Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

[MustafaMc]

We were talking about hummingbirds in class just now and how there are plants that are dependent on hummingbirds for reproduction. How does this work in the evolution theory?

When you think about it, evolution requires as much faith as creation. In this case the plant species would have evolved from one that was similar except their was a selective advantage to having hummingbirds transfer pollen. This requirement could be because this species of plant had some sexual, self-incompatibility issue or because it had male and female plants instead of male and female parts in the same bloom. It seems to me that either of those cases are unlikely and it makes more sense to me that it is one of the signs of Allah's (swt) creation.

What comes to my mind is this ayat 2:26, Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable-- (that of) a gnat or any thing above that; then as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord, and as for those who disbelieve, they say: What is it that Allah means by this parable: He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it! but He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors. I see the creation of the smallest, the largest and all of those in between as signs of Allah's (swt) existence as evidenced by His creation. I do not need an explanation for the how as the atheistic evolutionists do. All I need to know is that Allah (swt) created them in the way that behooves His majesty, subhan'Allah.

Another one I've been thinking about is camouflage on animals, how does that work as well?

The development of camoflage could have advantages in allowing a predator to hide in ambush or in a prey being better able to hide. This would give a selective advantage whereby the one with better camoflage would be able to eat or avoid getting eaten as compared to ones with less adaptation.

 

[Independent]

I do not need an explanation for the how

It seems to me that to have no interest in the ‘how’ is to abandon much prospect of scientific discovery. For Darwin, close observation of nature was his modus operandi. For example, he once commented on a species of orchid that was pollinated by a moth. One of the varieties of this orchid had a very long flower neck. To the people of that day, this was just another beautiful flower, simply one of the (apparently random) wonders of nature. Well, it was that, but that's just the half of it. Darwin made a prediction. He stated that a moth would be discovered with an unusually long proboscis, specifically adapted to pollinate this particular flower. Many decades later, in fact 21 years after Darwin’s death, just such a moth was discovered – which had a big impact on his critics.

Another one I've been thinking about is camouflage on animals, how does that work as well?

Camouflage is one of the more obvious evolutionary processes, because the consequences of poor camouflage are immediate. There is a famous example of a type of white moth adapted to live on London plane trees. During the industrial revolution the increase in pollution caused the trees to become black. The moth also became black. Now, in the last few decades, strict atmospheric laws have decreased London pollution and the trees are returning to their natural colour. In response, this species of moth is also returning to its pale colour. The mechanism involved is obviously that poorly camouflaged moths are eaten by predators before they have time to breed, thus progressively changing the balance of colour in the population. It shows just how fast changes can occur under certain conditions.

 

[MustafaMc]

It seems to me that to have no interest in the ‘how’ is to abandon much prospect of scientific discovery.

Believe me, I am 'not your average bear' as Yogi Bear would say when it comes to scientific discovery, as Allah (swt) has willed. I do not deny the merit in science, in fact, I use it quite extensively in my profession as a plant geneticist and breeder. Acceptance or rejection of ToE has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific discovery.

For Darwin, close observation of nature was his modus operandi. For example, he once commented on a species of orchid that was pollinated by a moth. One of the varieties of this orchid had a very long flower neck. To the people of that day, this was just another beautiful flower, simply one of the (apparently random) wonders of nature. Well, it was that, but that's just the half of it. Darwin made a prediction. He stated that a moth would be discovered with an unusually long proboscis, specifically adapted to pollinate this particular flower. Many decades later, in fact 21 years after Darwin’s death, just such a moth was discovered – which had a big impact on his critics.

Just because there exists a moth with a very long proboscis does not in and of itself imply that the plant is dependent on the moth for pollination. Even if it did, it no more supports co-evolution than it does co-creation.

Camouflage is one of the more obvious evolutionary processes, because the consequences of poor camouflage are immediate. There is a famous example of a type of white moth adapted to live on London plane trees. During the industrial revolution the increase in pollution caused the trees to become black. The moth also became black. Now, in the last few decades, strict atmospheric laws have decreased London pollution and the trees are returning to their natural colour. In response, this species of moth is also returning to its pale colour. The mechanism involved is obviously that poorly camouflaged moths are eaten by predators before they have time to breed, thus progressively changing the balance of colour in the population. It shows just how fast changes can occur under certain conditions.

Yes, I was thinking of this very example. It again illustrates micro-evolution, or changes within a species, through natural selection of individuals possessing genes that confer a phenotype that renders that individual more fit for survival. The same happens when strong pesticides are used extensively to kill insect pests eventually selects for the extraordinarily rare individuals who inately already possess genetic mutations to tolerate those pesticides, e.g. DDT resistance in mosquitos by over-expressing the CYP6Z1 protein. These are definitely not examples of how an amoeba can evolve into humans or bananas and for evolutionists to use ToE to do so is pseudo-science.

 

[Independent]

These are definitely not examples of how an amoeba can evolve into humans or bananas and for evolutionists to use ToE to do so is pseudo-science.

Personally, it doesn’t really bother me what views people hold about evolution so long as this doesn’t interfere with the advancement of knowledge. And of course, absolutely anything could be a result of divine creation, including evolution in its entirety, if you choose to look at it that way. Sometimes I don’t understand why evolution conversations have to be so contentious.

The thing I don’t agree with is describing ToE as a ‘pseudo science’. You can describe it as ‘incomplete’, ‘provisional’, ‘partial’ – all that’s fair. But the word ‘pseudo’ is an unnecessarily pejorative term.

It implies that not just evolution but all the suggested processes and evidences (genetics, inheritance, some microbiology, perhaps paeleontolgy and many more) are also ‘pseudo’ or ‘pretend’. It’s equivalent to calling the Big Bang theory ‘pseudo’, because that certainly hasn’t been proved either. But Islam approves of the Big Bang theory so this word is not used. I don't see how that's consistent?

 

[sister herb]

Independent;

If you like to be atheist be so.

I am sick to tired read your comments why you are right and we others wrong.

We meet at Judgement Day - where ever.

:heated:

 

[MustafaMc]

The thing I don’t agree with is describing ToE as a ‘pseudo science’.

Oooo, did I touch a raw nerve there? The only portion of Wikipedia's definition for pseudoscience (a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status) that does not apply to ToE IMHO is the part about 'lacks scientific status'. I agree that some scientists accept ToE as real science. I contend that ToE and ToID are both philosophical theories and that neither are testable or unprovable.

I don’t understand why evolution conversations have to be so contentious.

The reason is that ToE is presented as fact as opposed to a theory and because pro-evolutionists make absolutely no allowance for Intelligent Design. Evolutionists also never discuss or even admit the deficiencies of ToE or its extraordinary implausibility.

It implies that not just evolution but all the suggested processes and evidences (genetics, inheritance, some microbiology, perhaps paeleontolgy and many more) are also ‘pseudo’ or ‘pretend’.

No, I disagree with this statement as I have no issues with genetic, inheritance, microbiology, molecular biology, paleontology, geology, etc.

 

[جوري]

You did touch a nerve with that guy - nothing is satisfactory to him by why of academics- he's so self satisfied with fifth grade biology and fifth grade politics and doesn't do us the favor of at least keeping such sophmoric & downright pedantic understanding to himself - no he has to force feed it down everyone's throat - it's tiresome!

 

[Independent]

Oooo, did I touch a raw nerve there?

Well, if I took offense at a word as slight as that I wouldn’t last long here, would I?

But thanks for your reply, it’s always informative and interesting. Is there any book or source you could recommend to give a general view of the subject, covering all the main issues?

 

[MustafaMc]

Is there any book or source you could recommend to give a general view of the subject, covering all the main issues?

I assume you are asking about Intelligent Design. This link is pretty good. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

FYI, I have requested that my name be added to the petition, 'Dissent from Darwinism' http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php. I have the qualifications they require and I agree with the statement, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

 

[Pygoscelis]

It again illustrates micro-evolution, or changes within a species, through natural selection of individuals possessing genes that confer a phenotype that renders that individual more fit for survival. The same happens when strong pesticides are used extensively to kill insect pests eventually selects for the extraordinarily rare individuals who inately already possess genetic mutations to tolerate those pesticides, e.g. DDT resistance in mosquitos by over-expressing the CYP6Z1 protein. These are definitely not examples of how an amoeba can evolve into humans or bananas and for evolutionists to use ToE to do so is pseudo-science.

I never understood the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Isn't macro evolution just micro evolution done for a very long time? I do see a problem with abiogenesis, but beyond that I don't see what the incoherency is. I get that evidence may be missing, but the theory seems to at least be coherent.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I contend that ToE and ToID are both philosophical theories and that neither are testable or unprovable.

That I can not agree with. The one is a vacuous claim that puts itself forth by "revelation" to be absolute truth. The other is a theory that seeks to subject itself to science and that nobody thinks is 100% correct, and is open to revision. The mere difference in outlook is important, even if the evidence for evolution is as lacking as you claim. I have seen numerous scientists who study evolution who have stated things they would accept as proving evolution wrong. I have never seen a religious person state what we could find to prove their religion wrong. I find it very telling that every argument for ID I have ever seen is actually an argument against evolution. Why do we never hear arguments for ID itself?

When I read this wiki page (which you may argue is biased against your position)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

I do not see what I see when I look at religious claims. I do not see anything presented by revalation or claimed to be absolute fact. I do see a large section on falsifiablity and how proponents of evolution have stated what could prove it wrong. The whole irriducible complexity arguement and the whole thing we had here in this thread earlier about the eye has no equivalent argument for religion or ID because religious claims do not put themselves to any sort of test and instead claim to be beyond such a thing.

And before you say ID is not religion, yes it is, at least 99% of the time. It is religious claims masquerading as non-religious theory. I have yet to meet a proponent of ID who is not religious and who does not think a God did it. Why are there so few secular proponents of ID? If there was evidence for it over Evolution I see no reason why secular people wouldn't prefer it over Evolution.

 

[جوري]

for religion because religious claims do not put themselves to any sort of test and instead claim to be beyond such a thing.

Nor should they put themselves to such a test. Religion isn't concerned with the machinations of our creations- exactly what would that serve? Are we competing with God? Rather religion is and should be concerned with addressing the purpose of our creation, and I hope you see that with the above at least the contentions are that when science puts itself in this position has abandoned its role in what it should concern itself with and rather posing itself as an alternative. And folks are obviously going to be upset when you substitute a set of beliefs for another because when you strip it of florid terms and get down to the nitty gritty, that's exactly what you will be left with.. I am going to let Br. Mustafa address the micro. Vs. Macro issue you raised but in a nutshell it is the difference between speciation and adaptation.
We've the principles and laws for one set and they're not applicable for the other.

best,

 

[Pygoscelis]

I agree that science should not become religion. I also believe that religion should not pretend to be science, and that is basically what "Intelligent Design Theory" is.

 

[جوري]

Which is precisely why the judge threw it out in the case of Dr. Behe. or whatever his name.. Not because it had no validity, the theory merely states that, it was a guided process and not a random event, but because science doesn't wish to make room for God it is concerned with the here and now and how we can help it, live with it, use it to our advantage etc. etc. and not generally concerned with spirituality, purpose of our being and such. IMHO we're physical and spiritual being, and you can't feed just one part of you while neglecting the other.. others have managed to find a good substitution to feeding their soul..

best,

 

[MustafaMc]

Independent and Pygoscelis, how much education and training have you had in science? I ask because I feel I am having trouble getting my ideas across. I haven't had any on Theory of Evolution, per se, but I feel I have a pretty good understanding from my education in biological sciences.

I am sure my Sister-in-Faith could explain the differences as well as I can, but (unlike me) she is more humble than to boast of her knowledge and education. I see micro-evolution as adaptation of a species to changes in its environment due to selective advantage for certain genetic differences that confer a reproductive advantage. Independent gave an example of a moth changing colors and I gave an example of mosquitos developing resistance to DDT. To the novice it seems that this adaptation is only an elemental illustration of the changes that led to the evolution of higher life forms from infinitely more basic ones. I have used the genetic differences between horses and donkeys to illustrate the extreme implausibility of even these two morphologically similar species naturally evolving from a very similar ancestor on the more recent evolutionary tree. I don't mean this in a patronizing way, but one must have a basic understanding of both genetics and statistics to comprehend what I am trying to say.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Independent and Pygoscelis, how much education and training have you had in science? I ask because I feel I am having trouble getting my ideas across. I haven't had any on Theory of Evolution, per se, but I feel I have a pretty good understanding from my education in biological sciences..

I did a year in electrical engineering and then my undergrad in neurology and psychology (4 year program plus thesis), before leaving it to study law, which I have been practicing for about a decade now. I took basic introductory courses in genetics. I took calculus and statistics. I took logic courses as well. I do not and never would claim to be an expert on evolution, which is why you can see in all posts I have made on it I have spoken for myself and without authority on it. When it was claimed that evolution lacks evidence and lacks falsifiability I stated that is not my perception and gave links to those who know better than I do.

 

[MustafaMc]

I agree that science should not become religion. I also believe that religion should not pretend to be science,

On this I can agree, but religion can be a source for knowledge about the unseen through revelation from a Higher Power to humans through a massenger.

and that is basically what "Intelligent Design Theory" is.

No, I don't see ID as 'religion pretending to be science', but rather as honestly admiting that ToE comes far short and that speciation must have been designed rather than happening by chance. I see beauty, symmetry and design when I look at nature. It is enough for me to say 'Glory to God' for the majesty and splendor of His creation. Tonight I again watched 'Galapagos, Islands that Changed the World' and I noticed how the narator felt an obligation to explain how the different animals must have gotten onto the remote islands. I also noticed a time-lapse picture of a cotton flower opening and looked up Gossypium darwinii where again the author felt obliged to explain how this species of cotton (that exists only on the Galapagos Islands) got there in the first place. Again I look at the simple fact that nearly all animals (exceptions are flounder, halibut) have bilateral symmetry as an evidence for Allah's (swt) creation. I do not see conservation of genetic sequences between species as evidence of their evolution from a Common Ancestor anymore than the existence of bilateral symmetry. I do not feel a need to explain or speculate for how the species arose, but I am convinced that it didn't all just randomly happen. I believe in my innermost core that we were created by Allah (swt) and it does not concern me whether it was instantaneous or over a long period of time. The difference between ToE and ToID is the honesty of the latter to admit the deficiencies of the former and by its allowance of a non-scientific element as the fundamental cornerstone. I am convinced that my rejection of naturalistic ToE and my acceptance of Creation do not hamper my efforts at scientific discovery. It just ticks-me-off when people use speculation as fact instead of remaining silent when they are ignorant of what actually happened.

 

[Pygoscelis]

On this I can agree, but religion can be a source for knowledge about the unseen through revelation from a Higher Power to humans through a massenger.

And we can agree to disagree on that. I see no reason to believe that any of these myriad of purported messages are from any of their purported higher powers.

The difference between ToE and ToID is the honesty of the latter to admit the deficiencies of the former and by its allowance of a non-scientific element as the fundamental cornerstone.

Evolution does and should admit to its deficiencies. That is how science works right? Its our best current theory and it is to be revised with better data and evidence.

ToID not only allows a non-scientific element as its fundamental cornerstone, that's all ToID appears to be. I have seen no actual research or evidence and not even many arguments to prop ToID up. Its only purpose seems to be to take Evolution down. And it occurs to me that even if Evolution was completely invalidated and proven wrong, that doesn't in any way prove creationism, much less by any particular creator. There could always be some other non-creator way life came to develop and differentiate species. Seriously, why do we never hear evidence to support ToID? Its always just attempts to poke holes in evolution theory.

In fact, whenever I tell a theist I do not believe in their God and their creation story, I am inevitably told I believe in Evolution. Why the false dichotomy?

 

[Independent]

I see micro-evolution as adaptation of a species to changes in its environment due to selective advantage for certain genetic differences that confer a reproductive advantage.

I do get that distinction, and in fact we talked about it in another thread (or was it this one earlier, I forget). That's not where my uncertainty lies.

The reason I asked for more background is because I'm not 100% clear where the lines are between evolution and ID in general ie where one story stops and the other starts. For instance, when Darwin first published into what was then a traditional British Christian society, many religious leaders and ordinary church-members rejected the book in every detail - micro, macro, whatever. Partly this was just an irrelevant visceral reaction to the mere notion that humans could be related to apes. But more specifically they did not accept other relevant fields of study, such as the extended age of the earth, nor in geological explanations that put seabeds on the top of mountains, etc, etc.

But this is not necessarily the position of an ID advocate. That means that the kind of evidence you might offer against the 19th century British Christian of view is different from what you would use in relation to most versions of ID. Of course, since the 19th century many Christians and Christian sects have decided that their initial wholesale rejection was wrong. Some of them even accept the principle of evolution in its entirety. (As I said before, evolution does not need to be incompatible with religion in general, although it may be incompatible with individual religions. Evolution is not a black and white choice between atheism or faith.) Out of curiosity, what were the first official Muslim statements about ToE? Perhaps they happened at a later date?

Anyway, rather than tax you with listing out the entire theory of ID I asked for the link (which I will read when I have time, I have been mostly asleep since my last post). I would trust you to give me a source that is intelligently designed, as it were!

 

[MustafaMc]

And it occurs to me that even if Evolution was completely invalidated and proven wrong, that doesn't in any way prove creationism, much less by any particular creator.

On this we can agree. The dispoving of one theory does not prove another. Creationism is based on faith as well as intellectual deductive reasoning. As I have said before, my scientific knowledge reinforces my faith in a Creator, as Allah (swt) has willed. In direct contrast this same knowledge leads me to most seriously doubt ToE as an adequate theory for the origin of the existing and extinct species of life from an elemental Common Ancestor.

I will go so far as to say that my disbelief in ToE is as strong as your disbelief in Allah (swt). As a biological scientist, I actually find ToE to be intellectually repugnant! I have faith that I was created by Allah (swt), that I will be resurrected from the dead, and that after Judgment Day I will be sent to Paradise, the Hellfire or the Heights in between. My understanding of your probable position is that you believe you came into existence completely through random chance and that you will merely cease to exist after you die and return to the dust from whence you came. I can no better prove to you where we came from and where we are going than you can to me.