Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

[M.I.A.]

Is creationism falsifiable? If so, how? What finding would work against creationism?

theist creationism is falsifiable in part,

i mean certain points in scripture go against science altogether.

go against evolution.

against the age of the world according to carbon dating..maybe other methods.


but then again there have always been stories of dragons and giants and everything in between.

i mean a theoretical god has plenty of time on his hands, i suppose it would be like baking a cake but a little more complicated.


but it does not detract from religion as much as you would think, i mean look how long ago scripture established the order of things and science is still working on it.

i mean not everybody is a scientist.


but non-theist creationism still stands, most scientists should be inclined towards it.

 

[MustafaMc]

I don't pretend to be an expert on evolution. I only took a few biology courses in my undergrad. But I'm pretty sure it is falsifiable, no? You can make predictions based on evolution theory and some findings support and others would work against the theory.

No, I don't see how ToE is falsifiable. One of the key elements is genetic variation within a population on which natural selection results in the most fit surviving or otherwise contributing better to the next generation. The central element in this genetic variation is mutation. If you will examine the effects of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl on genetic structure of people exposed to the radiation, I am sure you will find massive amounts of genetic mutations perhaps the equivalent of eons of time. How many new and improved species have been found in these areas? How many beneficial adaptive changes occured? In contrast, how many people have died from cancer and how many birth defects have been recorded? Are these genetic mutations beneficial or harmful?

Is creationism falsifiable? If so, how? What finding would work against creationism?

No, the story of creation in the Qur'an is not falsifiable because there are not enough details and the line between a literal and figurative interpretation is difficult to draw.

Also, what is this micro-evolution and macro-evolution you speak of? Isn't evolution just evolution?

As Brother Hulk said, micro-evolution is adaptive changes over time within a species and macro-evolution is the development of various higher, more complex organisms for a unicelluar Common Ancestor.

 

[جوري]

theist creationism is falsifiable in part,

but non-theist creationism still stands, most scientists should be inclined towards it.

Do you care to defend this nonsense with something outside your opinion?

 

[Scimitar]

The central element in this genetic variation is mutation. If you will examine the effects of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl on genetic structure of people exposed to the radiation, I am sure you will find massive amounts of genetic mutations perhaps the equivalent of eons of time. How many new and improved species have been found in these areas? How many beneficial adaptive changes occured? In contrast, how many people have died from cancer and how many birth defects have been recorded? Are these genetic mutations beneficial or harmful?

... Yup., and somehow we're meant to believe that "beneficial mutation" led to the survival of the species

That's like me saying "hey look, here are 100 Romans, let's burn them all with fire - the ones who survive will be fire-proof"

It's an over simplified explanation but it does the job. ToE's Beneficial Mutation example is flawed beyond reason.

Scimi

 

[Independent]

Can you tell me, what is the proper Islamic view with regard to the study of genetics, which plays a part in the suggested mechanism for evolution? Is genetics considered acceptable?

 

[MustafaMc]

Can you tell me, what is the proper Islamic view with regard to the study of genetics, which plays a part in the suggested mechanism for evolution? Is genetics considered acceptable?

Genetics is a verifiable science that is not at odds with Islam. I am in fact a plant geneticist/breeder and I actually do 'evolution' for my profession by recombining genes and selecting for better combinations.

Scientists have even taken genes from bacteria and genetically engineered plants with those genes to produce toxins that kill specific insects. I triple-dog-dare anyone to find a verifiable example of where this type of bacteria>plant genetic transfer occured naturally without the intervention of a scientist or a Higher Power.

 

[M.I.A.]

Do you care to defend this nonsense with something outside your opinion?

no not really,

but its not really that relevant any more is it.. things just seem to go extinct usually.

so evolution will be taught in history lessons rather than science lessons. maybe.

but evolution is still seen in insects and such things but in a strange way,

fruit fly a-- lives at home.

fruit fly b-- is artificially introduced.

20 years later fruit fly b looks and fly's like fruit fly a.


but has replaced 75% of fruit fly a?



because foreigners work harder?

im kidding.

nothing further to contribute but my original post is not that bad, i mean biblical figures were meant to be a lot taller.


http://europe.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/28/fruit.flies.enn/

 

[Scimitar]

Lol, your post made me giggle Your mind works in some rather lateral ways - you must be constantly amused by yourself

Scimi

 

[جوري]

no not really,

Ok thanks.. that's pretty much what I understood from your post.

best,

 

[Independent]

Genetics is a verifiable science that is not at odds with Islam. I am in fact a plant geneticist/breeder and I actually do 'evolution' for my profession by recombining genes and selecting for better combinations.

Wow, i guess I asked the right guy. As you are a professional in this area, perhaps you are well equipped to clarify for me further? I understand what you say, that genetics is a verifiable science and the techniques/methodology of genetics are being used for many purposes today. (Many of these uses are potentially very beneficial, others create moral issues.) I also understand the distinction that is being made here between micro and macro evolution.

What I do not understand, is this. These same genetic techniques/methodologies have been used for other studies, including studies concerning evolution and mankind's origins. (For instance, they have recently been used to identify DNA overlap between present day humans and Neanderthals and Denovians.) Who knows what direction these methodologies may lead in next year. But if the methodologies are right in one direction (and indeed, produce beneficial results such as your experiments), how can they be wrong in another? Where do the boundaries lie?

 

[MustafaMc]

These same genetic techniques/methodologies have been used for other studies, including studies concerning evolution and mankind's origins. (For instance, they have recently been used to identify DNA overlap between present day humans and Neanderthals and Denovians.)

I guess I am not familiar with any studies about Neanderthal DNA; however, commonality of DNA structure or other molecular systems does not prove a common ancestry. Take for example the high degree of commonality between horses and donkeys, but the resulting progeny of a mating is a sterile mule due to relatively few chromosomal mismatches. I don't know the details of these differences, but translocations, deletions, and inversions are likely differences. Consider that the first mutation occured in the egg of a completely normal female individual and that this egg was successfully fertilized in all likelihood by a normal sperm. This would result in a progeny that had a normal compliment of chromosomes and another with a mutated chromosome. As with the sterlie mule noted above, this individual would be less reproductively fit due to chromosomal mismatching. To get a population that was reproductively isolated there must first be an incredible amount of incest and inbreeding to get the mutated chromosome in a homozygous state. For example, the mutated parent (father) must mate with his offspring (daughter) to get a descendant homozygous for the mutation, but the frequency of this occuring is only one in four. Therefore, eight progeny of this incestual relationship would be needed to get two individuals homozygous for the mutation, but considering you need for the progeny to be of opposite sexes you have to again halve the frequency. Theoretically, one can devise a scheme to get a horse and a donkey from a highly similar common ancestor, but from a realistic point of view the probability of all of the stars lining up exactly right is so remote and so low as to be practically zero. Now if you put a highly knowledgable and intelligent human or some other Higher Power in the picture directing the process, then the likelihood becomes immensely greater.

I don't deny that these evolutionary changes could have happened; however, I contend that they are practically impossible (probability=zero) without someone directing and controlling the whole process.

Who knows what direction these methodologies may lead in next year. But if the methodologies are right in one direction (and indeed, produce beneficial results such as your experiments), how can they be wrong in another? Where do the boundaries lie?

I would be interested in learning more about these future 'methodologies' if they are scientifically sound and honest about probabilities. My increase in knowledge of science over time has increased my faith in Allah (swt) and don't expect any future scientific development to challenge my faith in the least.

 

[Independent]

Thanks for your reply MustafMc. Actually, the suggestion has been that the Neanderthal and Denovian DNA is present, not because of a common ancestor, but because of limited interbreeding. Only a handful of (not very useful) genes are involved such as the gene for red hair. Which has caused amusement here in Ireland. If you know any people of Irish extraction, you will know why.

However, it would seem you're not familiar with the report so thanks for your help anyway.

 

[Jim Fox]

I hesitated to join this forum, thinking Muslims would reject any attempt at discussion critical of Islam; so it is pleasing to see that it is not true! It seems to me that the fundamental clash between Islam and western thought (excluding western religions) results from a small number of big differences-
1. Because the Qu'ran is the exact word of Allah and therefore infallible, Muslims must accept everything in it without question. Is this so?
2. The 5 pillars include the most important requirement, submission to Allah with no choice or free will?
3. Islam cannot accept any part of evolution due to 1.
4. This also puts Islam at odds with science in general because science does not require or accept a Creator.

I could deal with each of these points but first, will someone point out any error on my part? I have read only a small pert of the Qu'ran in English, obviously and found it hard going. Much the same with the Bible with which I am more familiar.

 

[جوري]

1. Because the Qu'ran is the exact word of Allah and therefore infallible, Muslims must accept everything in it without question. Is this so?

You can question everything in Islam, how else are you going to learn?

2. The 5 pillars include the most important requirement, submission to Allah with no choice or free will?

The question is logically flawed!
Submission to Allah doesn't preclude us from having free will!

3. Islam cannot accept any part of evolution due to 1.
4. This also puts Islam at odds with science in general because science does not require or accept a Creator.

Firstly you must define what 'Evolution' is. micro or macro?!
Adaptation is an observable science whereas speciation is in the realm of science fiction!
Secondly have you read the Quranic stance on the matter?

Sahih International
I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves, and I would not have taken the misguiders as assistants.​

We don't in fact know the secret of creation, and you may think scientists have decoded it, but knowing something works (and not always the case) doesn't denote understanding why!
until such a time 'scientists' can create ex-nihilo, you can't use terms like 'at odds' with!

I could deal with each of these points but first, will someone point out any error on my part? I have read only a small pert of the Qu'ran in English, obviously and found it hard going. Much the same with the Bible with which I am more familiar.

I don't understand what hard going means!

best,

 

[CosmicPathos]

I hesitated to join this forum, thinking Muslims would reject any attempt at discussion critical of Islam; so it is pleasing to see that it is not true! It seems to me that the fundamental clash between Islam and western thought (excluding western religions) results from a small number of big differences-
1. Because the Qu'ran is the exact word of Allah and therefore infallible, Muslims must accept everything in it without question. Is this so?
2. The 5 pillars include the most important requirement, submission to Allah with no choice or free will?
3. Islam cannot accept any part of evolution due to 1.
4. This also puts Islam at odds with science in general because science does not require or accept a Creator.

I could deal with each of these points but first, will someone point out any error on my part? I have read only a small pert of the Qu'ran in English, obviously and found it hard going. Much the same with the Bible with which I am more familiar.

"Western thought?" I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean by Western thought? How is Western thought superbly scientific while others are hocus-pocus? You'd think that with such a thought many Westerns would be enlightened beings but the claim that vaccination causes autism emerged from amongst the "Western" people, did not it? So much for "Western" scientific thought! You need to pick up history books and see that for most of the human history, scientific thought persisted mostly among "Eastern" people, not Western. Ancient civilizations such as Chinese, Indians etc so on and so forth.

 

[جوري]

"Western thought?" I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean by Western thought? How is Western thought superbly scientific while others are hocus-pocus? You'd think that with such a thought many Westerns would be enlightened beings but the claim that vaccination causes autism emerged from amongst the "Western" people, did not it? So much for "Western" scientific thought! You need to pick up history books and see that for most of the human history, scientific thought persisted mostly among "Eastern" people, not Western. Ancient civilizations such as Chinese, Indians etc so on and so forth.

Experience dictates that they often rate themselves and live in a bubble and thus we must accommodate their level of understanding of how they perceive themselves and the world around them...

 

[Pygoscelis]

western thought (excluding western religions)

How can you exclude western religions from western thought? Christianity infects pretty much everything in the west, and is just as faith based as Islam, even more so in some ways. By western thought do you mean skepticism? Materialism? Secularism? Rationalism?

 

[MustafaMc]

1. Because the Qu'ran is the exact word of Allah and therefore infallible, Muslims must accept everything in it without question. Is this so?

Yes, every word, every letter and every vowel mark is accepted as the unadulterated word of Allah (swt). There are some things that are clear (literal) and some that are allegorical (figurative).

2. The 5 pillars include the most important requirement, submission to Allah with no choice or free will?

Actually, no, the 'PIllars of Islam' are 1) shahadah - testimony of faith, 2) salah - ritual prayer in Arabic, 3) sawm - fasting the month of Ramadan, 4) zakat - charity due on accumulated wealth, 5) hajj - pilgimage to Mecca. The articles of faith are 1) One God, 2) prophets and messengers, 3) revealed scriptures, 4) angels, 5) Judgment Day, 6) foreknowledge of Allah (swt) with nothing happens except according to His will. Belief in the articles of faith and practicing the 5 pillars makes one a Muslim. We have free will to obey Allah (swt) by following the sunnah of Muhammad (saaws) or not. Being obedient to Allah (swt) requires one to submit his will to that of Allah (swt).

3. Islam cannot accept any part of evolution due to 1.

I as a Muslim reject evolution as it is understood today because it does not satisfy my intellect. No one can prove that humans and other higher life forms just naturally evolved from a common, unicellular, prokaryotic ancestor naturally without the design and active involvement of a Higher Power. No one can even lay out a likely scheme for this to have happened with believable probabilities. Yes, an ill-defined hypothesis with a lot of big assumptions is presented as absolute fact when in fact it is no more factual than the creation story. Both are based on faith - one has faith in a Creator and the other has faith in Mother Nature. In my opinion one is free to choose what he believes about where we came from and where we are going. I see that strict naturalistic evolutionists are by default atheist or agnostic and, in addition to believing they came into existence naturally, they believe that when they die, that they will merely cease to exist. I as a Muslim believe in Judgement Day and that these people will indeed wish on that fateful Day they were merely dust blowing in the wind.

4. This also puts Islam at odds with science in general because science does not require or accept a Creator.

Islam is not at odds with science, but it is with the lies of a pseuod-science (naturalistic evolution) that is put forward as absolute fact. I am a scientist and have no conflict between my scientific research and my Islamic faith. In fact, my scientific knowledge reinforces my belief in a Creator.

 

[sister herb]

Iwestern thought (excluding western religions)

Peace with you Jim Fox;

I wonder what you mean about western religions? If you possible mean Christianity, it is originally from the Middle East - not from west. As well we could call Islam as western religion because it has a lot of followers in "the western world". Many original Europeans and Americans are muslims.

 

[Scimitar]

Sorry, but - Jim Fox is a female? What happened? Jim evolved into a woman? jokes aside...

1. Because the Qu'ran is the exact word of Allah and therefore infallible, Muslims must accept everything in it without question. Is this so?
2. The 5 pillars include the most important requirement, submission to Allah with no choice or free will?
3. Islam cannot accept any part of evolution due to 1.

I think bro MustafaMC has done fairly well with the above three questions. And has also done fairly well with this one below:

4. This also puts Islam at odds with science in general because science does not require or accept a Creator.

I would just like to add that modern Science, is flawed. Reminds me of Ptolemy...

Let me explain.

Are you aware of Ptolemy? He was a Greek-Roman citizen of Egypt who wrote in Greek. He was a mathematician, astronomer, geographer, astrologer, and poet of a single epigram in the Greek Anthology. He ever lived anywhere else than Alexandria, where he died around AD 168.Ptolemy was the author of several scientific treatises, at least three of which were of continuing importance to later Islamic and European science. The first is the astronomical treatise now known as the Almagest (in Greek, Ἡ Μεγάλη Σύνταξις, "The Great Treatise", originally Μαθηματικὴ Σύνταξις, "Mathematical Treatise"). The second is the Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world. The third is the astrological treatise known sometimes in Greek as the Apotelesmatika (Ἀποτελεσματικά), more commonly in Greek as the Tetrabiblos (Τετράβιβλος "Four books"), and in Latin as theQuadripartitum (or four books) in which he attempted to adapt horoscopic astrology to the Aristoteliannatural philosophy of his day. That was considered a "science" back in those days lol.


Almost a thousand years later, came the man who would crush Ptolemys works with a single intellectual blow. That man was Ibn Al Haythm al Basri, better known as Alhazen in the west.


He was also nicknamed Ptolemaeus Secundus ("Ptolemy the Second") or simply "The Physicist" in medieval Europe.


In his Al-Shukūk ‛alā Batlamyūs, variously translated as Doubts Concerning Ptolemy or Aporias against Ptolemy, published at some time between 1025 and 1028, Alhazen criticized many of Ptolemy's works, including the Almagest, Planetary Hypotheses, and Optics, pointing out various contradictions he found in these works. He considered that some of the mathematical devices Ptolemy introduced into astronomy, especially the equant, failed to satisfy the physical requirement of uniform circular motion, and wrote a scathing critique of the physical reality of Ptolemy's astronomical system, noting the absurdity of relating actual physical motions to imaginary mathematical points, lines and circles:

Ptolemy assumed an arrangement (hay'a) that cannot exist, and the fact that this arrangement produces in his imagination the motions that belong to the planets does not free him from the error he committed in his assumed arrangement, for the existing motions of the planets cannot be the result of an arrangement that is impossible to exist... [F]or a man to imagine a circle in the heavens, and to imagine the planet moving in it does not bring about the planet's motion.


​

Alhazen further criticized Ptolemy's model on other empirical, observational and experimental grounds, such as Ptolemy's use of conjectural undemonstrated theories in order to "save appearances" of certainphenomena, which Alhazen did not approve of due to his insistence on scientific demonstration. Unlike some later astronomers who criticized the Ptolemaic model on the grounds of being incompatible withAristotelian natural philosophy, Alhazen was mainly concerned with empirical observation and the internal contradictions in Ptolemy's works.

In his Aporias against Ptolemy, Alhazen commented on the difficulty of attaining scientific knowledge:

Truth is sought for itself [but] the truths, [he warns] are immersed in uncertainties [and the scientific authorities (such as Ptolemy, whom he greatly respected) are] not immune from error...


​

He held that the criticism of existing theories—which dominated this book—holds a special place in the growth of scientific knowledge:

Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.


​

On the Configuration of the World

In his On the Configuration of the World, despite his criticisms directed towards Ptolemy, Alhazen continued to accept the physical reality of the geocentric model of the universe, presenting a detailed description of the physical structure of the celestial spheres in his On the Configuration of the World:

The earth as a whole is a round sphere whose center is the center of the world. It is stationary in its [the world's] middle, fixed in it and not moving in any direction nor moving with any of the varieties of motion, but always at rest.


​

While he attempted to discover the physical reality behind Ptolemy's mathematical model, he developed the concept of a single orb (falak) for each component of Ptolemy's planetary motions. This work was eventually translated into Hebrew and Latin in the 13th and 14th centuries and subsequently had an influence on astronomers such as Georg von Peuerbach during the European Middle Ages andRenaissance.[SUP]

[/SUP]
[SUP]Model of the motions of Each of the 7 planets[/SUP]

Alhazen's The Model of the Motions of Each of the Seven Planets, written in 1038, was a book on astronomy. The surviving manuscript of this work has only recently been discovered, with much of it still missing, hence the work has not yet been published in modern times. Following on from his Doubts on Ptolemy and The Resolution of Doubts, Alhazen described the first non-Ptolemaic model in The Model of the Motions. His reform was not concerned with cosmology, as he developed a systematic study of celestialkinematics that was completely geometric. This in turn led to innovative developments in infinitesimalgeometry.
His reformed empirical model was the first to reject the equant and eccentrics, separate natural philosophy from astronomy, free celestial kinematics from cosmology, and reduce physical entities to geometric entities. The model also propounded the Earth's rotation about its axis, and the centres of motion were geometric points without any physical significance, like Johannes Kepler's model centuries later.

In the text, Alhazen also describes an early version of Occam's razor, where he employs only minimal hypotheses regarding the properties that characterize astronomical motions, as he attempts to eliminate from his planetary model the cosmological hypotheses that cannot be observed from the Earth.


Other astronomical works

Alhazen distinguished astrology from astronomy, and he refuted the study of astrology, due to the methods used by astrologers being conjectural rather than empirical, and also due to the views of astrologers conflicting with that of orthodox Islam.

Alhazen also wrote a treatise entitled On the Milky Way, in which he solved problems regarding the Milky Waygalaxy and parallax. In antiquity, Aristotle believed the Milky Way to be caused by "the ignition of the fiery exhalation of some stars which were large, numerous and close together" and that the "ignition takes place in the upper part of the atmosphere, in the region of the world which is continuous with the heavenly motions." Alhazen refuted this and "determined that because the Milky Way had no parallax, it was very remote from the earth and did not belong to the atmosphere." He wrote that if the Milky Way was located around the Earth's atmosphere, "one must find a difference in position relative to the fixed stars." He described two methods to determine the Milky Way's parallax: "either when one observes the Milky Way on two different occasions from the same spot of the earth; or when one looks at it simultaneously from two distant places from the surface of the earth." He made the first attempt at observing and measuring the Milky Way's parallax, and determined that since the Milky Way had no parallax, then it does not belong to the atmosphere.

In 1858, Muhammad Wali ibn Muhammad Ja'far, in his Shigarf-nama, claimed that Alhazen wrote a treatise Maratib al-sama in which he conceived of a planetary model similar to the Tychonic system where the planets orbit the Sun which in turn orbits the Earth. However, the "verification of this claim seems to be impossible", since the treatise is not listed among the known bibliography of Alhazen.

The point here is that, Alhazen took science, which seemed to be at odds with itself at that time, and he presented "The Scientific Method". A meothd which allows Real Science to be practiced in the most purest of ways. Without dogma. And this, coming from a man who believed in God... why?

To answer this, we must first understand that Al Haythm was looking for proofs for the divine laws which he believed in, as revealed by God in the Quran.

But he wanted to know if they are observable... So he conducted many experiments, and worked maths til he could understand the cosmos to a degree that none before him could have. He presented not only a refutation to Ptolemys famous works on Atronomy, (which had some elements of astrology in them) but also to other scientists and mathematicians... and he even rebuked philosophers such as Aristotle.

The new method he bought, (the Scientific Method) was heavily reliant on one core principle - and that is, "absence of proof is not the proof of absence". And he used this ideal, to investigate matters in ways that no one else had thought of. And he got real results, that remain a testament to his method, to this day.

...And today? Today atheists seem to forget 'that' golden rule from the scientific method when "Atheists" claim that "there is no proof for God" Take a hike fellas. You have clearly got yourselves in a pickle here - you practice what I call "bad science".

Scimi