Evolution - Creationism

wilberhum said:
Evolution is based in Science. Creationism is based on mythology.
Evolution is based on facts. Creationism is based on faith.

Fact of fiction, that's an easy choice.
Click to expand...

How did you come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is based on facts? Can you elaborate?
 
rebelishaulman said:
How did you come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is based on facts? Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...
There are millions of facts that support evolution. I assume that you don't understand the concept of a "Scientific Theory". If not, you are debating against what you don't understand.
 
I am a medical student, and its pretty hard to deny the fact that our bodies contain gene sequences that are identical to those in bacteria. However, as a Muslim I find it quite possible to believe in both. The Quran says Allah created life from water, which agrees with science. It also says he created Adam and Eve, which I believe as well. There is nothing in the Quran that says there did not exist predecesors that share many qualities with humans before humans were created. But I think the development of Humans was separate event. Science can explain a lot in evolution, but there are a ton of complex human brain processes not seen in any other animals, that I think are gifts from Allah.
 
There are millions of facts that support evolution. I assume that you don't understand the concept of a "Scientific Theory". If not, you are debating against what you don't understand.
Click to expand...

Those of us who want to study the creation/evolution debate need to understand the "dating" methods used in "historical geology" and the assumptions involved.

Do you pocess any knowledge in how things are "dated". If so, how can you call them facts?
 
In the first place, we would like to stress that Allah is the Absolute Controller of every event that has taken place, is taking place, and will take place.

Every living thing in the universe has been given life by Allah, and Allah alone is sustaining every second of its life. If a species survives better than another in a particular environment, it is because Allah allowed it to live more days, and He willed for its posterity to continue.

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, states the following:

There are many theories of evolution. Some of them are acceptable according to Islam, while there are others that are not acceptable. If by evolution one means the development and growth that Allah Almighty has placed in the nature of His creation, then this is acceptable and the Qur'an itself talks about it.

Allah has power to say "Be" and everything will become. But He created the heaven and earth in six days, as mentioned in the Qur'an (Al-A'raf 7:54; Yunus 10:3; Hud 11:7; Al-Furqan 25:59; As-Sajdah 32:4; Qaf 50:38; Al-Hadid 57:4; Al-Mujadilah 58:4).

The word "six days" does not necessarily mean six days of twenty-four hours duration each. It could also mean six periods whose duration is known to Allah alone. The word "day" is used in the Qur'an for various lengths or periods of time. It could mean 24 hours, or one thousand years (Al-Hajj 22:47) or fifty thousand years (Al-Ma`arij 70:4) or even more. However, this process of time does indicate some kind of evolution that was created by Allah and directed by Him.

The theory of evolution that postulates that the whole creation came by itself and nature evolved itself by mutation, selection and fixation, et cetera, is not acceptable in Islam. This is an atheistic theory and it has no sensible rational and logical foundation. Everyone knows that nature has so many possibilities and variables; how could all these variables have selected, mutated and fixed themselves in such a way that an orderly universe came out and continues to exist and flourish?

To say that all these things happened by themselves is nothing but absurd. It is like saying that words collapsed, mutated and then fixed into a wonderful encyclopedia by themselves. Or books mutated themselves and then fixed into a well-organized library. Nothing happened or happens by itself. There is a Creator Who has created everything, whether at once or through the process of growth and development.

Islam also teaches us that human beings are a special creation of Allah. Allah created Adam and his wife Eve (peace and blessings be upon them), and then through them created many men and women. We do not accept the theory (it is important to keep in mind that this is only a theory and not a fact) that says that all living organisms came from matter and man evolved from lower living organisms. There is a link between the human body and other living organisms, but this does not prove that one is evolved from the other.
Read Quran with deep understanding and authentic hadiths such as Bukhari, Muslim etc.

Allah Almighty knows best.
 
You just can't resist can you wilberhum.
Evolution based on facts? Give me one fact that proves common descent.
Evolution is scientific? Ok, then falsify it, then show me empirical testing, then present me mechanistic theories.

Just one of each will do :)
 
The word "six days" does not necessarily mean six days of twenty-four hours duration each. It could also mean six periods whose duration is known to Allah alone.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. The Torah clearly states "6 days". I am not sure what the Quran teaches if the Torah is right on creation or not. But saying that 6 days does not mean 6 days is really odd, and many apologists will say this.

Imagine if I said this:

Islam also teaches us that human beings are a special creation of Allah.
Click to expand...

By "special" you really mean "equal" to other animals. Saying 6 days equals billions of year makes no sense. Can you point to me where your holy book says a day can be a year?
 
wilberhum said:
There are millions of facts that support evolution. I assume that you don't understand the concept of a "Scientific Theory". If not, you are debating against what you don't understand.
Click to expand...

Theory means it can be disproved. It means it is not a fact. A fact is like one of the Laws of Physics. So far nobody has been able to disprove the Newton's Laws of Gravity or the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

If Evolution theory is a fact it means it cannot be disproved nor disputed. It would be called Law of Evolution or Darwin's Laws. For the time being there's no such thing. It is being debated over and over again. It means it still isn't a fact.

Get your facts right.
 
rebelishaulman said:
Can you point to me where your holy book says a day can be a year?
Click to expand...

"Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning." (Qur'an 22:47)
 
chris4336 said:
I am a medical student, and its pretty hard to deny the fact that our bodies contain gene sequences that are identical to those in bacteria. However, as a Muslim I find it quite possible to believe in both. The Quran says Allah created life from water, which agrees with science. It also says he created Adam and Eve, which I believe as well. There is nothing in the Quran that says there did not exist predecesors that share many qualities with humans before humans were created. But I think the development of Humans was separate event. Science can explain a lot in evolution, but there are a ton of complex human brain processes not seen in any other animals, that I think are gifts from Allah.
Click to expand...

Very good point. Not many religious people realize that their belief systems may not be in conflict with evolutionary theory. They just see evolution and knee jerk "Oh that can't be!"

It is refreshing to see an outlier. I think more such outliers are inevitable with a better educated populace.
 
Evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence pieced together to suggest it, which is why it is pretty close to being unversally accepted by biologists. There are few if any remaining who still doubt that it is part of how we came to be.

That being said, it isn't 100% for sure. Little in science is. And there are still a lot of questions about how it happens and how it happened. We're improving out knowledge about it all the time, but I doubt we'll ever have the complete picture.

Creation is exactly the opposite. It offers you the complete picture. Religion in general plays this role, answering all of life's unanswered or unanswerable questions. I very much doubt that any religion has the picture right, but I'm not sure that really matters in the end. It offers what science can not, and so it will always be around and accepted.
 
Pygoscelis said:
Evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence pieced together to suggest it, which is why it is pretty close to being unversally accepted by biologists. There are few if any remaining who still doubt that it is part of how we came to be.

That being said, it isn't 100% for sure. Little in science is. And there are still a lot of questions about how it happens and how it happened. We're improving out knowledge about it all the time, but I doubt we'll ever have the complete picture.

Creation is exactly the opposite. It offers you the complete picture. Religion in general plays this role, answering all of life's unanswered or unanswerable questions. I very much doubt that any religion has the picture right, but I'm not sure that really matters in the end. It offers what science can not, and so it will always be around and accepted.
Click to expand...


You must understand the difference between scientists and science itself:

Once should never confuse science with scientists. Science is knowledge; scientists are people, complete with their own agendas, weaknesses, and dishonesties. Their PhD’s do not make them any more moral or honest or objective than truck drivers.*

And so, the “proof” cited for evolution by scientists, from so-called “vestigial” organs, that is organs in the human body (and animals bodies) that have no purpose, but are similar in design to a organ in an animal that does have a purpose, shows that our bodies are later vesions of those animal bodies, and those organs are kind of “left overs” from the olden days when we needed them.
‘
Here is an example of how scientists like to make believe that their own words, even if unsubstantiated and unverified, constitute “science”.

Of course, there is no scientific evidence that any organ has no purpose.
The most scientists can say is that they have not found a purpose. As if the fact that they haven’t found a purpose means that there is none. As in the above example, they have been wrong many times, even when they were so sure of themselves. This is why, not long ago, they would cut out your tonsils if they got inflamed with tonsillitis. They were so sure that because they could not find a use for the tonsils, that means there is no use, that they would actually remove hundreds of thousands of them from the human body as if they were, well, useless organs. The scientists have made several other mistakes in this area as well, relying on their arrogance to conclude that “Since WE don’t know of a purpose for this organ, therefore, it has no purpose”

How arrogant, and how ridiculous!

Here is where the Torah’s view of science diverges from that of the scientists.

Says the Rambam: “How does one come to love and fear Him? When one ponders His actions and His creations, and sees in them intelligence that has no measure and no end.” (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 2:2)

The wisdom of Hashem Himself is manifest in the wonderful world we live in, and since His wisdom is infinite, the wisdom contained in the world is infinite.

And so, no matter how much wisdom scientists discover in the universe, it is nothing compared to what they have not yet discovered . Therefore, the idea that “if we big shot scientists, with our great knowledge of the universe, cannot find a purpose for this organ, it must have no purpose”

Scientists may understand a lot, but compared to what there is to understand, they know nothing. The scientist – not science, but the scientist, in his arrogance – has no idea how much more he has yet to discover, how wonderful and immeasurable and boundless are the wonders of Hashem’s world.

And the fact that these organs “are similar” in structure to organs in other animals does nto constitute any evidence of one organ “descending” from the other. The real reason why organs a resimilar in different species is because they were made by the same Designer. A nickel is similar to a quarter but it doesn’t mean one evlved form the other. This reasoning of theirs, that similarity in structure and appearance implies a relationship is based on the assumption that there is no single designer for both. Once you take the Designer out of the picture, it is indeed a weird coincidence that two organs in apparently unrelated species, one of which seems not to have a purpose, bears an uncanny similarity to the other. The “logic” of evolution – what of it that can be called logic – is all based on the assumption that there is no Creator. Now the quesiotn is: IF there is no creator, how did we get here? IF there is no Creator, then why do these ogans seems so similar? The entire nonsense is only assumptions and wishful thinking, not logic or reason.

Science is infinite. Scientists are finite. For scientists to say that because they do not see intelligence in an organ therefore there must be no intelligence is not base on any scientific evidence; it is nothgin but the asusumption of the scientists, based on the arrogant idea that if they don’t see it, it’s not there.

Such an attitude does not honor science; it reduces science to a discoverable, finite subject matter, whose llimits are somehow measurable by the yardstick of what “scientists” have figured out. None of that is the result of any scientific evidence at all – just the arrogance of the scientist.
 
It makes logical sense that if an organ is removed and there are no adverse consequences, then it was a useless organ. Do the study on animals similar to humans, rats then maybe monkeys, and measure the results over the remaining lifespan. If there is no significant difference between the goup that had it removed and the control group, then any purpose the organ had was meaningless. No?

The utility of approach certainly beats listening to the folk tales of some farmers and fishers of a hundreds of years past. Jehova's winesses follow their interpretation of what one of those goat herders wrote, and refuse blood tranfusions. They sometimes die as a result. Then there are faith healers :)
 
Pygoscelis said:
It makes logical sense that if an organ is removed and there are no adverse consequences, then it was a useless organ.
Click to expand...

It certainly does not make any logical sense. Our understanding of the human body, is not deep enough to be able to say 'because we see no consequences these consequences do not exist'. In the early 1900's, you could find thousands of statements that dispute our current findings. Scientists are assuming something. It by no means makes it a fact with their limited understanding.
 
rebelishaulman said:
It certainly does not make any logical sense. Our understanding of the human body, is not deep enough to be able to say 'because we see no consequences these consequences do not exist'.
Click to expand...

You're right. We can't say that consequences do not exist. Only that they do not make any meaningful difference, as observed and compared between the experimental and control groups.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top