisms of theory of evolution are excellent to describe diversty within the same creature, while the is absolutely no evidence for your evolution from a common ancestor with bacteria.

Some of this could be read that way, other parts less so.

Although I support the theory of evolution myself, I'm not making a big case for it here. I'm simply saying that it is not accurate to say there is 'no evidence' for evolution. There may no be proof as yet - but there is certainly plenty of evidence. How you assess that evidence, and whether you regard it as sufficient, is another matter.

For instance, if evolution is not correct then you might have expected to find a number of different things - eg zero alteration in the fossil record over time, no random mutation in DNA, no redundant organs, and overall a set of creatures which need not have any particular relationship with each other. Any one of these things would have gone a long way to 'disprove' evolution.

in fact, given the amount of evidence that's out there, it would have been astonishing if mankind hadn't eventually come up with something like the theory of evolution at this stage in our knowledge - even if we change our minds later based on more research etc. People are very wrong to vilify Darwin as an evil man. I visited his house a couple of years ago and the main thing that strikes you is his humanity and his love for his wife and family, which led him to delay publication for many years, for fear of offending her religious sensibilities.

Please explain the jaw "example" of evolution ?!

One of the interesting features in the development of different creatures is how nature frequently adapts and re-uses an existing organ or physical feature, rather than inventing a completely new one (which you would have expected if creation was divine). A frequently quoted example of this is the bones of the inner ear, but it's just one example. See wikipedia for a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...itory_ossicles

Of course, you may say that God works in mysterious ways and He is capable of re-using existing organs if that's what He wishes - however, it's also exactly what you would expect to find if evolution or a similar mechanism was the explanation.

[saqattack]

Thank you for all the replies brothers, but ive seen several scholars or imams not sure wht the difference is though say that the only thing we cant accept is humans and apes having a common ancestor and ive also seen people in earlier threads here say it, all i was asking is what do you think about it, i could link one scholar that does say what i stated earlier but im on my iphone and ill do it later.

[MustafaMc]

Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala tells us in the Holy Qur'an how He made us.

Assalamu alaikum, yes, I am aware of this ayat, but my point is in the details. We know from this ayat the general development of an embryo inside the mother's womb, but whether the fashioning of Adam from clay was literal and instantaneous or figurative and over eons of time is not clear to me. We know from human anatomy and physiology that our bodies are much more complex than simply an animated statue. I yet contend that the details for how we came into existence are not known with certainty in the manner that no one can generate a time-lapse video model (along the lines of the Darwinian model of man evolving from an ape-like ancestor) to show with certainty exactly what happened in our creation.

[Abu Loren]

Assalamu alaikum, yes, I am aware of this ayat, but my point is in the details. We know from this ayat the general development of an embryo inside the mother's womb, but whether the fashioning of Adam from clay was literal and instantaneous or figurative and over eons of time is not clear to me. We know from human anatomy and physiology that our bodies are much more complex than simply an animated statue. I yet contend that the details for how we came into existence are not known with certainty in the manner that no one can generate a time-lapse video model (along the lines of the Darwinian model of man evolving from an ape-like ancestor) to show with certainty exactly what happened in our creation.

I don't know why but I've always thought that the creation of father Adam was instantaneous, may be becase Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala tells us that He says "Be" and it is. So on the evolution basis why haven't we evolved into something else if humans have been evolving from the beginning. We'd probably have six arms and two heads (I could do with an extra brain).

Abu Hurairah narrated that:
the Prophet said: "The best daythat the sun has risen upon is Friday. On it Adam was created, on it he enteredParadise, and on it, he was expelled from it. And the Hour will not beestablished except on Friday."

Reference	: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 488
In-book reference	: Book 4, Hadith 1

[Good brother]

Some of this could be read that way, other parts less so.

Although I support the theory of evolution myself, I'm not making a big case for it here. I'm simply saying that it is not accurate to say there is 'no evidence' for evolution. There may no be proof as yet - but there is certainly plenty of evidence. How you assess that evidence, and whether you regard it as sufficient, is another matter.

For instance, if evolution is not correct then you might have expected to find a number of different things - eg zero alteration in the fossil record over time, no random mutation in DNA, no redundant organs, and overall a set of creatures which need not have any particular relationship with each other. Any one of these things would have gone a long way to 'disprove' evolution.

in fact, given the amount of evidence that's out there, it would have been astonishing if mankind hadn't eventually come up with something like the theory of evolution at this stage in our knowledge - even if we change our minds later based on more research etc. People are very wrong to vilify Darwin as an evil man. I visited his house a couple of years ago and the main thing that strikes you is his humanity and his love for his wife and family, which led him to delay publication for many years, for fear of offending her religious sensibilities.


One of the interesting features in the development of different creatures is how nature frequently adapts and re-uses an existing organ or physical feature, rather than inventing a completely new one (which you would have expected if creation was divine). A frequently quoted example of this is the bones of the inner ear, but it's just one example. See wikipedia for a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...itory_ossicles

Of course, you may say that God works in mysterious ways and He is capable of re-using existing organs if that's what He wishes - however, it's also exactly what you would expect to find if evolution or a similar mechanism was the explanation.

well, i agree that there is no proof yet !
But don't give me some observations on comparative anatomy and expect me to consider it an evidence for your descent from a microbe-like ancestor, even if wikipedia said that !

[MustafaMc]

I don't know why but I've always thought that the creation of father Adam was instantaneous, may be becase Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala tells us that He says "Be" and it is.

Wasn't Jesus the likeness of Adam? Was Jesus born as a fully grown man? Did Jesus originate as an egg from Mary and a sperm that Allah created and placed in Mary's womb? Did Jesus have any of Mary's DNA or was he instantaneously created afresh? Was he created as a new microscopic zygote that developed through normal processes, or was he created as somewhere in between? These are a few examples I can think of for Jesus. These are examples of the kind of questions I could present for Adam. Was Adam molded as a rigid, lifeless statue and then did Allah say "Be!" and the clay particles were transformed into a 100 trillion cells each with a nucleus containing 23 homologous pairs of chromosomes, or did Allah create him over eons of time in a manner somewhat akin to the transformation that each and every one of the 7 billion humans alive today went through? I don't know, but I know that the entirety of whatever means was used by Allah, was directly under the control and direction of Allah down to the most minute detail.

So on the evolution basis why haven't we evolved into something else if humans have been evolving from the beginning. We'd probably have six arms and two heads (I could do with an extra brain).

I am not a proponent of evolution, rather I am a creationist who admits ignorance of the means used for our creation.

[Independent]

well, i agree that there is no proof yet !
But don't give me some observations on comparative anatomy and expect me to consider it an evidence for your descent from a microbe-like ancestor, even if wikipedia said that !

Proof, no.

Evidence, yes.

As i say, some version of the theory of evolution was inevitable given the evidence that was emerging.

[MustafaMc]

Well, there's the fact that all species are made of the same basic building blocks of life - DNA and amino acids.

Commonality of building blocks does not imply descent from a common ancestor, nor does commonality in apperance of embryonic stages of life.

[Hulk]

I saw someone posting something like this "Airplanes are amazing things, we look at it and for sure it must have a designer. Actually no, it doesn't have a designer. It is a product of years of extensive research and development." etc.. I'm like lolwut. Need to tighten up some loose screws in the brain. Sad thing is someone I know well "liked" it. Haha. Oh boy..

[Futuwwa]

Commonality of building blocks does not imply descent from a common ancestor, nor does commonality in apperance of embryonic stages of life.

No, but it is consistent with the hypothesis of descent from common ancestor. That's all there is in science. There is no such thing as direct positive evidence in favour of a theory. There is just evidence that is, or is not, consistent with a theory.

Assalam alaikum
we already know this, so what

Well, if a complex system is present in the same way in a number of different entities, that's a pretty strong indication that the entities are related. If they'd be unrelated, what would the probability be of both having exactly the same system?

[Ahmad H]

I don't know why but I've always thought that the creation of father Adam was instantaneous, may be becase Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala tells us that He says "Be" and it is. So on the evolution basis why haven't we evolved into something else if humans have been evolving from the beginning. We'd probably have six arms and two heads (I could do with an extra brain).

Abu Hurairah narrated that:
the Prophet said: "The best daythat the sun has risen upon is Friday. On it Adam was created, on it he enteredParadise, and on it, he was expelled from it. And the Hour will not beestablished except on Friday."

Reference	: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 488
In-book reference	: Book 4, Hadith 1

how can you say that you know that Allah created us instantaneously? Allah created everything with wisdom, so it is up to us to learn what that wisdom means. Besides, if you think that the meaning of Allah creating us on Friday is literal as in our Fridays on earth, then you should consider that the Holy Qur'an says a day could be anywhere from 24 hours to 50,000 years. A day could potentially be as long as Allah wills it to be considering it has no fixed limit, so how can you say Allah created us instantaneously? Also, the command "Be" and it is is not something that happens the next moment from the command. The command issues forth and the causes and effects which are the consequence of that command are carried out by Allah. He simply commands that something be done, and it happens. There is hikmat in everything that Allah does.

I remember hearing somewhere that Ar-Razi explained that the command "Be" and it is does not mean something that happens the next moment, but something which happens over a period of time - however long that is. So the creation of Adam (as) is not necessarily something which happens in a few seconds. I think that is both naive and simplistic. Also, I think it severely limits one's view of Allah's wisdom, since in this age we should know better that such explanations are outdated and obviously not correct. We have to consider that the Holy Qur'an may have been describing clay as a substance which man was made out of, and that man went through stages just as it is mentioned in the Holy Qur'an that he went through stages. Just saying, there isn't just one kind of clay mentioned in the Holy Qur'an. This may have been for a very good reason. nothing is said in it without reason.

[MustafaMc]

No, but it is consistent with the hypothesis of descent from common ancestor. That's all there is in science. There is no such thing as direct positive evidence in favour of a theory. There is just evidence that is, or is not, consistent with a theory.

If several paintings are analyzed and the chemical fingerprint of the paint is identical, it does not mean they evolved from a common ancestor. It merely means the painter used the same paint to paint multiple pictures.

[Abu Loren]

how can you say that you know that Allah created us instantaneously? Allah created everything with wisdom, so it is up to us to learn what that wisdom means. Besides, if you think that the meaning of Allah creating us on Friday is literal as in our Fridays on earth, then you should consider that the Holy Qur'an says a day could be anywhere from 24 hours to 50,000 years. A day could potentially be as long as Allah wills it to be considering it has no fixed limit, so how can you say Allah created us instantaneously? Also, the command "Be" and it is is not something that happens the next moment from the command. The command issues forth and the causes and effects which are the consequence of that command are carried out by Allah. He simply commands that something be done, and it happens. There is hikmat in everything that Allah does.

I remember hearing somewhere that Ar-Razi explained that the command "Be" and it is does not mean something that happens the next moment, but something which happens over a period of time - however long that is. So the creation of Adam (as) is not necessarily something which happens in a few seconds. I think that is both naive and simplistic. Also, I think it severely limits one's view of Allah's wisdom, since in this age we should know better that such explanations are outdated and obviously not correct. We have to consider that the Holy Qur'an may have been describing clay as a substance which man was made out of, and that man went through stages just as it is mentioned in the Holy Qur'an that he went through stages. Just saying, there isn't just one kind of clay mentioned in the Holy Qur'an. This may have been for a very good reason. nothing is said in it without reason.

Yeah Masha'Allah all good points indeed. Allahu Alum!

[Independent]

If several paintings are analyzed and the chemical fingerprint of the paint is identical, it does not mean they evolved from a common ancestor. It merely means the painter used the same paint to paint multiple pictures.

True - although this also shows how an evolutionist faces many more obstacles in proving his side of the argument than vice versa (because divine fiat can explain anything.)

If the reverse were true, and it was the case that humans were built from entirely different building blocks from apes, then it would have been very strong evidence we didn't have a common ancestor. (It's easier to prove the negative than the positive.)

As far as I can think, the evidence we have so far remains consistent with the evolutionary account. The problem is not that anything flatly contradicts evolution, but that the theory remains incomplete in some vital aspects, especially relating to the mechanism (I am indebted to you for demonstrating that to me). So it cannot be said to be 'proven' unless and until that method is demonstrated.

For me, there is convincing evidence in some of the bits that don't work that well. You could call it circumstantial evidence. Not enough to convict, but enough to build a strong case.

For instance, the development of the human embryo and birth is an amazing thing that many people find 'miraculous'. It's also, frankly, rather badly designed with far too many unnecessary possibilities for error.

The unique style of human birth (headfirst with a twist in the birth canal) is good evidence of evolution. It's just the kind of modification and adaption from a pre-existing method (a method that became inadequate for the larger size of human brains) that would you expect to see with evolution. It certainly doesn't look like the kind of method you would come up with if you were starting from a clean sheet.

Of course, it can always be said (about this as much as any other piece of evidence) that God can do as He wishes. He can construct a kind of Heath Robinson birth process if that's what He wants to do.

[MustafaMc]

For instance, the development of the human embryo and birth is an amazing thing that many people find 'miraculous'.

I agree in that the turning on and off of genes due to temporal and spatial orientation during the development of a zygote to an embryo to a fetus to an infant to an adolescent to an adult is exceedingly amazing to me. I see that all of these changes are pre-programed into the zygote at the moment of fusion between an egg and a sperm. I have some understanding of this process from a molecular biology perspective and I don't discount the possibility that something similar could have happened to give rise to the multitude of species. However, my current understanding is that this would be an impossibility without a Creator directing the process. Perhaps this is due to ignorance on my part, but the evolutionary theory seems woefully inadequate albeit it is "the best scientific theory currently available". You may see this as being two-faced when I don't place an equal requirement for the arrival of the individual examples of these species through a process that has many similarities the ToE on face value.

[Independent]

You may see this as being two-faced

That's a bit harsh on yourself. 'Tough negotiator', I'd call it.

I agree in that the turning on and off of genes due to temporal and spatial orientation during the development of a zygote to an embryo to a fetus to an infant to an adolescent to an adult is exceedingly amazing to me.

One of the curses of the modern age is, sometimes, a little too much knowledge. I read way, way too much about the details of everything that could go wrong while my wife was pregnant with my son. My reaction was not so much 'this is a miracle' as 'this is crazy, this system has far too many complicated processes that are bound to go wrong'.

[Futuwwa]

If several paintings are analyzed and the chemical fingerprint of the paint is identical, it does not mean they evolved from a common ancestor. It merely means the painter used the same paint to paint multiple pictures.

Nice analogy. Analogies, however, are mere descriptive devices. An analogy does not constitute proof of anything.

[Good brother]

Nice analogy. Analogies, however, are mere descriptive devices. An analogy does not constitute proof of anything.

except evolution :lol:

[MustafaMc]

One of the curses of the modern age is, sometimes, a little too much knowledge. I read way, way too much about the details of everything that could go wrong while my wife was pregnant with my son. My reaction was not so much 'this is a miracle' as 'this is crazy, this system has far too many complicated processes that are bound to go wrong'.

It is funny the different perceptions people have of the same thing. If you want to think in terms of what could go wrong, then google Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, or Fallujah mutation birth defects caused by radiation exposure. The irony is the very issue that you raise about 'complicated processes that are bound to go wrong' illustrates in spades the deficiency in ToE that relies upon genetic mutations as the essential source for genetic variability creation for natural selection to act upon in a positive manner. That is like using a RPG to build a house! Again, I see the transition of a simple, totipotent microscopic zygote into an entirely unique, complex individual as evidence of a Divine Creator who designed the system of life and the various species thereof. Glory be to Allah, the Creator!

[MustafaMc]

Nice analogy. Analogies, however, are mere descriptive devices. An analogy does not constitute proof of anything.

No, it is not intended as proof, but rather as a feather to tickle the brain cells into thinking differently.

[Futuwwa]

Well, you failed to tickle me. Let's explore your example. Does the similar chemistry between the paint in both paintings prove that both were painted by the same painter? Because I can think of a handful of other hypothetical scenarios that could result in that outcome. To claim to have positive proof that one such scenario is true is to overreach.

[Futuwwa]

except evolution :lol:

wut? ^o)

[IAmZamzam]

You know, I remember reading the teleological arguments of yore, from back when intelligent design was actually about intelligent design. Of the whole world. And not just this hyper-focused and mainly politically driven modern obsession with the age of one planet and the way that lifeforms reproduce. It really disgusts me. People have lost perspective, as well as their priorities.

[Independent]

It really disgusts me. People have lost perspective, as well as their priorities.

I can see you're upset about something but I'm not sure what? Because the argument has become less philosphical/moral, more scientific? Or something else completely?

[Abu Loren]

I can see you're upset about something but I'm not sure what? Because the argument has become less philosphical/moral, more scientific? Or something else completely?

I think John is a very angry young man. Rebel without a cause?

[IAmZamzam]

The Qur'an argues for design repeatedly, talking about the signs in nature all around us. You'll notice it never hyperfocuses on small details. It urges us to look at the big picture every time.

[جوري]

If several paintings are analyzed and the chemical fingerprint of the paint is identical, it does not mean they evolved from a common ancestor. It merely means the painter used the same paint to paint multiple pictures.

The same way perhaps we use 27 letters of the alphabets to make endless words?.. Mussels didn't evolve from emus simply for sharing three consonants & a vowel in common.

:w:

[MustafaMc]

The same way perhaps we use 27 letters of the alphabets to make endless words?.. Mussels didn't evolve from emus simply for sharing three consonants & a vowel in common.

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatu'Allahi wa barakatu, and in this common language of life I see signs of my Creator, subhan Allah! Sadly, this beauty escapes others who seem unable to comprehend the wonder of creation as evidence of a Majestic Creator. Perhaps there is some understanding to be gleaned from the ayat about Jesus being the likeness of Adam. Considering the reverse, could the likeness of Adam be that of Jesus with a supernatural origin albeit inside some kind of supernatural non-human womb? (Just thinking loud there and not to be taken seriously.)

The arrival of highly common species like a horse and a donkey that are sexually incompatible illustrates to me that the genetic differences between them could not have arisen due to chance because we know the deleterious effects of translocations and inversions on fertility. These genetic defects convey reproductive disadvantages rather than advantages and are quickly eliminated from the population or held in very rare frequencies. After a pair of individuals of a species are present, the natural, preprogramed process of life that is present in the fertilized egg can proceed to produce a new, unique individual. I do not know the exact means by which Adam and Huwwa came into existence, but I believe that they never would have had Allah (swt) not willed for them to. The same can be said for each and every species of life that has ever lived. I do not accept naturalistic evolution [without the intimate involvement of Allah (swt)] as the means for the origin of even the simplest species of life.

[Independent]

I do not accept naturalistic evolution [without the intimate involvement of Allah (swt)] as the means for the origin of even the simplest species of life.

On the other hand, if it were to turn out that evolution were (broadly) correct in the light of further scientific advances, how would you react? Would you be disappointed? Resistant to the idea? Presumably you would still be a Muslim - so would you reinterpret the verses that appear to contradict evolution?

I don't know if you are in a specifically new development area of genetics, but do you think your conviction in divine fiat would be a mental obstacle to imagining new possibilities?

[Abu Loren]

On the other hand, if it were to turn out that evolution were (broadly) correct in the light of further scientific advances, how would you react?

That's a big IF Mr. Independent. I hope you don't mind me answering. :)

[Independent]

That's a big IF Mr. Independent. I hope you don't mind me answering

Yet it could happen. It's not dissimilar to the impact that geology had in the 19th century, when they discovered fossilised sea creatures high up in mountain rocks, and realised that the age of the earth must be vastly greater than previously assumed by theologians. Despite resistance at the time, Christians and (as far as I'm aware) most Muslims now agree with the idea of an 'old' earth.

Of course the opposite could occur. They could make some discovery that is simply incompatible with any notion of natural development or structure. That would be challenging to my world view but I would be excited by it, not disappointed.

It's significant that, although there are 'gaps' in the evolutionary explanation - and they are not trivial gaps - there are also no outright contradictions. In so many ways nature looks like what you would expect if evolution is correct.

[IKS]

Yet it could happen.

Salamu alaikum,
how could this be happen when Islam already told us how we were created.... Research this is a waste of time.

[MustafaMc]

On the other hand, if it were to turn out that evolution were (broadly) correct in the light of further scientific advances, how would you react? Would you be disappointed?

I don't have any issue with gradual change within a species over time as it adapts to changes in its environment. I work in the field of agriculture and there are many examples of both insect and weed pests developing resistance to chemical means of controlling them.

My opinion is that there can never be proof of any theory of where we came from because we were not there (obviously) to observe our own evolution, nor do we live long enough to observe the evolution of another new species. I do not take issue with evolutionary processes, but rather with the point that they are entirely natural and independent of a Divine Creator. My personal view is that Intelligent Design is not inconsistent with the creation story; however, at the same time I do not reject an instantaneous creation of Adam. I see the difference is in the time frame and the details of the method, but I don't believe we will ever be able to definitively disprove one or the other.

I have some understanding of the molecular changes in the development of a fertilized egg into a human infant and I see that as a natural process that is pre-programmed into that zygote and that given the proper nurturing environment (womb) that it will result in a new individual. Even with my understanding of the science behind this, I still see the miraculous nature of the process. I imagine even if the enormous gaps in ToE are filled in to the point where my intellect is satisfied that I will still see the miraculous nature of the process. I recognize some of the Qur'an as being allegorical and others as being literal. For example the number of ticks on a clock that define a day for us humans is quite certainly not the same as a day in the creation story. For one thing a day is defined by the rotation of the earth on its axis relative to a specific point in space, namely the sun. What was the length of a 'day' before there was a sun and an earth? Even after their creation we would need to confine Allah (swt) to existing on the earth (astaghfir'Allah) for the rest of creation to occur within their respective 'days'. The same can be said for the creation of Adam.

My whole issue with ToE is the insistence upon rejecting any involvement in the process of a Higher Being and leaving it exclusively in the hands of Father Time and Mother Nature. I recently watched a movie "Creation" about Charles Darwin's inner struggle with coming to grips with his daughter's death relative to his faith (or lack thereof) in God as opposed to his evolving naturalistic survival-of-the-fittest view of life. There was one most telling scene early in the movie when John Huxely visited him and commended him on his theory that effectively "killed God". To me the whole debate about evolution has always been an indirect debate about the existence of God which can neither be scientifically proven nor disproven. Both views boil down to a matter of faith or lack thereof and no amount of evidence of dinosaurs/fossils/common molecular processes, etc. will shake the faith of those who have it while those who do not have faith are satisfied with the weakest of arguments that seemingly disprove the requirement for a Divine Creator for the origin of the species.

[MustafaMc]

Yet it could happen.

This brought to my mind the kid on the movie who kept saying "It could happen" with the 'it' meaning the Angels baseball team miraculously winning the World Series so his father would come back.

[IAmZamzam]

I hope you do realize that, "We already know the facts; to research this is a waste of time," is exactly the same attitude that keeps Creationists from being taken seriously too. As well as any minority position, for that matter.

[Ahmad H]

Salamu alaikum,
how could this be happen when Islam already told us how we were created.... Research this is a waste of time.

The Qur'an tells us Muslims to reflect over the universe, and even our own creation. There are signs within us which brings us closer to Allah. Why not act upon it?

[Independent]

There was one most telling scene early in the movie when John Huxely visited him and commended him on his theory that effectively "killed God". To me the whole debate about evolution has always been an indirect debate about the existence of God which can neither be scientifically proven nor disproven.

This was the reaction of many believers then, and still is today. But I hope you would agree that Darwin did not set out to 'destroy' religion. His work led him in the direction of evolution and, if you study his life, you can see why. Far from being anti-religion he was notably reluctant to admit the logic of his own theory - although in the end he did indeed publish.

I don't see ToE as being inherently anti-religious either. (Most Christians support the theory and some Muslims.) But it is certainly anti a literal reading of some religious texts, especially those concerned with creation stories.

I don't see how Darwin could have helped that and not to follow the logic of his work, and not to publish, would have been deceitful and wrong.

Father Time and Mother Nature

They sound like a lovely couple :)

[Abu Loren]

It's significant that, although there are 'gaps' in the evolutionary explanation - and they are not trivial gaps - there are also no outright contradictions.

Ahhhhh so do you believe in the 'Gap Theory'?

[MustafaMc]

But I hope you would agree that Darwin did not set out to 'destroy' religion. His work led him in the direction of evolution and, if you study his life, you can see why.

I agree with that. I don't see Darwin as a scientist, but rather as a naturalist with a highly intelligent and inquisitive mind. His theory did not really take hold until Gregor Mendel's (another naturalist) work on the Laws of Inheritance were rediscovered in the early 1900's. Wikipedia, "The combination, in the 1930s and 1940s, of Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection resulted in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology." To me the highwater mark for ToE was the Scopes Monkey Trial that came shortly after this "intellectual marriage" of ideas. Mendelian genetics put a 'scientific basis' to ToE that unfortunately has not advanced beyond its rudimentary base. The Watson-Crick discovery of DNA and the resulting emergence of molecular genetics have given us a tremendous understanding of the molecular basis for life, yet ToE has not been able to incorporate and absorb these amazing developments to illustrate a valid mechanism by which naturalistic evolution theoretically could have given rise to the various species of life. This silence and lack of further synthesis in the face of tremendous scientific advancement in molecular biology speaks volumes to me.

[Independent]

Ahhhhh so do you believe in the 'Gap Theory'?

Not sure what you mean by that - when i google it i get a Gap Theory of Creationism which i most certainly do not subscribe to!

I simply mean that there are gaps in ToE as it stands. However, I see them as equivalent to other gaps in scientific understanding which have been filled in the past. For example, there was a major gap in Copernican cosmology which failed to describe an observed 'wobble' in the orbit of Mars. He was followed by Kepler who realised that the orbits were parabolas, not perfect circles, and thus 'completed' Copernican cosmology.

Until Kepler, you could have legitimately rejected Copernicus in his own terms, because it didn't fit all the facts. Yet to me, it's was obvious even then that although Copernican theory was 'incomplete', the broad conclusion (that the earth rotates around the sun and not vice versa) was correct.

This silence and lack of further synthesis in the face of tremendous scientific advancement in molecular biology speaks volumes to me.

Patience!

[greenhill]

Salaams to all :shade:

Great read. So wide the coverage, so detailed, big words, and fantastic points. Can't say I understand it all but helped me weigh the pros and cons.

I'd like to pick up on items mentioned in this thread, one about Adam being created/fashioned out of clay, several types, if I'm not mistaken. If we think about it, we are what we eat. And we eat off the produce of earth, symbolicly represented by the word clay, as clay is mouldable(sp?). Easier to grasp the idea of being fashioned.

Here's the other:

“‘Verily, I am going to place mankind generations after generations on earth.’ They said: ‘Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You.’ God said: ‘I know that which you do not know.’” (Quran 2:30)

This ayah has troubled me for some time. Why were the angels 'crying?' and how did they know that we will make mischief, shed blood....???

They must have assumed or they must have seen somewhere in the history before our own creation of some other similar looking being to us behaving poorly. But not mankind. Could be Cro-magnon or whatever (I don't know this at all) AND they were not abled to speak as the honour was given to Adam (pbuh), to speak out the names etc.. These 'prior' beings could probably paint as shown in the cave paintings but not speak. Those were the qualities given to mankind.

So, in other words, there is no link beween the origin of man Adam (pbuh) and any creation before him.

What do you guys think?

Peace:statisfie