Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective (OP)
http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?ca...sub_cat_id=792
Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective| Prepared by the Research Committee of IslamToday.net under the supervision of Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî|
Many Muslims wonder about the theory of biological evolution – the theory that living species on Earth today are descended from others in the past, and that the present diversity of living species we see is a result of descent with modification over the course of numerous generations.
Muslims also wonder about one of the main processes that evolutionary theory proposes to explain how evolution takes place – the process of natural selection. This is the idea that the individuals within a populations of living organism vary in their individual traits – they are not exactly alike – and that the organisms which are most successful at leaving descendants will pass on their unique traits to the next generation at the expense of the traits possessed by less successful organisms in the population, thereby contributing to a long-term gradual change in the suite of traits found within the population.
We as Muslims must ask:
Does the theory of evolution – and likewise the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution – conform to Islamic teachings or conflict with them?
Is a Muslim allowed to believe in evolution as a scientific theory as long as he or she accepts that Allah is behind it?
Can a Muslim believe in human evolution? If not, how can we explain the fossils of upright, bipedal, tool-using apes with large brains that have been discovered?
To start with, we wish to emphasize that our concern here is not with examining the scientific merits of the theory of evolution. What we want to know is what Islamic teachings have to say about the idea. Whether evolution is true or false scientifically is another matter altogether.
When we look at the sources of Islam – the Qur’ân and Sunnah – we see that, with respect to human beings living on the Earth today, they are all descendants of Adam and Eve.
Allah also says: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing.” [Sûrah al-Hujûrât:13]
The Prophet (peace be upon him) identified the "male" mentioned in this verse as being Adam. He said: “Human beings are the children of Adam and Adam was created from Earth. Allah says: ‘O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing’.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî (3270)]
We also see that Allah created Adam directly without the agency of parents.
Allah says: “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was.” [Sûrah Âl `Imrân: 59]
We also know that Eve was created from Adam without the agency of parents.
In the Qur’ân, Allah states clearly: “O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 1]
Therefore, the Qur’ân tells us that Adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the Earth today. We know about this by way of direct revelation from Allah.
The direct creation of Adam (peace be upon him) can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. This is because the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) was a unique and singular historical event. It is a matter of the Unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny. As a matter of the Unseen, we believe it because Allah informs us about it. We say the same for the miracles mentioned in the Qur’ân. Miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.
What about other living things, besides the human beings living on the Earth today? What about plants, animals, fungi, and the like?
When we turn our attention to this question, we find that the Qur’ân and Sunnah do not tell us much about the flora and fauna that was present on the Earth before or at the time of Adam and Eve’s arrived upon it. The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts.
The only thing that the Qur’ân and Sunnah require us to believe about the living things on Earth today is that Allah created them in whatever manner He decided to do create them.
Allah says: “Allah is the Creator of all things and over all things He has authority.” [Sûrah al-Zumar: 62]
Indeed, Allah states specifically that He created all life forms: “And We made from water all living things.” [Sûrah al-Anbiyâ’: 30]
We know that “Allah does what He pleases.” Allah can create His creatures in any manner that He chooses.
Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.
The role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. If scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. It is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of Allah. A Muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in Allah’s creation.
As for the fossil remains of bipedal apes and the tools and artifacts associated with those remains, their existence poses no problem for Islamic teachings. There is nothing in the Qur’ân and Sunnah that either affirms or denies that upright, brainy, tool using apes ever existed or evolved from other apelike ancestors. Such animals may very well have existed on Earth before Adam’s arrival upon it. All we can draw from the Qur’ân and Sunnah is that even if those animals once existed, they were not the forefathers of Adam (peace be upon him).
I'm confused. How does posting something you don't understand help make your point?
As it stands, the logic you've quoted above is irrelevant to whether or not it's possible to prove 4+4=8.
Peace
LOL i was going to ask you the same thing, how does stating "Im confused" help make YOUR point?????----How does posting something you dont understand---"Im confused" help make your point????????????? answer me this
Peace out.
Greetings, well firstly my point was that you can prove 4+4=8, and whether or not me understanding it becuase of it being university level work, me being 16 what do you think? should i be able to understand and know university stuff?-no.
YES - if you are attempting to use it in debate.
secondly if you think that people can not prove 4+4=8 then you are wrong, my post might be irrelevent-as i was not aware of what was going on with the math, you might be, and if you think it doesnt well state how, if you are a mathmatician that is.
I'm not a mathematician; I'm just a person who reads a lot. I've already stated how your copy-pasted bit of text doesn't apply to the question at hand: it is directed towards a different problem. In the simplest possible way, it is irrelevant.
Well lets put it this way, 4+4=8 can be proven, if you think it cant then learn proof by contradiction, and set theory.
If you think it can, then read about Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
now if you input the values of lets say 4 and 8 into for example P and Q or X you will be able to prove 4+4=8.
Peace out,
Into which proof? You've given five, none of which are related to the question of whether you can prove 4 + 4 = 8.
The concept of addition relies on the basic axioms of mathematics, which themselves have to be assumed - they cannot be proven. We can prove addition is true only by reference to the axioms - further than that we cannot go.
well i wasent in a debate, i was stating a point, basically i was just saying, that you can prove 4+4=8, i wasnt debating. so you are right if you are using it in a debate i shoulnd know my stuff, which i was not in.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I'm not a mathematician; I'm just a person who reads a lot. I've already stated how your copy-pasted bit of text doesn't apply to the question at hand: it is directed towards a different problem. In the simplest possible way, it is irrelevant.
i am not a mathamatis eathier. well its faster than putting it into your own word, especially if the main "letters" used have maths involved-which can be hard to type up well i dont think thier was a question involved; i mean no one gave me a question to answer, but it did have something to do with prooving stuff didint it? so i dont think it was irrelevent.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
If you think it can, then read about Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
no thanks i will stick with AS mathamatics, lol why dont you read a bit about proof by contradiction theorm?, i mean you are older and i would suggest you are of university level> right?
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Into which proof? You've given five, none of which are related to the question of whether you can prove 4 + 4 = 8.
umm i am positive you can prove it, i mean if i was in an exam, and the question was 4+4= x find x then i can put down any number, and then say well hold on it is not 8 cuz you cant prove that sir.. think about it, u telling me you cant prove 4+4=8, then i dont think maths has "EVOLVED" properly, and still at stage 1.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
The concept of addition relies on the basic axioms of mathematics, which themselves have to be assumed - they cannot be proven. We can prove addition is true only by reference to the axioms - further than that we cannot go.
umm dont know what you were saying here-lol couldnt understand it
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Peace
umm CZ if you found my reply funny; umm well i wasnt trying to amuse you.
second off the topic of this thread is BIOLOGICAL evolution, not how maths has evolved badly , so we shouldnt go far
Asalaam wa alykum,
Brother Hamayun, i was just stating you can prove it, and then CZ starts saying no you cant lolz true it is a silly subject, that is obviouse-4+4=8
Asalaam wa alykum,
Brother Hamayun, i was just stating you can prove it, and then CZ starts saying no you cant lolz true it is a silly subject, that is obviouse-4+4=8
I know Brother Ali but now CZ has my simple and easy instructions on how to add he will be able to prove it too. All he has to do is visit the supermarket.
Maybe I should write a book..... "How to add 4+4 for dummies"
5. Put 4 apples on one side and 4 apples on the other side of the table
6. Count the first group of 4 apples. The answer will be 4
7. Now count the second group of apples. The answer again is 4
8. Now merge the two groups of apples and count them again. The answer is 8
That proof assumes what it is trying to prove, i. e. that numbers behave in the way we have assumed they do.
No offence but why go off on a tangent about something as silly as this?
I can fully understand why you think this is not related to the topic. It started because of something that root said about the word "proof", which is something a lot of these discussions end up circling around.
It's not a silly subject though. The point is that the things we're talking about can't be proven outside of their frame of reference (if they can be proven at all, that is). Creationism can't be proven outside of a religious framework; evolution can't be proven outside of a biological framework; nothing in mathematics can be proven outside of a mathematical frame of reference.
Just because these systems may seem convincing to us doesn't necessarily mean they have anything to do with reality. They are systems we have invented to help us understand the world. Even mathematics, which self-evidently works, relies on assumptions that cannot be proven.
This doesn't take anything away from the usefulness of mathematics, but it does teach you something about the nature of "proof", which I would guess is the number one most frequently misunderstood word on this forum.
Ali Cena: ask your maths teacher whether they think 2 + 2 = 4 can be proven.
Ali Cena: ask your maths teacher whether they think 2 + 2 = 4 can be proven.
Peace
LOL hi, umm if you read my previouse posts, i told you that even my next door neaghbour who has got a Masters degree in mathamatics, was telling me one day that in his university exam he was told to prove 1+1=2; lolz that sounds silly but trust me thats waht came on his exam papper,
i have told my teacher who is one of them maths geeks lol he said it can be proven man he told me to check on set theory, and proof by contradiction theory, i mean you look them up and FULLY UNDERSTAND THOSE theoroms, or whatever, and then get back to me. becuase even my next door neighbour had a questions proof 1+1=2, trust me i wouldnt have said 4+4=8 can be proven withouth going to a specialist in maths.
Peace out roger doger.
I suppose I should have seen this coming: we are understanding different things by the word "proof". As usual.
I'm talking about proving something to be true. You're talking about mathematical proof (i.e., within a mathematical frame of reference).
Of course it's possible to prove 1 + 1 = 2 if you assume the axioms of mathematics. That's exactly what Metamath does. And well - it's a fascinating site.
But can we really prove that 1 + 1 = 2 is true? It certainly works, as all the feats of engineering in the world will attest, but it relies on assumptions that humans have created, and therefore cannot be proved outright.
This is the problem with words like "proof" and "truth": none of us can ever really get a handle on these concepts. To see the different interpretations people have of them, read this forum on any day of the week.
Evolution seems true for me, and creationism might seem true for you, but neither of us will ever get a proof of either of them. That is my belief, which obviously cannot be proven either!
That proof assumes what it is trying to prove, i. e. that numbers behave in the way we have assumed they do.
I can fully understand why you think this is not related to the topic. It started because of something that root said about the word "proof", which is something a lot of these discussions end up circling around.
It's not a silly subject though. The point is that the things we're talking about can't be proven outside of their frame of reference (if they can be proven at all, that is). Creationism can't be proven outside of a religious framework; evolution can't be proven outside of a biological framework; nothing in mathematics can be proven outside of a mathematical frame of reference.
Just because these systems may seem convincing to us doesn't necessarily mean they have anything to do with reality. They are systems we have invented to help us understand the world. Even mathematics, which self-evidently works, relies on assumptions that cannot be proven.
This doesn't take anything away from the usefulness of mathematics, but it does teach you something about the nature of "proof", which I would guess is the number one most frequently misunderstood word on this forum.
Ali Cena: ask your maths teacher whether they think 2 + 2 = 4 can be proven.
Peace
That is not a proper understanding of axioms. There is nothing inherent about an axiom that is must be an unproveable proposition, it simply is an unproven proposition assumed usually for the purposes of extrapolation.
Two plus two can be proven mathematically within a given axiomatic system, as you mentioned, but people here are conflating judgements of quantity with mathematics. Mathematics has not been "the science of quantitity" saince the late 19th century. Eve saince Cantor, Hilber, Frege, Peno, etc we would say that mathematics is, essentially and not considering the three major "philosophies" or any smaller ones, set theory and logic. Within that framework 2+2=4 can be proven.
In Greek mythology, it is Prometheus who created a race of ONLY men out of water and earth, and stole fire from the heaven to give them as a gift. Later on Zeus found at, and as [i]punishment[/i] Zeus created for them the first woman, Pandora, and sent her to dwell amongst them.
!!!!!!!! think Pandora was mild and gentle compared to my wife !!!!!!!!
only joling, Allahs peace and blessings be upon her
That is not a proper understanding of axioms. There is nothing inherent about an axiom that is must be an unproveable proposition, it simply is an unproven proposition assumed usually for the purposes of extrapolation.
Two plus two can be proven mathematically within a given axiomatic system, as you mentioned, but people here are conflating judgements of quantity with mathematics. Mathematics has not been "the science of quantitity" saince the late 19th century. Eve saince Cantor, Hilber, Frege, Peno, etc we would say that mathematics is, essentially and not considering the three major "philosophies" or any smaller ones, set theory and logic. Within that framework 2+2=4 can be proven.
Umm, show me where you disagree with me. I'm arguing exactly the same thing as you here!
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree. CHARLES DARWIN (1809-82) The Origin of Species (1859)
just saying...
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
Interesting, yet misleading when quoted out of context. Read the whole paragraph that Darwin wrote:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
Interesting, yet misleading when quoted out of context. Read the whole paragraph that Darwin wrote:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
Peace
what is your understanding of the quote in the context you provided?
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
Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective (OP)
, so we shouldnt go far
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks