There is over 150 years of research into evolution and it has long been proven that evolution is a fact. It's backed by thousands upon thousands of scientific evidences and there is absolutely no doubt that evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years and is still happening. So from my understanding of Islam, there was no evolution. God created humans as is, despite the very fact that we evolved, in fact all life evolved so how can this be? Clearly these two are mutually exclusive, the Quran says one thing, science says another.
For example we share 98% of the dna that chimpanzees have, is this just a coincidence? 69% of our dna is shared with a rat...! A rat?! This is why we test vaccines and medication etc on rats and mice because they're so similar to us.
So my question to Muslims is, do Muslims simply refuse to accept this scientific fact or do they have a different understanding of evolution somehow? Obviously Muslims don't reject science, after all we use it everyday, you're utilising about 20 different areas of science simply reading this message. So my question is, how do you reconcile the fact that evolution is not mentioned in the Quran at all and it goes so far as to say that humans were created "as is" and did not evolve?
And yes I know science cannot yet explain how the first life developed (single cell organisms) but one step at a time.
I'm not trying to start an argument or pull anyone from religion... I just want to know your reasoning for accepting some scientific facts and rejecting others.
Evolution is small branch of the vast discipline which constitutes scientific discipline. I meant that people assume Muslims reject all forms of scientific research entirely when that is far from the case.
I suppose this is where we really differ in our understandings, as you know, for Muslims faith is our priority. And in all honesty is faith really anti-scientific? I see a beautiful harmony between the two, I mentioned before for me science is a way to understand the creation of Allah swt, who is perfect and without fault. Humans and their theories can have faults or be inaccurate, as has been proved before. So in the very *rare* case there is a conflict between science and faith (and this conflict is exaggerated a lot) faith will take priority because it can never be wrong.
And kind of off topic here, but as I remember reading that there is no reason human-like creatures didn't exist before. Allah swt hasn't told us everything about His creation - and He knows best but it could be these fossils are from creatures who were indeed similar to humans but not an ancestor, as humans were created separately..
Sorry to keep spam quoting you sis but I have just one thing to mention about this
Science is different to axioms. An axiom is self-evidently true and does not require testing. Take the following axioms for example.
If A is equal to B then B must be equal to A.
If A is more than B then B must be less than A.
When it comes to scientific laws, these are laws which are proven using mathematics to be true. We cannot prove mathematically that evolution exists, if I love my mother or something similar. A theory is an explanation backed by lots of evidence, a law is mathematical proof that the explanation is correct.
Last edited by EgyptPrincess; 06-06-2016 at 02:24 PM.
I'm not that knowledgeable in Qur'an or ahadith to be able to sift out all of the appropriate texts, but here are a couple. Also, the Qur'an points out numerous times how mankind is 'honoured' compared to the rest of creatures, so as Muslims we don't need to reject the idea of evolution or natural selection - it is just that this idea of evolution doesn't apply to us.
"The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was.” (Quran 3:59]
This points out to me that Adam (pbuh) was created without the agency of parents, Allah swt said 'Be' and he was created - suggesting spontaneous creation, like how the Prophet Isa (pbuh) was created. And this:
“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.” (Quran 4:1)
An important point is, modern science cannot confirm or deny directly the creation of Adam (pbuh) in this way, it was a unique event in history only replicated once so no amount of research can confirm or deny its truth. This comes into a matter of the Unseen, a matter of faith that although we did not see the miraculous creation of Adam (pbuh) (or the Prophet Isa (as)) in this way, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
"The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was.” (Quran 3:59]
“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.” (Quran 4:1)
Consider these two carefully. Allah swt created Adam from dust. THEN said to HIM, "be" and he was.
This tells me that Allah swt created Adam first and after he was created, then he said to him "be" and he was. "be" in this context I think means "gave him consciousness". Think of a dark room where my lights respond to my voice. If I walk into the room and say let their be light, the lights will come on. But I already wired everything up before hand. From these ayats it would seem that Allah swt first created Adam, then brought him into being.
I apologise if I'm interpreting it wrong but some things I interpret different to other people.
Inshallah we are rewarded for trying to understand Allah's creations accurately. We are only human, we make mistakes. May Allah swt grant us patience in understanding his complexity
And in all honesty is faith really anti-scientific?
Faith is belief based on spiritual conviction rather than observable evidence; the scientific method consists principally of the formation, testing and modification of hypotheses based on observable evidence. So, by definition, the two are in opposition.
Humans and their theories can have faults or be inaccurate, as has been proved before.
No scientific theory is complete and unalterably true. Science is always provisional, and searches for the "least wrong" explanation.
So in the very *rare* case there is a conflict between science and faith (and this conflict is exaggerated a lot) faith will take priority because it can never be wrong.
This is a most surprising claim. There are countless examples of people having faith in things that turn out to be untrue, so much so that it would be more accurate to say that faith is wrong far more often than it is right. Examples include the belief that looking at dead animals can be a good way of predicting the future; the belief that diseases or bad weather are caused by sinful behaviour; and the belief that the sun revolves around the Earth. Also, as a Muslim, you have to believe in many types of faith being wrong e.g. faith in Hinduism, Christianity, ancient Greek polytheism etc.
This is a most surprising claim. There are countless examples of people having faith in things that turn out to be untrue, so much so that it would be more accurate to say that faith is wrong far more often than it is right. Examples include the belief that looking at dead animals can be a good way of predicting the future; the belief that diseases or bad weather are caused by sinful behaviour; the belief that the sun revolves around the Earth. Also, as a Muslim, you have to believe in many types of faith being wrong e.g. faith in Hinduism, Christianity, ancient Greek polytheism etc.
Peace
I should have been more clear with what I meant . In terms of faith I was meaning 'Islam', all of those example you provided have no basis in Islam and are, as you have pointed out, untrue and not 'faith'.
Islam is a faith which discourages blind belief and encourages the use of reason. For me I see very little conflict between science and Islam, science is a means to appreciate my religion further and I find that to be a beautiful thing about the Qur'an and the way it encourages reflection.
Faith in Islam has many branches, in some cases it can be supported by science and observation as proofs of the existence of Allah swt, (the planets, the stars, scientific facts in the Qur'an) and in a very different way it also requires spiritual conviction and belief in the Unseen, including Allah swt, the angels, heaven, hell, our soul etc. I see it as a balance of both reason and faith.
Ya Muqallib al-Quloob, Thabbit Qalbi Ala Deenik
Oh turner of the Hearts make my heart firm on Your Deen
I should have been more clear with what I meant . In terms of faith I was meaning 'Islam', all of those example you provided have no basis in Islam and are, as you have pointed out, untrue and not 'faith'.
Well, now that you put it that way it makes a bit more sense.
Islam is a faith which discourages blind belief ... it also requires spiritual conviction and belief in the Unseen
You can surely see the contradiction here?
In the case of evolution, if you simply say that faith trumps everything and as a consequence evolution is untrue, then you exclude yourself from the discussion because of the vast array of observable evidence that is against you, and the unalterable nature of your position.
Not quite a contradiction, rather they reinforce each other.
As a Muslim, when I see the way everything has been created and organised with such order, these observations lead to the reasoning that Allah swt, Who is unseen, exists and is the Creator of everything. We use the reason and free will Allah swt has gifted us with to observe the evidences around us, and hence believe in His existence and sovereignty.
With evolution I have read up on it, and the position of Islam upon it. This is a matter of faith I know but for me the evidence of the Qur'an 'trumps' the evidence of any scientific investigation. For example, disciplines such as medicine or astronomy I have no problem with because they are perfectly in line with Islam and the use of human intellect to understand creation.
Evolution itself, other animals may well have evolved from other species into different species, and I accept that - but Islam is clear when it says that mankind is unique and the Prophet Adam (as) was created directly from clay, with no ancestors or parents. So for humans, adaptation is very possible, but not evolution.
Ya Muqallib al-Quloob, Thabbit Qalbi Ala Deenik
Oh turner of the Hearts make my heart firm on Your Deen
Not quite a contradiction, rather they reinforce each other.
OK, perhaps you can't see the contradiction, but the fact is that having to believe in the Unseen is a form of blind belief. Once again, the definition of each term ensures this. Unless you are again using words in a special way of your own, of course.
With evolution I have read up on it, and the position of Islam upon it. This is a matter of faith I know but for me the evidence of the Qur'an 'trumps' the evidence of any scientific investigation.
Exactly. You have admitted that your position comes solely down to faith, so philosophically the discussion ends there. I am sure you are happy with this position, and you have every right to believe that it is valid, but don't try to pretend that there is any logical or empirical basis for it. It is purely a matter of your own personal faith.
The thing that amazes me is if more Muslims actually studied biology, chemistry and astronomy it would only increase their faith as it glorifies Allah swt's work even more in my opinion. They would not say god does not exist, they would say Alhamdulillah.
I did study biology and chemistry, (I am a huge fan of NASA, but alas I have not studied enough astronomy yet in my life) and I agree that studying about the creation of Allah should increase our faith and appreciation for Allah's power and perfection.
And I've medaled in a state level competition (after city and before nationals) with an essay on the topic of evolutionary development.
And I was a biology major.
That being said, I've become incredibly disillusioned to the concept of human evolution.
I really do not advocate forcing the concept of human evolution down anyone's throats. There is honestly very little evidence for it.
If someone wishes to believe that we've all had a common ancestor that is fine and well, but evidence for that degree of speciation is really not up to par (unlike evidence for microevolution which is extremely prevalent). Allah's creation may very well share common ancestors, or very well may not. At any rate they share a common creator.
Ultimately the whole topic of macroevolution is quite useless. There is no real way to study something like that in a legitimate fashion when you are taking about time spans that deep, and lacking DNA that's long since degraded to actually compare. Furthermore, there is no application to macroevolutionary hypothesis.
There is much application to microevolutionary theory.
However macro is little more than applied micro, with no reals methods of testing.
Ultimately belief in macro evolution is just something sold on the back of microevolution's evidence. It requires just as much faith as any religion, but it's a popular concept in academia so students accept it without questioning.
All that being said, you see gradual changes in some species occur over time, and if that is a mechanism by which Allah wants to change some species, that is His will, and there is no harm in believing the possibility thereof.
I was excited as anyone else when they found Tiktaalik in 2004. And coelacanths are my jam. Those slimy buggers didn't change at all in 350 million years! Which is just ultra cool!
But even then, gradualism on a massive macro scale is lacking in evidence. With the fact that the fossil record is just a whole mess of punctuated equilibrium there is honestly no difference between the possibility of one species suddenly and rapidly changing into another (despite only minimal gradualistic changes occurring prior) due to God's command and decree (otherwise you'll have to stick to the idea that a massive amount of mutations, nay BENEFICIAL mutations very suddenly appeared and created variation to select from) and the idea that a species was removed and God created something new.
Because you just don't find enough gradualism in deep time to clearly prove a species had turned into another.
Greetings and peace be with you czgibson; and I hope you are enjoying the sunny weather,
No scientific theory is complete and unalterably true. Science is always provisional, and searches for the "least wrong" explanation.
If we were given two possible answers that 2+2=5, or 2+2=8, we could conclude that 2+2=5, because it is the least wrong explanation. If we accepted that 2+2 =5, we would then have to adjust our complete understanding of mathematics
Life exists, it had a beginning, and it has a history, the ToE sounds to me like the least wrong explanation, but it still has the word 'wrong' before explanation.
Faith is belief based on spiritual conviction rather than observable evidence; the scientific method consists principally of the formation, testing and modification of hypotheses based on observable evidence.
The fossil evidence from 400 - 600 million years ago, is very poor, there is no real evidence as to how the eye evolved. It needs a lot of faith to believe the Nilsson - Pelgar interpretation is the truth
Also, as a Muslim, you have to believe in many types of faith being wrong e.g. faith in Hinduism, Christianity, ancient Greek polytheism etc.
Faith in God is very much about how we strive to change ourselves, Ramadan has just started today, and Muslims find this a time of both personal challenges and blessings. This is something I can relate to as a Christian. Whatever our differences, the same God hears all our prayers.
Like I said, you must be a complete moron, I couldn't even read past the first line of dribble and had to snip you short.
For the love of your mother, do not make a mockery of your words in their opening lines. SHEESH.
Scimi
Bruh, OP was a nonmuslim just curious about muslims views on the subject.
We shouldn't give him a hard time. He's been nothing but respectful here. He wasn't trying to troll or anything.
The things you quoted are simply his beliefs.
And in all honesty is faith really anti-scientific?
Absolutely. Science and faith are opposite approaches to knowledge.
Science is admitting you don't know, and may never know something, and the systematic testing and retesting and constant replacing of your understanding as more and better evidence comes to light. If you declare a "truth" by "revelation", declare it absolutely true and render it unfalsifiable, you have rejected the scientific approach.
So in the very *rare* case there is a conflict between science and faith (and this conflict is exaggerated a lot) faith will take priority because it can never be wrong.
Exactly my point. You cant take a position like that and claim to be scientific. It is the complete opposite.
Life exists, it had a beginning, and it has a history, the ToE sounds to me like the least wrong explanation, but it still has the word 'wrong' before explanation.
I would much rather admit that I have the least wrong explanation, than pretend I have the "perfect" answer. The latter may be more comfortable, but it would hamper me from continuing to search for a better and more complete answer.
... which isn't evolution itself. Evolution doesn't make value judgments or say any species is "better" than any other. Bigoted humans do that.
I didn't say evolution used anything, I said scientific racism utilize these things to subjugate others.
and EgyptPrincess - Muslims do study these fields, there are far more Muslims in Science, Engineering and Health Sciences than there are non-Muslim.. At least this was in my University. However, there are different ontological ways that these fields are actually studied... and the implications that their studies have on the people studying them.
I didn't say evolution used anything, I said scientific racism utilize these things to subjugate others.
Sure, but that is no fault of evolution or any reason to dismiss evolution. Saying it is would be like saying that daesh is the fault of Islam and grounds to dismiss Islam.
You have said a number of times there is overwhelming evidence for the ToE, you have been treating it as the done deal.
and may never know something,
Like the truthful way the eye came into existence, the fossil record from 400 - 600 million years ago for soft tissue is lacking. I have watched videos of Richard Dawkins cleverly talk to school children, about how the eye could evolve, based on the Nilsson Pelger theory. He concludes it could happen in the blink of an eye, he sounds very much like he is trying to prove the least wrong answer like showing evidence that 2+2 could equal 5.
Darwin started a very plausible theory with his observation on finches beaks, but he knew the evolution of the eye would be one of the greatest challenges to his theory.
and the systematic testing and retesting and constant replacing of your understanding as more and better evidence comes to light.
Truthful evidence for the evolution of the eye does not exist, but it is being talked about like a done deal, case closed your honour.
If you declare a "truth" by "revelation", declare it absolutely true and render it unfalsifiable, you have rejected the scientific approach.
Evolution seems to be talked about almost as if it is a divine revelation.
Absolutely. Science and faith are opposite approaches to knowledge.
I don't need faith to accept that 2+2=4, it is a proven fact. But I would need faith to accept the flimsy evidence that the eye could evolve in half a million generations, the same level of proof does not exist. I question your use of 'Absolutely'.
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
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks