Evolution and Islam are mutually exclusive

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

I would much rather admit that I have the least wrong explanation,

But what benefit does having the least wrong explanation bring, do you have to pretend; that what you have described as the overwhelming evidence for the ToE; is right.

than pretend I have the "perfect" answer.

People who have a real faith in their creator do not pretend, real faith is a huge challenge for believers, read some of the post about the struggles and joys of journeying through Ramadan.

The latter may be more comfortable, but it would hamper me from continuing to search for a better and more complete answer.

Faith in God is probably more of a challenge than a comfort, but I find a profound sense of peace through my faith. The creation of the universe and life is history, I am fascinated by the science that strives to understand our universe.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

 

[Pygoscelis]

You have said a number of times there is overwhelming evidence for the ToE

There is. From many different disciplines too.

you have been treating it as the done deal.

Nothing is a done deal. There is plenty about evolution that has yet to be discovered and yet to be improved on. There are real controversies in evolution... you example of the eye isn't really one of them.

Like the truthful way the eye came into existence, the fossil record from 400 - 600 million years ago for soft tissue is lacking. I have watched videos of Richard Dawkins cleverly talk to school children, about how the eye could evolve, based on the Nilsson Pelger theory. He concludes it could happen in the blink of an eye, he sounds very much like he is trying to prove the least wrong answer like showing evidence that 2+2 could equal 5.

What is the big deal about the eye? Why is that such a stumbling block for you? Simple photosensitive cells are not so complicated. Are you saying that they could not have evolved? From there you need only a series of improvements, each a benefit over the last. Since you refer to Dawkins, I highly recommend his book "Climbing mount improbable".

Darwin started a very plausible theory with his observation on finches beaks, but he knew the evolution of the eye would be one of the greatest challenges to his theory.

He also addressed it head on as such:

...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

There is evidence for the progressing development of eyes. It isn't conclusive, no. Nothing ever is in science. But it sure is a better theory than proposing that a magical and perfect designer God made the eye, with all of its many faults. It would be some incredibly inept engineering, what with the blind spot where our optic nerve is, and the way that it inverts the image, requiring our brains to process it and revert it.

Creationism is full of oddities like that, which I am pretty sure is why creationists spend all their time attacking evolution instead of putting for evidence and argument for creationism. They seem to think that if you proved evolution wrong, then creationism would be right by default. It wouldn't.

But lets actually look at creationism itself. If there is a creator God that designed everything, it would have to be an incredibly poor designer given what we keep finding. Everything from foot bones in whales to the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe (that is one looooong route for a nerve to take - talk about poor design!)

I question your use of 'Absolutely'.

Why? I didn't say that Evolution is absolutely true. I said that Faith is absolutely anti-science, and it is. Faith and Science are opposite means of finding truth, or in the case of faith, what we pretend it to be.

In the spirit of searching for God.

In the spirit of open and rational inquiry.

 

[Cpt.America]

There is. From many different disciplines too.



Nothing is a done deal. There is plenty about evolution that has yet to be discovered and yet to be improved on. There are real controversies in evolution... you example of the eye isn't really one of them.



What is the big deal about the eye? Why is that such a stumbling block for you? Simple photosensitive cells are not so complicated. Are you saying that they could not have evolved? From there you need only a series of improvements, each a benefit over the last. Since you refer to Dawkins, I highly recommend his book "Climbing mount improbable".



He also addressed it head on as such:



There is evidence for the progressing development of eyes. It isn't conclusive, no. Nothing ever is in science. But it sure is a better theory than proposing that a magical and perfect designer God made the eye, with all of its many faults. It would be some incredibly inept engineering, what with the blind spot where our optic nerve is, and the way that it inverts the image, requiring our brains to process it and revert it.

Creationism is full of oddities like that, which I am pretty sure is why creationists spend all their time attacking evolution instead of putting for evidence and argument for creationism. They seem to think that if you proved evolution wrong, then creationism would be right by default. It wouldn't.

But lets actually look at creationism itself. If there is a creator God that designed everything, it would have to be an incredibly poor designer given what we keep finding. Everything from foot bones in whales to the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe (that is one looooong route for a nerve to take - talk about poor design!)



Why? I didn't say that Evolution is absolutely true. I said that Faith is absolutely anti-science, and it is. Faith and Science are opposite means of finding truth, or in the case of faith, what we pretend it to be.



In the spirit of open and rational inquiry.

The physiological blind spot is not an aberration of engineering. It's simply the point the optic nerve enters the eye, and all animals (other than Cephalopods I think have it).

The spot in the visual field that would correspond to the physiological blind spot anyway is covered by the contralateral eye.


Anyway, muslims don't believe that our engineering was meant to be perfect in this life, because this life is itself imperfect.
But the engineering we do find in nature is beyond any human capacity to ever recreate.

And that's straight truth.

If we could engineer even a single red blood cell.
One of the most uncomplicated of cells, as it straight up lacks a nucleus, then we would never require blood transfusions and no person would ever have to suffer thalassemia or anemia or hemorrhagic shock. But that's not the way it is.

We have to recognize the perfection of the Creator through the creation.

And true perfection and the full majesty of it all will be in the after life.

So what I'm trying to say is:

Nature is undeniably amazing. The creation of Allah even in this plane of existence is undeniably complex and astounding.

But the One who has created all this, describes it all to be close to worthless to Him, and He is not restricted from creating that which is much better, and InshaaAllah in the afterlife we will see that. But for now this should be enough to guide us to appreciate Him and worship Him alone.

In short:
This isn't even my final form bro! Lol

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson; and I hope you are enjoying the sunny weather,

Thanks, Eric. Yes, I have been enjoying the arrival of the British summer. Let's hope it lasts this time.

Since Pygoscelis has answered most of your points very capably, I'll confine myself to these:

If we were given two possible answers that 2+2=5, or 2+2=8, we could conclude that 2+2=5, because it is the least wrong explanation. If we accepted that 2+2 =5, we would then have to adjust our complete understanding of mathematics

If we were in a position where 2 + 2 = 5 was the best available approximation at the time, then it would indeed be the best answer for us to accept provisionally, until the arrival of better answers. The fact that the rest of our understanding of mathematics would need modifying is actually a good thing; a system of mathematics where 2 + 2 = 5 is clearly badly in need of modification!

Life exists, it had a beginning, and it has a history, the ToE sounds to me like the least wrong explanation, but it still has the word 'wrong' before explanation.

Every scientific theory or law is the "least wrong" one available at the time. Things like the law of gravity, which we might take for granted as being "correct", are in fact incomplete and imperfectly understood, and certainly capable of being revised and improved. The same is true of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I don't need faith to accept that 2+2=4, it is a proven fact.

It's actually not possible to prove that 2 + 2 = 4. At least, not without referring to further unproven axioms on which all of mathematics rests. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries this state of affairs caused great concern for mathematicians and philosophers, who attempted to discover a more solid foundation for mathematics, but this project was not successful.

Peace

 

[EgyptPrincess]

It's actually not possible to prove that 2 + 2 = 4.

Yes it is.

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf

Mathematics isn't subject to the same process as science. Once a statement is true, it is always true, unlike with science, as you rightly said.

Take the laws of gravity, we have a theory of gravity and a law of gravity. The theory is the why (which is never 100% true) and the law which is the how (mathematical) is always true.

 

[noraina]

In all honesty, we are not going to agree on this matter concerning the relationship between faith and science any time soon.

In most cases, scientific research is a way to understand the creation of Allah swt - they are two very different approaches to knowledge which complement and reinforce one another. Darwinism and the theory of human evolution sound weak, it's strongest evidence is hominid human-like skeletons and fossils dating back millennia, but similarity doesn't necessarily mean shared ancestry.

When I observe the natural world, and even when looking at the claims of human evolution, all the evidence points forward to an intelligent Creator. For you it is different, and I accept and can understand that, but for me it is clear evidence of intelligent design.

Science is there to only observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. I am not completely against the idea of evolution, adaptation and natural selection - but as with all scientific theories, it is one of many explanations of the observed patterns in creation.

And just as question, what do you guys think of Michael Behe?

 

[EgyptPrincess]

In all honesty, we are not going to agree on this matter concerning the relationship between faith and science any time soon.

In most cases, scientific research is a way to understand the creation of Allah swt - they are two very different approaches to knowledge which complement and reinforce one another. Darwinism and the theory of human evolution sound weak, it's strongest evidence is hominid human-like skeletons and fossils dating back millennia, but similarity doesn't necessarily mean shared ancestry.

When I observe the natural world, and even when looking at the claims of human evolution, all the evidence points forward to an intelligent Creator. For you it is different, and I accept and can understand that, but for me it is clear evidence of intelligent design.

Science is there to only observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. I am not completely against the idea of evolution, adaptation and natural selection - but as with all scientific theories, it is one of many explanations of the observed patterns in creation.

And just as question, what do you guys think of Michael Behe?

Ultimately whether we are right or wrong, Allah swt knows best and will forgive our mistakes Inshallah. The universe is unimaginably complex and we can only do our best to understand Allah swt's creation.

As for Michael Behe, I never knew who he was until now when I just googled him but I think there will always be scientists who disagree with certain things. It's basically like the general consensus, same with religion. 95% of Muslims don't agree with ISIS, but there are still 5% who do. 95% of scientists believe the theory of evolution is correct, but 5% do not.

You can never have 100% of the population of the world agree on something.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Yes it is.

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf

As I said, it is not possible to prove 2 + 2 = 4 without relying on unproven axioms, which is what this proof does.

Peace

 

[EgyptPrincess]

Greetings,



As I said, it is not possible to prove 2 + 2 = 4 without relying on unproven axioms, which is what this proof does.

Peace

How are they unproven? What you're essentially saying is that nothing can ever be proven because everything uses something unproven to prove something. Somethings are inherently true. 0 < 1 is true because it is. It doesn't need proving.

Would you go so far as to suggest that we cannot prove that 0 < 1? If you do then you live in a dream world.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

How are they unproven? What you're essentially saying is that nothing can ever be proven because everything uses something unproven to prove something. Somethings are inherently true. 0 < 1 is true because it is. It doesn't need proving.

Would you go so far as to suggest that we cannot prove that 0 < 1? If you do then you live in a dream world.

Your words suggest that you have never looked into this topic in any detail. I do not have the time or the inclination to teach you all about it, and we are off topic here anyway. If you are interested in learning more about it, then perhaps you could start by reading a page like this or a thread like this.

Peace

 

[EgyptPrincess]

Greetings,



Your words suggest that you have never looked into this topic in any detail. I do not have the time or the inclination to teach you all about it, and we are off topic here anyway. If you are interested in learning more about it, then perhaps you could start by reading a page like this or a thread like this.

Peace

The proof of Gödel's completeness theorem given by Kurt Gödel in his doctoral dissertation of 1929 (and a rewritten version of the dissertation, published as an article in 1930) is not easy to read today; it uses concepts and formalism that are no longer used and terminology that is often obscure

Yeah I think I'll pass. I suspect you're leaning towards the philosophical approach to mathematics which I do not care for. If we can state that a single axiom is true, then we can prove others.

If A = A then A = A. This is probably the most simple basic one I can think of.


If A = B then B must equal A.
If A = B and B = C then C = A

Take your philosophy nonsense somewhere else. Acting like a philosopher doesn't make you a philosopher, it makes you a wannabe.

 

[jabeady]

If we were in a position where 2 + 2 = 5 was the best available approximation at the time, then it would indeed be the best answer for us to accept provisionally, until the arrival of better answers. The fact that the rest of our understanding of mathematics would need modifying is actually a good thing; a system of mathematics where 2 + 2 = 5 is clearly badly in need of modification!

Every scientific theory or law is the "least wrong" one available at the time. Things like the law of gravity, which we might take for granted as being "correct", are in fact incomplete and imperfectly understood, and certainly capable of being revised and improved. The same is true of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I hope you don't mind if I butt in, but I don't like the term "least wrong" as it is being applied here. In mathematics we intentionally use incorrect amounts all the time, not because they are "least wrong," but because they are "close enough." The value of pi, for example, cannot be expressed accurately because, in theory, it goes on forever. 3.14 or, more rarely, 22/7, is used because it is close enough for what we need.

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.

The problem, as I see it, with claiming some sort of intelligence, especially an all-knowing intelligence, behind a design is that it has to be designed intelligently. Presumably, a perfect intelligence would come up with a perfect design. Further, since many religions claim humans are the Creator's supreme design, then it would follow that humans are designed supremely well. I'm not going to attempt a catalog of the flaws in human design, they are all too self-evident, but the only one capable of destroying the species as a whole is our intelligence. If human intelligence is indeed a fatal flaw in evolution, natural selection will eventually take care of the problem; if it is the result of divine intervention in the universe, the Designer is just going to have to live with it because, if you'll remember, we are the best He could do, we are His crowning achievement.

Just my two cents.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Yeah I think I'll pass. I suspect you're leaning towards the philosophical approach to mathematics which I do not care for.

Please forgive me. I didn't realise that your own personal opinion on the matter was the criterion of truth here.

Good day to you.

I hope you don't mind if I butt in, but I don't like the term "least wrong" as it is being applied here.

I think we are talking about different things. I'm in full agreement with everything else you say in your post.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

Peace

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady; and welcome to the forum,

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.

Single cell life was good enough three billion years ago, so why should it evolve into millions of species?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

 

[EgyptPrincess]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady; and welcome to the forum,


Single cell life was good enough three billion years ago, so why should it evolve into millions of species?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Because the conditions of Earth changed. Life wants to survive, there's a reason animals don't commit suicide... it's not in the interest of the species.

So when life first arose it was just single celled organisms but then as Earth changes, life also needs to change and thus evolution starts.

 

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady; and welcome to the forum,


Single cell life was good enough three billion years ago, so why should it evolve into millions of species?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

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.

 

[Cpt.America]

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.

The existence of viruses would beg to differ.

Terribly rebellious buggers they are.

 

[jabeady]

Excuse me?

 

[Cpt.America]

Excuse me?

Current evolutionary theory holds that viruses evolved from bacteria.

Viruses are nonliving and unable to reproduce.

So life progressed to nonlife.

But for reals, viruses just don't make any sense existing. Doesn't stop them from messing is pretty bad all the same lol.

It's pretty insane when you think about it. A nonliving material straight up hacking your cells.

 

[jabeady]

Current evolutionary theory holds that viruses evolved[/] from bacteria.

Fixed that for you. ;D

Viruses are nonliving and unable to reproduce.

So life progressed to nonlife.

But for reals, viruses just don't make any sense existing. Doesn't stop them from messing is pretty bad all the same lol.

It's pretty insane when you think about it. A nonliving material straight up hacking your cells.

Evolution doesn't take into account the theory of Panspermia, the idea that organic material is brought to earth by comets and meteors. I only mention this as a possible source of viruses.