Evolution.

[جوري]

If several paintings are analyzed and the chemical fingerprint of the paint is identical, it does not mean they evolved from a common ancestor. It merely means the painter used the same paint to paint multiple pictures.

The same way perhaps we use 27 letters of the alphabets to make endless words?.. Mussels didn't evolve from emus simply for sharing three consonants & a vowel in common.

 

[MustafaMc]

The same way perhaps we use 27 letters of the alphabets to make endless words?.. Mussels didn't evolve from emus simply for sharing three consonants & a vowel in common.

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatu'Allahi wa barakatu, and in this common language of life I see signs of my Creator, subhan Allah! Sadly, this beauty escapes others who seem unable to comprehend the wonder of creation as evidence of a Majestic Creator. Perhaps there is some understanding to be gleaned from the ayat about Jesus being the likeness of Adam. Considering the reverse, could the likeness of Adam be that of Jesus with a supernatural origin albeit inside some kind of supernatural non-human womb? (Just thinking loud there and not to be taken seriously.)

The arrival of highly common species like a horse and a donkey that are sexually incompatible illustrates to me that the genetic differences between them could not have arisen due to chance because we know the deleterious effects of translocations and inversions on fertility. These genetic defects convey reproductive disadvantages rather than advantages and are quickly eliminated from the population or held in very rare frequencies. After a pair of individuals of a species are present, the natural, preprogramed process of life that is present in the fertilized egg can proceed to produce a new, unique individual. I do not know the exact means by which Adam and Huwwa came into existence, but I believe that they never would have had Allah (swt) not willed for them to. The same can be said for each and every species of life that has ever lived. I do not accept naturalistic evolution [without the intimate involvement of Allah (swt)] as the means for the origin of even the simplest species of life.

 

[Independent]

I do not accept naturalistic evolution [without the intimate involvement of Allah (swt)] as the means for the origin of even the simplest species of life.

On the other hand, if it were to turn out that evolution were (broadly) correct in the light of further scientific advances, how would you react? Would you be disappointed? Resistant to the idea? Presumably you would still be a Muslim - so would you reinterpret the verses that appear to contradict evolution?

I don't know if you are in a specifically new development area of genetics, but do you think your conviction in divine fiat would be a mental obstacle to imagining new possibilities?

 

[Abu Loren]

On the other hand, if it were to turn out that evolution were (broadly) correct in the light of further scientific advances, how would you react?

That's a big IF Mr. Independent. I hope you don't mind me answering.

 

[Independent]

That's a big IF Mr. Independent. I hope you don't mind me answering

Yet it could happen. It's not dissimilar to the impact that geology had in the 19th century, when they discovered fossilised sea creatures high up in mountain rocks, and realised that the age of the earth must be vastly greater than previously assumed by theologians. Despite resistance at the time, Christians and (as far as I'm aware) most Muslims now agree with the idea of an 'old' earth.

Of course the opposite could occur. They could make some discovery that is simply incompatible with any notion of natural development or structure. That would be challenging to my world view but I would be excited by it, not disappointed.

It's significant that, although there are 'gaps' in the evolutionary explanation - and they are not trivial gaps - there are also no outright contradictions. In so many ways nature looks like what you would expect if evolution is correct.

 

[IKS]

Yet it could happen.

Salamu alaikum,
how could this be happen when Islam already told us how we were created.... Research this is a waste of time.

 

[MustafaMc]

On the other hand, if it were to turn out that evolution were (broadly) correct in the light of further scientific advances, how would you react? Would you be disappointed?

I don't have any issue with gradual change within a species over time as it adapts to changes in its environment. I work in the field of agriculture and there are many examples of both insect and weed pests developing resistance to chemical means of controlling them.

My opinion is that there can never be proof of any theory of where we came from because we were not there (obviously) to observe our own evolution, nor do we live long enough to observe the evolution of another new species. I do not take issue with evolutionary processes, but rather with the point that they are entirely natural and independent of a Divine Creator. My personal view is that Intelligent Design is not inconsistent with the creation story; however, at the same time I do not reject an instantaneous creation of Adam. I see the difference is in the time frame and the details of the method, but I don't believe we will ever be able to definitively disprove one or the other.

I have some understanding of the molecular changes in the development of a fertilized egg into a human infant and I see that as a natural process that is pre-programmed into that zygote and that given the proper nurturing environment (womb) that it will result in a new individual. Even with my understanding of the science behind this, I still see the miraculous nature of the process. I imagine even if the enormous gaps in ToE are filled in to the point where my intellect is satisfied that I will still see the miraculous nature of the process. I recognize some of the Qur'an as being allegorical and others as being literal. For example the number of ticks on a clock that define a day for us humans is quite certainly not the same as a day in the creation story. For one thing a day is defined by the rotation of the earth on its axis relative to a specific point in space, namely the sun. What was the length of a 'day' before there was a sun and an earth? Even after their creation we would need to confine Allah (swt) to existing on the earth (astaghfir'Allah) for the rest of creation to occur within their respective 'days'. The same can be said for the creation of Adam.

My whole issue with ToE is the insistence upon rejecting any involvement in the process of a Higher Being and leaving it exclusively in the hands of Father Time and Mother Nature. I recently watched a movie "Creation" about Charles Darwin's inner struggle with coming to grips with his daughter's death relative to his faith (or lack thereof) in God as opposed to his evolving naturalistic survival-of-the-fittest view of life. There was one most telling scene early in the movie when John Huxely visited him and commended him on his theory that effectively "killed God". To me the whole debate about evolution has always been an indirect debate about the existence of God which can neither be scientifically proven nor disproven. Both views boil down to a matter of faith or lack thereof and no amount of evidence of dinosaurs/fossils/common molecular processes, etc. will shake the faith of those who have it while those who do not have faith are satisfied with the weakest of arguments that seemingly disprove the requirement for a Divine Creator for the origin of the species.

 

[MustafaMc]

Yet it could happen.

This brought to my mind the kid on the movie who kept saying "It could happen" with the 'it' meaning the Angels baseball team miraculously winning the World Series so his father would come back.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I hope you do realize that, "We already know the facts; to research this is a waste of time," is exactly the same attitude that keeps Creationists from being taken seriously too. As well as any minority position, for that matter.

 

[Ahmad H]

Salamu alaikum,
how could this be happen when Islam already told us how we were created.... Research this is a waste of time.

The Qur'an tells us Muslims to reflect over the universe, and even our own creation. There are signs within us which brings us closer to Allah. Why not act upon it?

 

[Independent]

There was one most telling scene early in the movie when John Huxely visited him and commended him on his theory that effectively "killed God". To me the whole debate about evolution has always been an indirect debate about the existence of God which can neither be scientifically proven nor disproven.

This was the reaction of many believers then, and still is today. But I hope you would agree that Darwin did not set out to 'destroy' religion. His work led him in the direction of evolution and, if you study his life, you can see why. Far from being anti-religion he was notably reluctant to admit the logic of his own theory - although in the end he did indeed publish.

I don't see ToE as being inherently anti-religious either. (Most Christians support the theory and some Muslims.) But it is certainly anti a literal reading of some religious texts, especially those concerned with creation stories.

I don't see how Darwin could have helped that and not to follow the logic of his work, and not to publish, would have been deceitful and wrong.

Father Time and Mother Nature

They sound like a lovely couple

 

[Abu Loren]

It's significant that, although there are 'gaps' in the evolutionary explanation - and they are not trivial gaps - there are also no outright contradictions.

Ahhhhh so do you believe in the 'Gap Theory'?

 

[MustafaMc]

But I hope you would agree that Darwin did not set out to 'destroy' religion. His work led him in the direction of evolution and, if you study his life, you can see why.

I agree with that. I don't see Darwin as a scientist, but rather as a naturalist with a highly intelligent and inquisitive mind. His theory did not really take hold until Gregor Mendel's (another naturalist) work on the Laws of Inheritance were rediscovered in the early 1900's. Wikipedia, "The combination, in the 1930s and 1940s, of Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection resulted in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology." To me the highwater mark for ToE was the Scopes Monkey Trial that came shortly after this "intellectual marriage" of ideas. Mendelian genetics put a 'scientific basis' to ToE that unfortunately has not advanced beyond its rudimentary base. The Watson-Crick discovery of DNA and the resulting emergence of molecular genetics have given us a tremendous understanding of the molecular basis for life, yet ToE has not been able to incorporate and absorb these amazing developments to illustrate a valid mechanism by which naturalistic evolution theoretically could have given rise to the various species of life. This silence and lack of further synthesis in the face of tremendous scientific advancement in molecular biology speaks volumes to me.

 

[Independent]

Ahhhhh so do you believe in the 'Gap Theory'?

Not sure what you mean by that - when i google it i get a Gap Theory of Creationism which i most certainly do not subscribe to!

I simply mean that there are gaps in ToE as it stands. However, I see them as equivalent to other gaps in scientific understanding which have been filled in the past. For example, there was a major gap in Copernican cosmology which failed to describe an observed 'wobble' in the orbit of Mars. He was followed by Kepler who realised that the orbits were parabolas, not perfect circles, and thus 'completed' Copernican cosmology.

Until Kepler, you could have legitimately rejected Copernicus in his own terms, because it didn't fit all the facts. Yet to me, it's was obvious even then that although Copernican theory was 'incomplete', the broad conclusion (that the earth rotates around the sun and not vice versa) was correct.

This silence and lack of further synthesis in the face of tremendous scientific advancement in molecular biology speaks volumes to me.

Patience!

 

[greenhill]

Salaams to all :shade:

Great read. So wide the coverage, so detailed, big words, and fantastic points. Can't say I understand it all but helped me weigh the pros and cons.

I'd like to pick up on items mentioned in this thread, one about Adam being created/fashioned out of clay, several types, if I'm not mistaken. If we think about it, we are what we eat. And we eat off the produce of earth, symbolicly represented by the word clay, as clay is mouldable(sp?). Easier to grasp the idea of being fashioned.

Here's the other:

“‘Verily, I am going to place mankind generations after generations on earth.’ They said: ‘Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You.’ God said: ‘I know that which you do not know.’” (Quran 2:30)

This ayah has troubled me for some time. Why were the angels 'crying?' and how did they know that we will make mischief, shed blood....???

They must have assumed or they must have seen somewhere in the history before our own creation of some other similar looking being to us behaving poorly. But not mankind. Could be Cro-magnon or whatever (I don't know this at all) AND they were not abled to speak as the honour was given to Adam (pbuh), to speak out the names etc.. These 'prior' beings could probably paint as shown in the cave paintings but not speak. Those were the qualities given to mankind.

So, in other words, there is no link beween the origin of man Adam (pbuh) and any creation before him.

What do you guys think?

Peace:statisfie