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.
Panspermia is unlikely.
Viruses are too in tune with our biology (animal and plant cell biology) and too specialized for most scientists to consider their source being that foreign, hence the pervading belief that they "evolved" from parasitic bacteria.
the idea that organic material is brought to earth by comets and meteors. I only mention this as a possible source of viruses.
Highly unlikely in my opinion. The sheer number of asteroids that land on Earth and not a single one has any trace of life. I mean sure it's possible but I suspect life developed here and did not "emigrate" here.
Highly unlikely in my opinion. The sheer number of asteroids that land on Earth and not a single one has any trace of life. I mean sure it's possible but I suspect life developed here and did not "emigrate" here.
OTOH, the bacteria that Apollo 12(?) brought back from the moon shows that life is able to survive in space. The bacteria was a contaminant that somehow got onto a previous lunar probe before launch from earth. The Apollo mission landed nearby and brought back parts of the probe for study. When the bacteria was first discovered, it was thought to be proof of panspermia and was only later determined to be of earth origin. If not proof of panspermia, it's at least proof of concept.
Personally, I think life on earth may be a result of both panspermia and "home grown" processes.
OTOH, the bacteria that Apollo 12(?) brought back from the moon shows that life is able to survive in space. The bacteria was a contaminant that somehow got onto a previous lunar probe before launch from earth. The Apollo mission landed nearby and brought back parts of the probe for study. When the bacteria was first discovered, it was thought to be proof of panspermia and was only later determined to be of earth origin. If not proof of panspermia, it's at least proof of concept.
Personally, I think life on earth may be a result of both panspermia and "home grown" processes.
Bruh, just toss Creationism in the mix while you're at it then seeing as we're firmly in the realm of speculation now.
Bruh, just toss Creationism in the mix while you're at it then seeing as we're firmly in the realm of speculation now.
When I see Panspermia being seriously discussed by the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, I feel safe in regarding it as more than mere speculation. But then, I'm only familiar with their work and not yours.
When I see Panspermia being seriously discussed by the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, I feel safe in regarding it as more than mere speculation. But then, I'm only familiar with their work and not yours.
Carl Sagan was a bruh.
Neil deGrasse Tysons whatever tho.
Still gonna say, isn't any harm in throwing Creationism in the mix.
Similarly, evolution settles for close enough because whatever it is we're talking about is good enough for its purpose. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work. It doesn't even have to work well enough to be beneficial, it just has to work well enough to not be dangerous. There are many species whose eyes are, supposedly, worse than the human eye, yet they are good enough for the creatures that have them. There are creatures whose eyes are "better" than the human eye, yet they would be of no benefit to us. The human eye is good enough for what it does, and is no better; there is no evolutionary need for it to be any better than it is. Mind you, Id like to be able to see into the infrared, but I cannot imagine what good it would do me.
I understood the ToE as being an arms race, if the prey had eyes, the predators needed them, If the prey evolved better eyes, the predator also needed an advantage. How would eyes evolve if all species had the same pinhole eyes, and this was good enough?
Short answer: Because if you're not growing, you're dying. Life grows and expands because that's what life does. As it expands into new places, it adapts/evolves to meet the environment of the new places. In a nutshell, that's the entire idea behind evolution.
So all these species that you say have good enough eyes, that would mean they are not growing, therefore they are dying in your words.
In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
When I see Panspermia being seriously discussed by the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, I feel safe in regarding it as more than mere speculation. But then, I'm only familiar with their work and not yours.
They are still speculating, Or is this an argument from authority?
Last edited by Zafran; 06-09-2016 at 11:53 PM.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Personally, I think life on earth may be a result of both panspermia and "home grown" processes.
I believe life could not exist without God.
the bacteria that Apollo 12(?) brought back from the moon shows that life is able to survive in space. The bacteria was a contaminant that somehow got onto a previous lunar probe before launch from earth. The Apollo mission landed nearby and brought back parts of the probe for study. When the bacteria was first discovered, it was thought to be proof of panspermia and was only later determined to be of earth origin. If not proof of panspermia, it's at least proof of concept.
This only proves that home grown bacteria can travel through space. There is no reason to link this with the start of life on another planet.
In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
I understood the ToE as being an arms race, if the prey had eyes, the predators needed them, If the prey evolved better eyes, the predator also needed an advantage. How would eyes evolve if all species had the same pinhole eyes, and this was good enough?
If all the members of a species have the same type of eye, this would still change over time as mutations are introduced.
So all these species that you say have good enough eyes, that would mean they are not growing, therefore they are dying in your words.
In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric
That particular remark was directed at a species, not at an individual component of an individual member of that species. Even so, come to think of it, your interpretation of my words is in general correct. When a child is born, it's eyes have a focal distance of ~six inches. As the child ages, the focal distance improves to whatever will be its best. From that point on, it will deteriorate in various ways. At their best, my eyes were 20/15 at about age 25. From that point on it has been a gradual deterioration to their present 20/50 uncorrected, with the addition of minor cataracts. If enough time goes by and I live so long, they can be expected to fail entirely.
As for an individual person, is stagnation life? At what point do we begin to die, exactly?
I'm bothered by your questions. I have to ask, were they truly intended as "searching for God," or were they an attempt to trip me up in my own words? A rhetorical victory is only rhetorical.
As an atheist, I obviously disagree. Even so, I wouldn't mind having you as a next-door neighbor.
This only proves that home grown bacteria can travel through space. There is no reason to link this with the start of life on another planet.
In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric
As I said earlier, if not proof that it actually happened, it was proof of the concept. OTOH, scientists have recovered meteorites from Mars that bear what may have been living bacteria at one point. Not saying that this proves anything either, but t still goes into the mix of things to be considered.
They are still speculating, Or is this an argument from authority?
It's more than speculation, but less than proof. The idea seems valid, and has some evidence behind it, but it has yet to be demonstrated as more likely than not.
There's nothing wrong with arguing from authority, depending on how it's done. One thing I've learned from around 20 years' worth of online conversations is to not claim knowledge which I do not have, because there's always going to be someone who is more conversant with the arguments than I am. However, I can speak as someone who is more educated in the field than is the average person, and I have learned to trust certain authorities over others. I will give more credence to Tyson and Sagan than I will to Stitchin, for example.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a boss. I love the way he conveys science.
I've watched a few videos of Carl Sagan, the pale blue dot is amazing.
You might be interested in the two versions of "Cosmos," the original by Sagan and the update by Tyson. They're both 13 hours long, though, so not a minor investment of time.
As for an individual person, is stagnation life? At what point do we begin to die, exactly?
Possibly from the moment of conception or birth, every minute of our life brings us a minute closer to death. I only bring this up because I believe life is imperfectly created, if life was perfect we would not die. Cancers, viruses etc, are only minor imperfections compared to death. This is only my take on imperfection, I can understand there are many opposing views.
I'm bothered by your questions. I have to ask, were they truly intended as "searching for God," or were they an attempt to trip me up in my own words? A rhetorical victory is only rhetorical.
I am a Catholic, so when I talk with my Muslim brothers and sisters here, I often end with, 'In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of One God'. If there is only the One god, then the same God hears all our prayers, we have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean caring for each other, despite our differences.
Even if Evolution happened, my firm belief is that it could not happen without God. The ToE is not a big deal to me one way or the other, however, I have come to understand that some people fiercely defend ToE, in order to prove there is no God. They say it in such a way, that science has never been able to prove the existence of God question, one way or the other. At some later point they then bring up that a magical sky fairy is not needed.
So in these type of threads I often finish with...
This is a great example of the shoddy, fallacious reasoning that underpins evolutionary science. This article relates how scientists have wondered why sex would first evolve when asexual cloning is a more efficient, safer, less resource intensive form of reproduction. By all accounts, asexual cloning as far as bacteria and "simple" organisms are concerned appears more adaptive than sex. Yet, sex first evolved in these simple organisms. How is this to be explained?
Consider this passage:
"Around 2 billion years ago in a world ruled by microbes, a bacterial species formed a close symbiotic partnership with another simple cell – an archaeon. The interaction was so tight that bacterial symbionts eventually colonised the insides of archaea and were gradually transformed into mitochondria – the organelles of our cells specialising in energy production. The chimeric cell grew and expanded, using the genetic material of both partners and the newly available mitochondrial energy source to forge a cell of unparalleled complexity, inventing countless eukaryotic features along the way – including sex."
Did you catch that? This is all a story of what may have perhaps happened 2 billion years ago. There were no scientists observing any of this take place 2 billion years ago. There is no fossil record that can provide evidence that any of these molecular processes actually happened. It is all 100% speculation based on what these biologists believe to be the case about organisms today.
In logic, we call this the post hoc fallacy and post hoc analysis. We already know that many organisms today reproduce sexually. Given that fact, you can cook up any number of an infinite variety of explanations for why that is the case. You can then cull that infinite set of explanations according to your assumptions about what must be the case, e.g., certain ideas about cellular biology, genetics, and of course, Darwinian evolution. And then you pick whatever story accommodates your assumptions, but that story tells you more about your presuppositions and your understanding of the world rather than explaining the phenomenon in question or giving you new information about the world.
Post hoc explanations and "just so" stories plague all of evolutionary biology, but people think that science is still being done. They don't realize that science is not supposed to be riddled with logical fallacies. At minimum, a scientific theory must be logically valid if it has any hope of being factually true. Amazingly, logical reasoning is not a degree requirement for science majors. At least not at Harvard or any of the American universities I know.
What people teach of science today is failing in reasoning and logic.
IF I go into a science class and use logic, I can easily refute any 'theory' of evolution that is void of reasoning and logic, by use of reasoning and logic.
I've done it many times. I always linger with the question "HOW did the bacteria know to do THAT and not THIS?" etc. The Bacteria do not have the intelligence to do anything, yet somehow they believe it could mold us? That is stupidity right there.
It is Allah who created us. I am firm in my belief that this universe could never be created except by the guidance of Allah and by His will. This could not have been created except by Allah .
I see lack of reason from the atheists in disbelieving in God, "not enough proof" you say? Don't you see around you, how complex yet beautiful everything is? Nay, rather you refuse to admit, or are too blind to see.
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
who created us. I am firm in my belief that this universe could never be created except by the guidance of Allah 
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks