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).
Seems to be the beginning of the end for ID, this is nothing more than laying the foundation to prepare muslims to accept evolution after years of rejecting it.
What a reversal, and to think you write it in such a way as to attempt to retain a certain ammount of respect. Still, at the very least you should be congratulated for taking evolution onboard after years of stubborn religous rejection. Still, you are only prepared to go halfway, Your ancestors in history were Archaics.
I don't know why so many Muslims reject evolution. The scientists of the Islamic golden age had a concept of it, and the Quran states that all life was created from water and clay. There is actually a real scientific theory that states that life began with clay, but it is most likely that the word 'clay' represents the gunk in the 'warm little pond' where life began.
Harun Yahya is a very dodgy site. I'll try to disprove some of it's claims here.
No advantageous mutations: Adan Oktar claims that there have been no advantageous mutations. This is simply a lie. Some bateria have recently aquirred a mutation that allows them to digest a chemical that exists in nylon waste that didn't exist in nature before the 1930's, when nylon was discovered. Some people in Italy have a mutation that stops them from catching osteoporosis. Some other people have inherited a mutation that helps prevent heart disease.
Natural selection doesn't work: Adan Oktar also claims that natural selection does not work. There have been many examples of natural selection, such as the peppered moth incident.
I strongly suggest for Muslims not to listen to Harun Yahya, as it is not for us to be fooled.
Harun Yahya is a very dodgy site. I'll try to disprove some of it's claims here.
No advantageous mutations: Adan Oktar claims that there have been no advantageous mutations. This is simply a lie. Some bateria have recently aquirred a mutation that allows them to digest a chemical that exists in nylon waste that didn't exist in nature before the 1930's, when nylon was discovered. Some people in Italy have a mutation that stops them from catching osteoporosis. Some other people have inherited a mutation that helps prevent heart disease.
Natural selection doesn't work: Adan Oktar also claims that natural selection does not work. There have been many examples of natural selection, such as the peppered moth incident.
I strongly suggest for Muslims not to listen to Harun Yahya, as it is not for us to be fooled.
The Peppered Moth - An Update
(From Ken Miller's Evolution Page)
For years the story of the peppered moth, Biston betularia, has provided one of the best-known examples of natural selection in action. The story of the moth was outlined on pages 297-298 of the Elephant Book, and highlights the experiments of British ecologist H. B. D. Kettlewell.
However, a recent book by Michael Majerus (Melanism -Evolution in Action) makes it clear that the peppered moth story has changed in recent years.
The Peppered Moth is routinely used as an example of evolution.
But is this well-known story wrong?
The light-colored form of the moth, known as typica, was the predominant form in England prior to the beginning of the industrial revolution. Shown at left, the typica moth's speckled wings are easy to spot against a dark background, but would be difficult to pick out against the light-colored bark of many trees common in England.
The "typica" form of the moth.
Around the middle of the 19th century, however, a new form of the moth began to appear. The first report of a dark-colored peppered moth was made in 1848. By 1895, the frequency in Manchester had reached a reported level of 98% of the moths.
This dark-colored form is known as carbonaria, and (as shown at right), it is easiest to see against a light background. As you can well imagine, carbonaria would be almost invisible against a dark background, just as typica would be difficult to see against a light background. The increase in carbonaria moths was so dramatic that many naturalists made the immediate suggestion that it had to be the result of the effects of industrial activity on the local landscape.
The "carbonaria" form.
As noted on page 297 of the Elephant Book, coal burned during the early decades of the industrial revolution produced soot that blanketed the countryside of the industrial areas of England between London and Manchester. Several naturalists noted that the typica form was more common in the countryside, while the carbonaria moth prevailed in the sooty regions. Not surprisingly, many jumped to the conclusion that the darker moths had some sort of survival advantage in the newly-darkened landscape.
In recent years, the burning of cleaner fuels and the advent of Clean Air laws has changed the countryside even in industrial areas, and the sootiness that prevailed during the 19th century is all but gone from urban England. Coincidentally, the prevalance of the carbonaria form has declined dramatically. In fact, some biologists suggest that the dark forms will be all but extinct within a few decades.
For evolutionary biologists, the question behind the rise and fall of the carbonaria form is "Why?" Why should the dark phenotype have appeared so suddenly, come to dominate the population in industrial areas, and then have declined just as sharply when levels of pollution declined? To many biologists, the answer seemed obvious. In areas where pollution had darkened the landscape, the darker moths were better camouflaged and less like to be eaten by birds. Under less-polluted conditions, the light-colored moths prevailed for similar reasons.
But was the obvious answer correct? That's what Kettlewell set out to check in a series of classic studies carried out in the 1950s. As described in Chapter 14 of the text, his results seemed to confirm that background camouflage was the key:
What I don't understand is why the GCSE/A-Level questions have not been updated.
I don't use the peppered moth as an example and I think people who google answers probably do come up with out-dated information. I posted a great example of evolution in action here:
Would you say that Africans have "evolved" to be black, and Europeans have "evolved" to be white and Indians have "evolved" to be brown etc? Because Im sure that all these colours did not come about overnight.
And does this make each of the colours a different species? Of course they are able to interbreed, but so can different species of dogs.
Would you say that Africans have "evolved" to be black,
This is certainly the starting point in that the first modern men seem to have come from out of Africa a few times, if the skin evolved from white to black as overall coverage of hair declined is still a topic of hot debate. However, black skin albeit black from the beginning or otherwise has been a procuct of evolution.
and Europeans have "evolved" to be white and Indians have "evolved" to be brown etc? Because Im sure that all these colours did not come about overnight.
As the first Humans migrated out of Africa evolution favoured lighter skin and as you have already implied, evolution does not apply changes overnight
And does this make each of the colours a different species? Of course they are able to interbreed, but so can different species of dogs.
Not a different species and certainly not classed in a subspecies taxonomy like dogs. However, Africans Asians and Europeans have followed a slightly different genetic drift ancestory.
That depends on wether you want to call a 50 pence piece - 50p or 10 bob?
What I am getting at, is adaptation is part of the evolutionary theory. Under the issue we are debating then climate adaptation is the apparent root cause. Adaptation within a species is very well documented, other factors that could also be the force behind adaptation is predator avoidance change is food source etc etc.
Can you explain your logic in your statement along with any supporting evidence.
New study finds natural selection IS a general force behind the formation of new species.
When a species becomes isolated from it's main group and adapts to a new environment then the species reaches a point that it can no longer interbreed with the species it has diverged from, even if the species are reunited. This is a very important stage a species must obtain on it's way to becoming a new and evolving species.
Charles Darwin would undoubtedly be both pleased and chagrined.
The famous scientist would be pleased because a study published online this week provides the first clear evidence that natural selection, his favored mechanism of evolution, drives the process of species formation in a wide variety of plants and animals. But he would be chagrined because it has taken nearly 150 years to do so.
What Darwin did in his revolutionary treatise, “On the Origin of Species,” was to explain how much of the extraordinary variety of biological traits possessed by plants and animals arises from a single process, natural selection. Since then a large number of studies and observations have supported and extended his original work. However, linking natural selection to the origin of the 30 to 100 million different species estimated to inhabit the earth, has proven considerably more elusive.
In the last 20 years, studies of a number of specific species have demonstrated that natural selection can cause sub-populations to adapt to new environments in ways that reduce their ability to interbreed, an essential first step in the formation of a new species. However, biologists have not known whether these cases represent special exceptions or illustrate a general rule.
The new study – published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms – ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds – and finding that the overall link between them is positive.
A full copy of the study can be obtained from the below link.
This is one of the bigest misconceptions among supporters of the evolution theory. Evolution theory does not speculate that species evolve out of adaptation. A mutation is the result of a malfunctioning. It is not (unless you believ in ID) purpose-minded. Species don't mutation in order to adapt. They adapt because they have mutated. It is a fluke. Adaptation only comes in after mutation. The mutated specie can sometimes adapt to it's new charesteristics so they find their mutation a benefit rather then a downside. Their customs and ebhavior can adapt but their DNA does not "adapt" to new enviroments. In fact their enviroment cannot have any effect on their Dna, the Dna is well confined within the cells of our bodies and therefor undisturbed by the enviroment.
This is one of the bigest misconceptions among supporters of the evolution theory. Evolution theory does not speculate that species evolve out of adaptation.
I am so angry right now Steve with you for peddling this type of rubbish. :grumbling
A mutation is the result of a malfunctioning. It is not (unless you believ in ID) purpose-minded.
Why are we talking mutations, we are talking adaptation. Evolution is not driven by one single force. Mutational change is one aspect and not the sole aspect. however, if you read the thread we are talking adaptation.
Species don't mutation in order to adapt. They adapt because they have mutated.
:grumbling
It is a fluke. Adaptation only comes in after mutation.
:grumbling
The mutated specie can sometimes adapt to it's new charesteristics so they find their mutation a benefit rather then a downside.
Yes this can happen and probably does, but again it's not the sole reason.
Their customs and ebhavior can adapt but their DNA does not "adapt" to new enviroments. In fact their enviroment cannot have any effect on their Dna, the Dna is well confined within the cells of our bodies and therefor undisturbed by the enviroment.
Well arent adaptation and mutation related?
Some individuals of a particular species are better adapted due to some genes which they possess. These genes may have come about due to mutations.
Yes I am aware that it is broadly used, nevertheles it's incorrect. The word adaptation suggests that mutations occured as a proces of adaptation. that's why so many biologists object to the term. It confuses people. When a monkey in the zoo suddenly starts using a knife to peel banana's just as the keepers do, then he has adapted to the tools available in his enviroment. When a specie suddenly has advantages due to a mutation; then it hasn't adapted but it just got lucky. Unless you believe in ID, and suggets the mutation wasn't the result of luck but rather a laid out plan. But I doubt that is waht you mean.
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)
Re: Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks