Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I am aware that it is broadly used, nevertheles it's incorrect. The word adaptation suggests that mutations occured as a proces of adaptation. that's why so many biologists object to the term. It confuses people. When a monkey in the zoo suddenly starts using a knife to peel banana's just as the keepers do, then he has adapted to the tools available in his enviroment. When a specie suddenly has advantages due to a mutation; then it hasn't adapted but it just got lucky. Unless you believe in ID, and suggets the mutation wasn't the result of luck but rather a laid out plan. But I doubt that is waht you mean.
:sl:
I think you are confusing ID with theistic evolution. ID claims that there is no evolution, and that all mutations are disadvantageous in some way. Theistic evolution says that God controls evolution, and that there is no such thing as chance, just God's Will.
:w:
 
:sl:
ID claims that there is no evolution, and that all mutations are disadvantageous in some way. :w:

ID stands for intelligent design. It suggests that the proces of evolution is not by chance but rather following an "intelligent design" suggesting the existance of an intelligent designer. So I don't see much difrence between theistic evolution and ID.
 
ID stands for intelligent design. It suggests that the proces of evolution is not by chance but rather following an "intelligent design" suggesting the existance of an intelligent designer. So I don't see much difrence between theistic evolution and ID.
:sl:
Intelligent design is a branch of the creationism movement, like Flood geology and baraminology. It says that all animals were created in an instant by an unspecified Designer, and that this design can be detected. 'Evidence' for design includes irreducibly complex structures, which are (incorrectly) claimed to be impossible to have evolved, and specifed complexity, which, thanks to confusing creationist jargon, I cannot understand in the slightest.

Theistic evolution (the one I support) is exactly the same as the standard theory of evolution, except that it says that God controls mutation and natural selection.
:w:
 
:sl:
Intelligent design is a branch of the creationism movement, like Flood geology and baraminology. It says that all animals were created in an instant by an unspecified Designer, and that this design can be detected. 'Evidence' for design includes irreducibly complex structures, which are (incorrectly) claimed to be impossible to have evolved, and specifed complexity, which, thanks to confusing creationist jargon, I cannot understand in the slightest.

No ID doesn't suggest that. Id is the same as theistic evolution except that the word ID can refer to "any" devine source. Be it "the one God" or the trinity-God in which Adam is created as image, a flying spaghetti monster, etc ...

Here's a link from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
 
No ID doesn't suggest that. Id is the same as theistic evolution except that the word ID can refer to "any" devine source. Be it "the one God" or the trinity-God in which Adam is created as image, a flying spaghetti monster, etc ...

Here's a link from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
:sl:
If you read the section in the article that talks about the claims of ID, you will see that they are all atempts to disprove evolution. You're right that it does not specify what created life.

Do you support creationism or evolution? I'm an ex-atheist Muslim (well technically I'm not one yet, as I have not said Shahadah yet) who supports theistic evolution.
:w:
 
:sl:
If you read the section in the article that talks about the claims of ID, you will see that they are all atempts to disprove evolution. You're right that it does not specify what created life.

Well not exactly the only difrence between ID and classical evolution is that evolution calls the proces random and our existance the result of mere luck. Whereas Id suggests it was all planend (and worked out) by a deity.

Do you support creationism or evolution? I'm an ex-atheist Muslim (well technically I'm not one yet, as I have not said Shahadah yet) who supports theistic evolution.
:w:

Well I try to keep an open mind there are many theories that I consider possible. I'm inclined towards a mixture of evolution and creation.
there's two parts of evolution I have problems with. Common descent and abiogenesis. Let's start with abiogenesis, the theory that suggest life erose out of lifeless matter. This I cannot accept at all, there's to many unlickely suggestions , to many parts of teh theory still left to speculation, to many holes.

Then there's common descent ,which basicly says: since some species evolved out of other it seems logic to assume all species evolved out of teh same ancestral being. Here again there's many questions, many things left to speculation. And again many gaps: fish evolving into reptiles, reptiles into birds, reptiles into mamels, or mamels into birds, asexual species to sexual species, instinct driven apes to intelligen (to some extend) humans, evolution of the eye, all missing links I need to see filled up before I can accept common descent. So until proven wrong I'll stick to classical creationism.

The third part: mutations; are obvious. I wouldn't dream of denying that. Virus evolving, wolf evolving into dog, lynx evolving into cat. It's all possible and coincedently, this part does not go in against Islamic vieuws.
 
there's two parts of evolution I have problems with. Common descent and abiogenesis. Let's start with abiogenesis, the theory that suggest life erose out of lifeless matter. This I cannot accept at all, there's to many unlickely suggestions , to many parts of teh theory still left to speculation, to many holes.

:grumbling

Abiogenesis is not part of the evolutionary process, you know this you have in the past acknowledged this. So why are you still peddling one of the greatest misconceptions you can give to the Theory of Evolution.
 
:grumbling

Abiogenesis is not part of the evolutionary process, you know this you have in the past acknowledged this. So why are you still peddling one of the greatest misconceptions you can give to the Theory of Evolution.

Well it's not a part of the real "evolution". But it is frequently (mis)placed under evolution. That's why I make the distinction here.
 
Well it's not a part of the real "evolution". But it is frequently (mis)placed under evolution. That's why I make the distinction here.

Come again!

You know it's not part of Evolution and you made no distinction at all. Can you answer the following question with a simple YES or NO so we are all absolutely clear.........

"Is Abiogenesis part of the Theory of Evolution"

Thanks.....
 
No it's not a part of evolution, yet people commonly use the word "evolution" to refer to both evolution and abiogenesis.
 
No it's not a part of evolution,

A simple no would have beed sufficient.

yet people commonly use the word "evolution" to refer to both evolution and abiogenesis.

No Steve, Creationists and ID thinkers "commonly" refer to both evolution and abiogenesis in order to help them futher confuse people to what evolution actually is. They are well aware they are seperate (like you are) yet, they still peddle this rubbish (like you do).

:grumbling
 
Salaam,

Hello shuhel how are you, hope you are enjoying the site.
 
Not all theory is a fact.

OMG. :grumbling :hiding: :?

You want facts, OK my freind here they are. (I hope you are ready for this).

New alternative theory to evolution

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

piratesarecool4.jpg


Further. We have an artists impression of "HIM"

him2.jpg


Additionally, "HIM" has turned up in living bacteria:

biofilm.hmedium.jpg

Source:http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10183948/

Further, More evidence of the "Late Neolithic noodles: They may settle the origin as The remains of the world's oldest noodles have been unearthed in China. The 50cm-long, yellow strands were found in a pot that had probably been buried during a catastrophic flood. Radiocarbon dating of the material taken from the Lajia archaeological site on the Yellow River indicates the food was about 4,000 years old.

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4335160.stm

Further, you can find information about this theory in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Further, we have hundreds of scientists who support this theory:
http://www.venganza.org/endorsements.htm

Scientific proof (a miracle revelation)

the best scientific proof to date of the existance of our lord the FSM. Attached is an electron micrograph obtained in my laboratory of human DNA showing the most blessed signs of HIM. Alas! we are made to His image and the proof is in the DNA. Please note the detail of
His noodly appendage. We are so blessed to have him inside of all of us!!!
22.jpg


Finally:

Go google "creator of the universe"...................................................

So, what's your theory BillyBoy.........................................
 
Last edited:
Come on root this is old news…people now days really have problems using the brain and coming up with facts not joke story.. get real man....You don't really want us to even think about this…. you just wasted 5 min of my life reading this.

This is the real story …some depressed atheist had a tough time finding facts so he tried use this muscle brain and…. :rollseyes forget this read for yourself

“The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design creationism as an "alternative" to biological evolution.”
 
Last edited:
Come on root this is old news…people now days really have problems using the brain and coming up with facts not joke story.. get real man....You don't really want us to even think about this…. you just wasted 5 min of my life reading this.

It now has 10 million supporters and is a serious theory of ID. Be careful, you may be offending someones religion.

This is the real story …some depressed atheist had a tough time finding facts so he tried use this muscle brain and…. forget this read for yourself

That is the whole point. What is a fact & what constitutes absolute proof, irrespective this is a serious theory for ID and should ID need to be taught then this needs to be taken seriously as an alternative theory to evolution?

“The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design creationism as an "alternative" to biological evolution.”

Correct, and could you refute it as being false?

I mean look at this link:
Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4335160.stm

How did the chinese know about the flying spaghetti monster 4,000 years ago. Surely divine Sphaghetti monster inspiration, how could they have known it was was to be. Can you refute anything that is claimed........
 
Last edited:
What is a fact & what constitute absolute proof

And I am saying is that his guy wants to waste time and play word game about what fact and what absolute proof is.

Root provide me with a e.g. on how you can get confused about what fact and absolute proofs
Now evolution is a theory not fact. Now root do you know how many theory’s their are about space…. Closed Time-Like Curves, Black Holes, Rotating Cylinders, Time-warped Field Theory Emerges, Wormholes, Chronology Protection Conjecture, Cosmic Strings and Many Worlds Theory. I can name countless and the funny thing is no one can tell them that they are wrong because it’s a theory.
 
Root provide me with a e.g. on how you can get confused about what fact and absolute proofs

Sure, the theory of general relativity does not offer absolute proof that Gravity exists as we understand it.

Now evolution is a theory not fact.

Your right, but then again so is the theory of relativity. Are you suggesting gravity does not exist as we currently understand it. God forbid you ever become unwell and rely on medical science which again offers no absolute proof, yet odds are you will place your life (allah considered) within medical science that is offering only a probability they are right........

Now root do you know how many theory’s their are about space…. Closed Time-Like Curves, Black Holes, Rotating Cylinders, Time-warped Field Theory Emerges, Wormholes, Chronology Protection Conjecture, Cosmic Strings and Many Worlds Theory. I can name countless and the funny thing is no one can tell them that they are wrong because it’s a theory.

I agree, the issue though is that you have completely mixed several hypothosies with theories, Wormholes for example are hypotheticals however they will fall under space-time theory. Evolution is a theory, and whilst the whole picture is not clear certain (not all) within the theory will be hypothetical because we still do not know yet, predictions are generally presented as an hypothosis. If I am correct then I hypothosise this will happen. If it proves correct then the hypothosis becomes a supported theory, it does not become absolute proof because it still might be wrong but nest fits the data that is presented.

Science does not deal in facts presented as absolute proof. At best, science can only offer a probability and no more. It is probable that tomorrow will come, it is not an absolute fact that tomorrow will come.

Hopefully, you appreciate why science cannot offer an answer as absolute proof of fact. With this Science suggests that evolution is the probable cause of how we came to be (Evolution theory only) because evolution is the only theory that can support and explain the scientific data. ID, is not scientific nor does it support the scientific data. If our children are to be fooled into having ID presented to them in the science classroom as opposed to RE, then by such validation of ID our divine Sphaghetti monster must additionally be taught as a serious theory of ID. (The paradox being ID is a faith position and not validated as scientific).
 
Last edited:
You disapoint me Root, I nevre thought you'd drop so low to defend a theory against better knowledge just to make a point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top