I have been studying various religions since losing faith in the religion in which I was raised (mormonism). At this point I don't believe in any thing. Nothing has persuaded me yet. But I have felt drawn to Islam and have studied a little Arabic and am now reading the Quran.
My big stumbling block to reverting to Islam is that science appears to be diametrically opposed to Islam as well as most other religions. Does Islam allow for a belief in evolution? My reading of the Quran so far leads me to believe that it teaches similar to the Genesis account of the origins of man, i.e., Adam and Eve, garden of Eden, etc. That would mean the earth is only about 6000 years old, no evolution of man, we didn't come out of Africa as shown by evidence of DNA, anthropology, etc.
Can I reconcile scientific evidence with Quran? Or does Islam take the same position on the origins of man as fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Jews?
شكرا
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
a good article I came across
Dear all, I wish to discuss the theory of evolution in particular speciation...
Whilst studying evolution during my BSc in Molecular genetics and now in my Masters, I noticed that the entire field of speciation is based on the following assumption- that is similarity implies homology (common ancestry).
By this I mean, say if we take 3 DNA sequences from different species and we compared their similarity, we notice that evolutionists with say because sequence X and Y are more similar than sequence Z that means sequence X is more related to Y then Z. This would then be done for many other sequences and pave the generation of a phylogenic tree.
Whole genomes from various species are then compared to each other and the organisms sharing the highest proportion of sequence identity especially in the protein coding regions are considered to be closely related. So say a human and a monkey share in excess of 96% DNA, thus the evolutionists would conclude that Humans and monkeys shared a common ancestor. The Human being also shares a considerable amount of DNA with yeast but not as much as with monkeys so another conclusion would be that Humans are also related to yeast but the common ancestor is more ancient than that between the Human and monkey. The evolutionists then argue that since all species share some DNA sequences in the protein coding regions, this means all life forms were descended from each other eventually back to a single cellular – perhaps RNA based life form.
Before I go on to explain why in my opinion there lies an unproven assumption in this argument, I would like to shift to the fossil records and apply the same argument. The Darwinist would say if we compare the bone structure of various organisms we can see similarity. The fossils of Humans are similar to that of modern day apes, more similar in fact then to horses, thus Humans are more closely related to apes than horses…but they are also related to horses just not as closely as to apes. In essence the fossil argument is just more primitive then the genetics argument…but both lead to the same overall conclusion that similarity implies homology.
The problem I have with this argument is that 2 similar structures need not have a common ancestor. The fact that most organisms contain a particular protein does not imply that these organisms are related because an alternative conclusion is that this protein is absolutely essential for life such as the cytochrome C protein and thus most organisms had to have that protein to survive. Also, birds will have more related genes than to land based animals for example, simply because they need certain genes for wing patterning and development. The fact that apes and Humans share 96% or even 99% or even 100% does not mean we have arisen from a common ancestor because we share a similar environment. Likewise, the different species of fish have more closely related genes to each other than to Humans, because they share a similar water based environment.
So what I am trying to say is; a similar sequence or bone structure need not imply a common ancestor BUT A COMMON ENVIRONMENT.
So how could these sequences have arisen? To answer this we need to consider the possibilities of why 2 similar sequences could have arisen. All these possibilities are can never be (empirically) proven:
1) Similar sequences implies that they have arisen due to a common ancestor
2) Similar sequences imply a common environment and one creator – a supreme being.
Thus, both evolutionists and theists are relying on an assumption that cannot be proven because either one of the conclusions can be derived from the fact that sequences or structures are similar.
And finally just in case someone is still not convinced that the first possibility is unproven then consider this scenario; if I gave you a pencil, and 2 different types of pens, and I asked you to form a conclusion on the origins of these objects. The evolutionist will say that the objects share a common ancestor with the pens being more closely related to each other than to the pencil. The theists will argue that the objects share similarity because they are needed for the same function – writing.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
format_quote Originally Posted by rabimansur
My reading of the Quran so far leads me to believe that it teaches similar to the Genesis account of the origins of man, i.e., Adam and Eve, garden of Eden, etc. That would mean the earth is only about 6000 years old, no evolution of man, we didn't come out of Africa as shown by evidence of DNA, anthropology, etc.
Can I reconcile scientific evidence with Quran? Or does Islam take the same position on the origins of man as fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Jews?
شكرا
the Qur'an definitely does not say that the earth is only 6,000 years
In fact, the stories of the creation of the universe in the Qur'an do not contradict latest scientific discoveries.
all you have to do is browse and search these forums to read explanations about science content of the Qur'an.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
I personally don't see the point in debating about Adam and evolution. Adam's special creation was a miracle of Allah. However Allah did it is His choice. As a miracle it doesn't need to conform to regular universal laws.
We don't debate about how Moses turned his staff of wood (made of dead wood) into a living breathing snake. We don't debate about how Jesus resurrected a clinically dead man. Yet here we are trying to analyze Adam's birth.
Let's move on.
Last edited by AntiKarateKid; 08-26-2009 at 05:55 AM.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
As per my previous post in your other thread, Quran does not mention the earth being only 6000 years old.
Also Islam is compatible with evolution, however, Islam does not support the theory that we evolved from primates. Evolution/adaptation can happen and it does not contradict Islam at all.
I am sure a more knowledgeable Brother or Sister will elaborate on it.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
Greetings and peace be with you rabimansur; welcome to the forum.
Those links help but, don't totally answer it for me. At least Islam doesn't seem to take the position that the fundamentalist Christians take.
The links are about as good as you are going to get, and they lack the proof you are looking for. As to creation, God created each one of us as a kind, he did not create apes that evolved into humans through natural selection.
Again there is NO absolute proof for me to say this, I just have to accept it and take it on trust, we call it faith. My Muslim and Christian brothers and sisters are stuck in the same boat, somehow the same God hears all our prayers.
If you are searching for God, you have to do something, and it means changing yourself in some way.
In the spirit of searching for God
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you rabimansur; welcome to the forum.
The links are about as good as you are going to get, and they lack the proof you are looking for. As to creation, God created each one of us as a kind, he did not create apes that evolved into humans through natural selection.
Again there is NO absolute proof for me to say this, I just have to accept it and take it on trust, we call it faith. My Muslim and Christian brothers and sisters are stuck in the same boat, somehow the same God hears all our prayers.
If you are searching for God, you have to do something, and it means changing yourself in some way.
In the spirit of searching for God
Eric
Peace Eric,
I would like to add.
To find God(swt) a person needs to understand how to look for Him and what to recognize as being Him. To some people this seems to come natural, to others it takes much study and understanding. Some people will be able to see the work of God(swt) in a speck of dust, others will not recognize his work if they saw him build a planet personally for them.
Evolution if properly understood is an excellent example of Allaah(swt)'s handiwork. to see the beauty and mechanics of what evolution actually is, should make it impossible for a believer of evolution to deny the existence of a Creator.
I am speaking of what evolution is (adaptation) and not what some of us believers think it is ( a form of creation). Evolution is how living creatures adapt, not how they were created.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
format_quote Originally Posted by mahfuja
Whilst studying evolution during my BSc in Molecular genetics and now in my Masters, I noticed that the entire field of speciation is based on the following assumption- that is similarity implies homology (common ancestry).
It is simply not the case that the biological sciences think that similarities imply homology, similarities could represent homology or analogy.
format_quote Originally Posted by mahfuja
All these possibilities are can never be (empirically) proven:
Except they have been, see [here] for evidences based on homology and analogy.
You are right that the supreme being can never be proven though
Last edited by Muezzin; 08-27-2009 at 02:02 PM.
Reason: Removed personal comments - please discuss the subject rather than the member
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
I'm willing to believe in a supreme being. I realize we really can't prove that. But I'm looking for some solid evidence that Islam is the way. Or some other religion is the correct way to worship. So far, science seems to trump religion. You have to realize my background, I believed with all my heart in God and the mormon religion. Now that it has been proven false by a mountain of evidence I'm looking for the best way to worship God and so far have not found a home. I'm still leery of all religion in light of my experience with the lies of mormonism. It just seems to me that if Islam were true there would be proof in the Quran of evolution and other scientific findings. When I read it it just seems like a continuation of the worldview of the Bible. Very outdated.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
format_quote Originally Posted by rabimansur
I'm willing to believe in a supreme being. I realize we really can't prove that. But I'm looking for some solid evidence that Islam is the way. Or some other religion is the correct way to worship. So far, science seems to trump religion. You have to realize my background, I believed with all my heart in God and the mormon religion. Now that it has been proven false by a mountain of evidence I'm looking for the best way to worship God and so far have not found a home. I'm still leery of all religion in light of my experience with the lies of mormonism. It just seems to me that if Islam were true there would be proof in the Quran of evolution and other scientific findings. When I read it it just seems like a continuation of the worldview of the Bible. Very outdated.
A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
The Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada.
Address all correspondence to:
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D, F.I.A.C., Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M55 IAB, Canada
Statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur'an. It is only recently that the scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully. The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of awareness of scientific knowledge.
Interest in explanations of the verses of the Qur'an is not new. People used to ask the prophet Muhammad all sorts of questions about the meaning of verses referring to human reproduction. The Apostle's answers form the basis of the Hadith literature.
The translations(*) of the verses from the Qur'an which are interpreted in this paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, a Professor of Islamic Studies in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
"He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness." This statement is from Sura 39:6. We do not know when it was realized that human beings underwent development in the uterus (womb), but the first known illustration of a fetus in the uterus was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. In the 2nd century A.D., Galen described the placenta and fetal membranes in his book "On The Formation of the Foetus." Consequently, doctors in the 7th century A.D. likely knew that the human embryo developed in the uterus. It is unlikely that they knew that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B.C. The realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed and illustrated until the 15th century.
After the microscope was discovered in the 17th century by Leeuwenhoek descriptions were made of the early stages of the chick embryo. The staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century. Streeter (1941) developed the first system of staging which has now been replaced by a more accurate system proposed by O'Rahilly (1972).
"The three veils of darkness" may refer to: (l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane (Fig. 1). Although there are other interpretations of this statement, the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological point of view.
Figure 1. Drawing of a sagittal section of a female's abdomen and pelvis showing a fetus in utero. The "veils of darkness" are: (1) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall, and (3) the amniochorionic membrane.
"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest." This statement is from Sura 23:13. The drop or nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This interpretation is supported by another verse in the Qur'an which states that "a human being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop"). "Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure." This statement is from Sura 23:14. The word "alaqah" refers to a leech or bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24 days resembles a leech (Fig. 2). As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it is smaller than a kernel of wheat. Figure 2. Top, a drawing of a leech or bloodsucker. Below, a drawing of a 24 day-old human embryo. Note the leech-like appearance of the human embryo at this stage.Figure 3. Left, a plasticine model of the human embryo which has the appearance of chewed flesh. Right, a drawing of a 28 day-old human embryo showing several bead-like somites which resemble the teeth marks in the model shown to the left.
"Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump." This statement is also from Sura 23:14. The Arabic word "mudghah" means "chewed substance or chewed lump." Toward the end of the fourth week, the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh (Fig. 3). The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the vertebrae. "Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh." This continuation of Sura 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm. "Then We developed out of it another creature." This next part of Sura 23:14 implies that the bones and muscles result in the formation of another creature. This may refer to the human-like embryo that forms by the end of the eighth week. At this stage it has distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all the internal and external organs and parts. After the eighth week, the human embryo is called a fetus. This may be the new creature to which the verse refers. "And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding." This part of Sura 32:9 indicates that the special senses of hearing, seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last. "Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly unformed." This part of Sura 22:5 seems to indicate that the embryo is composed of both differentiated and undifferentiated tissues. For example, when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. It later differentiates into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones. "And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term." This next part of Sura 22:5 seems to imply that God determines which embryos will remain in the uterus until full term. It is well known that many embryos abort during the first month of development, and that only about 30% of zygotes that form, develop into fetuses that survive until birth. This verse has also been interpreted to mean that God determines whether the embryo will develop into a boy or girl. The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. Undoubtedly there are other verses in the Qur'an related to human development that will be understood in the future as our knowledge increases.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by rabimansur
I'm willing to believe in a supreme being. I realize we really can't prove that. But I'm looking for some solid evidence that Islam is the way. Or some other religion is the correct way to worship. So far, science seems to trump religion. You have to realize my background, I believed with all my heart in God and the mormon religion. Now that it has been proven false by a mountain of evidence I'm looking for the best way to worship God and so far have not found a home.
Who says you have to adhere to a particular religion? If I believed in god I think I would rather worship him in my own way.
It just seems to me that if Islam were true there would be proof in the Quran of evolution and other scientific findings. When I read it it just seems like a continuation of the worldview of the Bible. Very outdated.
Being a 7th century document, it certainly is very outdated. That doesn't mean it's not worth reading, though - Homer, Aristotle and Plato are outdated too.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
format_quote Originally Posted by rabimansur
I'm willing to believe in a supreme being. I realize we really can't prove that. But I'm looking for some solid evidence that Islam is the way. Or some other religion is the correct way to worship. So far, science seems to trump religion. You have to realize my background, I believed with all my heart in God and the mormon religion. Now that it has been proven false by a mountain of evidence I'm looking for the best way to worship God and so far have not found a home. I'm still leery of all religion in light of my experience with the lies of mormonism. It just seems to me that if Islam were true there would be proof in the Quran of evolution and other scientific findings. When I read it it just seems like a continuation of the worldview of the Bible. Very outdated.
It just seems to me that if Islam were true there would be proof in the Quran of evolution and other scientific findings.
Why????
To contain all the proof required to support all scientific truths would require a very large compilation of words, much larger then the average person could ingest and understand. The Qur'an is intended to be simple and easily understood..
I find it more understanding and more reasonable that the Qur'an does not contain any message that disputes or refutes any proven scientific truth. We need not use the Qur'an to support scientific facts. It is sufficient that proven scientific truths support the truth of the Qur'an.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
format_quote Originally Posted by rabimansur
I'm willing to believe in a supreme being. I realize we really can't prove that. But I'm looking for some solid evidence that Islam is the way. Or some other religion is the correct way to worship. So far, science seems to trump religion. You have to realize my background, I believed with all my heart in God and the mormon religion. Now that it has been proven false by a mountain of evidence I'm looking for the best way to worship God and so far have not found a home. I'm still leery of all religion in light of my experience with the lies of mormonism. It just seems to me that if Islam were true there would be proof in the Quran of evolution and other scientific findings. When I read it it just seems like a continuation of the worldview of the Bible. Very outdated.
Science trumps religion?
Do tell.
As I recall, science explains how and religion explains why. If you are dissapointed to find no scientific explanation for Allah's miracles for Adam, Moses, Jesus, etc... I don't know what to tell you except....
Duh?!
Go focus on the literary and scientific miracles of the Quran, it's preservation, the historical miracles of the Prophet, and then come back with faith.
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
I just think that if the Quran is going to state certain propositions about life, the world, birth, mankind, eternity, etc., I expect to find truths that go beyond the view of a group in the desert 1400 years ago. Some of the examples posted have been interesting (like the embryo stages) and I am reading others but was hoping for a bit more. I mean, after all, God is speaking right? Not just someone in the desert thinking he is having a revelation to update the Old Testament. I'm still open-minded about this, don't get me wrong, I'm just looking for more evidence to confirm the Quran. I can't just take it on blind faith. If you want me to just take something on faith then what difference is there between Islam and any other religion that asks me to take something on faith? I've already been in a religion that tells you to believe and quit doubting. That, my friend, is spiritual abuse. Your faith is only as good as what you are putting your trust in, right?
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
The Quran is a book of signs not a book of science..
science is ever changing.. what you believe to be true today might in fact 'evolve' to something entirely different a century from now.. scientists from the future might think our brand of science is quackery, the way we look at some of the science of the last few centuries.. treating hysteria by removing the uterus, or curing syphilis by introducing Malaria into the body..
if that is the sort of thing you are looking for in a religion book, then your religion will become obsolete as times change..
if you want to measure it against common sense, the natural world in a way that is not counter intuitive to the nature of man and merit on its own contents, then you are most welcome to..
you may read this thread about some of the numerical miracles (amongst others) in the Quran..
Re: Stumbling block: evolution, Adam and Eve, age of earth
by the way judging from the thread title alone.. I'd like to know what your beef is with Adam and Eve? did science establish evidence that the origin of life is something else?
to deny that there was an Adam and Eve, is to deny your own existence, and set yourself back to a black zone where you'll have to account for all that is in the cosmos in a lucid scientific fashion!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Figure 1. Drawing of a sagittal section of a female's abdomen and pelvis showing a fetus in utero. The "veils of darkness" are: (1) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall, and (3) the amniochorionic membrane.
Figure 2. Top, a drawing of a leech or bloodsucker.
Figure 3. Left, a plasticine model of the human embryo which has the appearance of chewed flesh.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks