Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

Well I can't help you with an "Islamic" response, since Islam leaves room for both the creation trough metaphysical as well as the creation trough intelligent design. So abiogenesis is technically compatible with Islam. However I don't believe in abiogenesis for a multitude of reasons.

Some logical fallacies from the clip:

Sweeping generalisation:
Just because many civilizations created myths to explain existence of animals-humans, doesn't mean that all religious explanations are therefor mythical.

Strawmen argument 1:
The reason why creationists claim that life could not have emerged from lifeless matter goes way beyond the research of those three mentioned scientists. It's quite pitiful to make the theory seem out of date simply by limiting to those three. there are many contemporary scientists who have come to believe that abiogenesis is impossible, some of which even wrote the book on chemical evolution, but later on changed their minds!

Strawmen argument 2:
The probability of a cell forming cannot be expressed in chances. A chance, no matter how low it is implies that it is possible, just not plausible. Luck however doesn't exist in science; only causality. there is no causal explanation for how the cell could have formed, therefor it is not improbable, but rather scientifically impossible! Secondly, this also applies to even the most basic one-celled organisms. And not only for "complex modern cells" (whatever that may refer to) as the video seems to imply.

False claim 1:
Not only the Bible claims that life was made out of mud. Abiogenesis claims that it was made out of a "prebiotic soup" which is just a fancy word for a mudpool.

False analogy:
The wright brother's contribution towards the mission to the moon is not comparable to the contribution of the Uray-Miller experiment towards explaining Abiogenesis. The wright Brothers contributed to the mission to the moon in the sense that they took scientific progress a step further. The Uray-Miller experiment did not do the same thing. Not only did it not create life, it also did not explain how the necessary components could have been formed in the right environment. The experiment was a failure on every level.

Irrelevant appeal:
Whether or not the earth had more time and space is completely irrelevant to the probability of the process of abiogenesis. If the process failed, doing it a million times over at different places will not change the result. Doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results is mere stupidity.

False claim 2:
The complex chemistry and environmental conditions do not make abiogenesis more probably outside of the chemistry lab as opposed to inside of it. If anything, during the experiment the scientists can fine-tweak and set the environments much more to his likings, as opposed to the outside world where that is a lot harder.

False claim 3:
The fields of astronomy, meteorology, geography and chemistry do not teach us that the early earth was "filled" with organic molecules. That is simply false. Besides not all organic molecules can serve as building blocks for life.

False claim 4:
We do not know whether "organic building blocks" are common in space. So far we've only examined two meteorites. Yes we have found them in both, but still that doesn't mean that they are common, it could still be a fluke. Secondly those "building blocks" that we found weren't the right building blocks.

False appeal:
The first life cannot have been "extremely simple". Even the most basic simple life is quite complex from a chemical level.

False claim 5:
The prebiotic environment did not contain thousands of nucleic acids. There's no indication of that once so ever. These molecules are immensely complex and cannot be formed without the help of complex proteins. The video does not explain how the complex strands can be formed in the first place. The illustration with the colored dots makes it seem very easy, but this is definitely not the case. The formation of nucleic acids is the largest challenge to abiogenesis and is far from solved. Of course who needs explenations and theories when you have fancy illustrations.

Some important steps are also missed, like:

If this early life indeed had a membrane build out of simple fatty acids, then that poses several problems.
- If it is permeable, then why doesn't it allow harmfull substances in? This is very problematic considering the hazardous prebiotic-soup-environment.
- How does it keep the cells components, it's necessary enzymes, its nucleic acids and it's acquired building blocks inside the cell?

Further in the explanation it says that the vesicles break of when they build non-linear. Then it suddenly assumes that these "daughter" vesicles both contain the polymer. That is of course ridiculous. Why would the other compartment that is isolated contain the same polymer? Of course the assumption was crucial to the explanation, without it there can be no evolution since there is no reproduction.

Nucleic acids don't simply split by themselves. This requires certain enzymes.

I'm also looking forward to a more detailed explanation of how these nucleic acids can self duplicate without mRNA.

So in conclusion, as fancy as the illustrations may make it seem, the explanation is completely half-baked, filled with flaws and assumptions.

format_quote Originally Posted by root

I get so bored with the "Evolution must account how life began" myth you always seem to peddle Steve......

It's like saying Gravity probably does not exist because we cant prove where matter dark matter and dark energy come from.

Perhaps you should read the previous posts before you cut in. Somebody posted a link about abiogenesis and I simply replied to it. Now all of the sudden you're complaining about that old thing again? Or are you just desperately clasping to that one technical argument that you've managed to use against me so far?

BTW I've already told you several times that there's a difference between:
1. Evolution of the different species.
2. Biological evolution.

It's quite obvious indeed that abiogenesis does not belong to 1, but whether or not it belongs to 2 is a semantical issue. And quite frankly I simply don't care for those semantical issues enough to indulge you, so stop with splitting hairs already.

format_quote Originally Posted by root

I think it's a tad absurd that you talk about "Technical Arguement" then try to ask us to swallow Evolution of the different species and biological evolution.

Well if you find that absurd, that probably reflects more on your bias rather then on my arguments. Biological evolution, if you analyze the words means any evolution within the fields of biology. Abiogenesis is a suggested hypothesis for biology, and abiogenesis suggests how living organisms evolved out of lifeless matter. So it is a hypothesis concerning biology and it is a hypothesis concerning evolution. Like I said, it's a semantical issue. The theory of "the evolution of the different species" on the other hand, is a term coined by Darwin to refer to a specific theory that does not include abiogenesis. So Like I said, if you find that absurd, that is more likely to reflect on your bias rather then on my argument. Now will you stop flaming about that same irrelevant issue already? How about you try and bring me some proofs for common descent or something, try something constructive.

I know you do that in the same manner as you do micro-evolution and

Do what, use accurate definitions? Oh how dare I...

macro-evolution except to all the top scientists in this field (which you are not one of them)

You're gonna pull rank on me? This isn't the military. Let's judge arguments by their own merits, not by their source.

and BTW the majority of them simply state that they are all part of the same brush.

And because the majority commits a logical fallacy (sweeping generalization), that must be true? That in itself is a logical fallacy to, called the bandwagon fallacy.

However, I concede as I have to do that a probability remains that you are correct in as much the same odds that I to must concede that 4 + 4 = 9 and that everytime anyone does that sum they too get it wrong when they get 8. It's this that creationist's like to exploit, that science cannot and does not provide absolute proof for anything. It merely attaches a probability. Despite the fact 4 + 4 = 9 has a probability of being correct, I also consider it a very miniscule probability compared to 4 + 4 = 8 having a greater probability

Your analogy is flawed, I challenge you to show where in any of my posts or websites I have committed such an exploit. It's easy to throw accusations, its' another thing to back them up!

format_quote Originally Posted by there there

It is easy, so please do! I recommend the following Talk Origins essay
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

First of all: Sigh...
No arguing by links please, it's to easy to just post a few links and expect me to do your homework. If you have any evidence, testability, falsifiability to bring, then post it in your own words and give the link only as back up. I'm not going to spend hours forming up a reply to every single website you'll post an URL for.
Secondly: sigh...
I've already replied to that site several posts ago.
Thirdly: If you had followed the no-arguing-by-link-rule, if you had posted the gist of the arguments rather then only reading over the titles and posting the links; then you would have noticed that those aren't evidence for common descent at all! Those are evidence for macroevolution. If you read the titles carefully you can see what they attempt to do on that site:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
So basically, they want to claim that common descent is a scientific case, based on evidence for macroevolution. Sorry but that is unscientific! In science each theory is judged by its own merits. Just because there's evidence for macroevolution doesn't mean that common descent is also proven that's a huge sweeping generalization.

So My statement stands, there is no evidence, empirical data, falsification or testability for common descent. Again, if you want to claim that there is, you 'll have to show and tell, not just tell.

Doing a quick Google search will bring up a lot of websites and if you don't feel like looking elsewhere you can check Wikipedia which not only has a page on common descent, but a page devoted solely for the evidence to suggest common descent is true.

And if you would take the time to actually read those sites you will find that it's all false. Again, I'm not going to go and refute every article out there. But if you feel confident about any proof, then bring it here and I'll show you why it's false. I repeat my previous posts. It's easy to tell me to go and look somewhere. But the point in debate is that you bring your own evidence, rather than asking your opponent to look for evidence in favor of your view. If you can't find any, or you are to lazy to do that, then don't come here claiming that there is evidence. In here you've gotta back up what you claim.

No, I’m not being biased. It’s scepticism.

No it is not, skepticism is refusal to accept something without proof. But skepticism is still neutral. When you say that belief is irrational you go way beyond skepticism into the field of bias. I've already illustrated in depth why your claim was biased. Simply denying it and hiding behind skepticism won't defeat my arguments.

It’s irrational to explain something as supernatural as people reach that conclusion often with no good reason,

Now you are being irrational. There's no less than 4 logical fallacies in that single conclusion of yours!
1. Fallacist's fallacy: even if someone uses a flawed argument to reach a conclusion, doesn't mean that the conclusion itself is wrong or flawed. It's perfectly plausible for people to reach an accurate conclusion based on false arguments. Or in this case a rational conclusion.
2. Sweeping generalisation: Just because people "often" reach to the conclusion of supernatural based on no good reason, doesn't mean that every conclusion which suggests to the supernatural is therefor without good reason.
3. Slippery slope: Just because you do not know of a good reason does not mean that there doesn't exists a good reason. There's a difference between what you know, and what other people know. Are you really that vain and arrogant that you think you know more then millions of people do?
4. accent fallacy: there is no such thing as a "good" reason. Reasons are reason. If you have a reason, that is sufficient. All judgments of "good" or "bad" reasons are obviously going to be biased by personal opinion.

See, 4 logical flaws combined in a single conclusion! So don't you tell me I'm the one who's irrational kiddo.

much less anything to back up their claims aside from anecdotes.

Yes obviously believe in something means that there is no proof. Otherwise it wouldn't be believing but rather "knowing". So now you are defending your earlier statement (belief is irrational) because there is no proof. So in other words, in your opinion accepting something as true without proof is irrational? That's a very narrow minded view. And an unsubstantiated by the way, just because something is devoid of proof does not mean it's devoid of rationality also. Again a slippery slope fallacy.

Also, to explain something as supernatural is to not explain anything. The supernatural isn’t a consistent set of laws that can be observed.

Just because it's not a consistent set of laws doesn't mean that it isn't an explenation. Explanations don't always come in consistent set of laws. This fallacy is known as the false dilemma. Either it's observable in a consistent law or it is not explained. You're simply closing your eyes for a whole set of possibilities. Again this is bias and not skepticism. A skeptic would say that he doesn't accept/believe in explanations that aren't observable as consistent laws. To go even farther and say that those explanations aren't explanations at all is just bias.

It’s not an explanation as putting it down to the supernatural doesn’t get you closer to a coherent description of what is true.

What?!? So basically your saying that any explanation that isn't scientific doesn't reveal the truth? What if the truth is something that cannot be examined within the field of science? Again; bias and not skepticism.

Why not simply say you don’t know instead of reaching an unreasoned conclusion

It is not an unreasoned conclusion. In fact an unreasoned conclusion is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. By definition conclusions are reasoned. Otherwise they wouldn't be called conclusions but rather be called assumptions. And no, creationism isn't a baseless assumption. It's very much reasoned. You might disagree with or dislike the reasoning. But it is nevertheless reasoned. By the way, I could just bounce the ball back. There's no evidence for common descent either. Why don't most scientists simply admit (like some do) that at this point science is simply unable to tell whether or not we all evolved out of the same ancestor or not. My initial claim has always been, that common descent does not belong in science.

for which there is nothing to suggest it’s anything besides wishful thinking?

On the contrary, there are many things that suggest it. You're just not willing to accept those suggestions. I don't mind, you're free to accept/decline any suggestion. But to ignore it and then claim it doesn't exist is just acting blind.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In that case, you still owe me some extremely extraordinary evidence for common descent.

Don’t bother with dismantling the example, it’s the principle that matters.

Still going with denial I see. I already dismantled it and showed the flaw in your argument. and that flaw isn't just for that specific example, but can be extrapolated to the general principle as well. Just because you can't reproduce your personal experiences to use them in debate, doesn't mean that you can't base your ideas on it. And sorry for being so frank again, but you're being immensely arrogant and narrow minded when you say that people who do believe something without evidence are deluded. Deluded implies that they are wrong. When you refer to faith as delusion, you imply that atheism is inevitably true. Which in turn means that you are arrogant and narrow minded, not to mention offensive. There isn't any proof that shows that there doesn't exist a god. In fact people believe things on good faith on a daily basis. People believe that they have a brain without ever having had an MRI or dissection to prove it. are all those people deluded since they believe something that isn't proven? People believe on good faith that their partner doesn't cheat on them, also without evidence. Are you going to tell me that all those people who believe that their spouse is faithful are deluded to? Are you gonna claim that everybody cheats on his/her partner? Of course you aren't. Then I ask you, why the double standard. Why say that in one case, accepting something without faith is delusion but in another it is not?

The fact is any material object is substantially more real and palpable than all the Gods history has given us. That’s all I wanted to show with the example.

If that is true then you picked a very odd way of saying it. There's a huge difference between saying:
"Material things are more substantial than faith."
and:
"Accepting your faith as factual means you are delusional."

If you believe God is as real as, say, the computer mouse you’re probably using now, I think you’re deluded.

And if that's what you think, I think you are arrogant, narrow minded, and offensive.

If God was as real as a material object, there would be no reason to doubt its existence.

So god can be partially real, but not equally real? Either something is real or it is not. If you believe in God, you believe he is real. It's as simple as that. So now you're saying millions of people are deluded because they believe God is real? Secondly, just because something is real, equally real as a material object, doesn't mean that there would be no reason to doubt its existence. Just because we can't see God doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
This is again a false dilemma, you claim either there is no doubt about his existence, or he does not exist. There exist more objects in this universe then we are sure off that exist. That's a cold hard fact. So that means obviously there exist some things of which we are not sure of their existence.

I know religious people don’t see God as a material person, but when you say don’t just consider your faith “very plausible” but “instead [I consider] it factual” you’re saying it’s an undisputed fact.

No, I'm not saying that it is an undisputed fact. I'm saying that I consider it indisputable for myself, on a personal level. However I still acknowledge that other people have other ideas. And I acknowledge, that I can't prove what I am convinced of.

Well you’d say wrong.

Again with the baseless denial. How about replying to my argument rather then just saying I'm wrong and leaving it at that.

By all means, say you’re religious because you find meaning; because you enjoy the solidarity; or indeed because you believe in God. You would have to have been duped, however, to say you’re religious because of all the evidence for it.

People can be religious because of multiple reasons. It doesn't have to be just one thing, but in most cases it's the sum of many things.

As someone pointed out to me on this board, if there was evidence for Islam, everyone would be Muslim.

The problem is that the evidence is to weak to convince on it solely. Changing religious views is quite an endeavor and you would need pretty strong undeniable evidence to convert the whole world. In fact, I think undeniable proof doesn't even exist. No matter how convincing something might be, there will always be people who will be able to deny it, since most people accept what they want to accept, and not what convinces them. So as I said, people can be religious due to more then one reason, and these evidences by them self are not enough to convince someone. But that doesn't mean that they are useless, because they aren't always "by them self". So like I said, they can be a push in the back and aren't useless.
Be that as it may, that still leaves the issue: even if for the sake of argument I grant they are useless, who are you to come here and tell us what we should or shouldn't do?

There aren‘t different right answers and interpretations to 7+3, but there are different views of how and why we exist as shown by the myriad faiths which exist in the world.

That's because the different faiths are wrong, not because my faith is wrong. Islam is the only religion with evidence. A fatwa is always based on verses from the koran or hadeeth. The Koran itself functions as proof for the prophecy of Muhammed (peace be upon him). In other religions people accept what they want to accept. In Islam we accept only that which can be proven. I can't help it that all those other people with other faiths have such low standards on what they accept or not. But that has no merit on Islam.

lol i dont know how to quote properly but i was qoutng there there lol. peace

You need to close your first tag.

Method 1:
[quote] This is a quote[/q_uote]
Result:

This is a quote

Method 2:
[quote=nameofperson] This is a quote from a specific person [/q_uote]
Result:

format_quote Originally Posted by nameofperson

This is a quote from a specific person

(I intentionally wrote q_uote instead of quote so that the format wouldn't b made and you could see the code)

format_quote Originally Posted by root

So we move away from biology, as you defined earlier and we are now in the realm of chemistry! That's not biological evoultion is it!

No, it is! It concerns biology, it deals with biological entities. In universities, this is even thought in biology-classes! So it is definitely part of biology to, and not purely part of chemistry.

Anyway, this is a stupid argument, completely semantical and off topic. So for heaven's sake stop flaming about it already.

As for common descent, your two points have already been shown to be false.

No they have not. People have attempted to show that they are false, but I have refuted each such attempt so my argument still stands. You're welcome to link to the post that you think proved me wrong if you disagree.

And so, another day will arrive tomorrow. Though how can I prove it.

What a bad comparison. First of all nobody can prove or guarantee that a new day will arrive tomorrow. People simply assume that it would, because a new day has arrived every day up until now. So you compare your inability to prove that a new day will come with your inability to back up your baseless accusations against me; you are in a way implying that you assume I am wrong simply because I have been wrong all the time. But if you'll look back at my history of posts, you'll see that contrary to your suggestion I have been right most of the time! So based on your own line of thinking, you should assume the opposite!

Be that as it may, in this forum you either prove your point or remain silent. This thread does not benefit from 20 people saying: "I think you're wrong, I think you're right".