It says both hands, and it is to tell satan to respect, since Allah has made Adam with both hands. It is again driving a point, cannot be taken a proof for the argument.
That is not the correct definition. It just means organisms change, and some survive and some go extinct. Changes doesn't guarantee any particular direction for evolution, it is unpredictable. ToE is a very big theory with many sub theories, and it has dogma and debates, because it is not exact science. It matches some information in Islam some places and some places it may not seem to agree. Where it matches is like life originated from water, in Quran origination of life is also water. Allah says he replace us if we don't follow his guidance. That is the warning for human nations, but if you take that to ToE biggest example comes to mind is dinosaurs. Big creatures, nobody could oppose them, ruled the earth for thousands of years, but one single event put them into disadvantage and replaced them with creatures who were less than them in stature.
:It goes wee bit against the point made in the Quran. I'll quote a brother who made the point very clearly:It's possible to read the Qur'an in a way that makes it seem like there could have been a sort of guided evolution, so in this regard the Qur'an/Islam is better equipped to deal with evolution compared to Christianity. However, there are many ways to look at different verses, and the traditional view is that Humans were created as a special, separate creation, but the creation of animals could be evolution or something else. One way you can think of it is like this: A master sword maker lets his apprentice create the swords for normal orders, but he still takes credit for them... But when the King makes a request for a special sword, the sword maker takes it upon himself to make this one himself, even though his apprentices could have made it and nobody would have known the difference. I'm not saying this is the right way to look at it, but it's one way that could help see one interpretation.
It's not a very important point though. Fact is that we can't know for sure how man came to be (the details anyway). It's not something you need to dwell on for too long...
I ardently disagree with this statement. Evolution is completely inadequate in explaining the origin of the species from a unicellular, prokaryotic common ancestor. I don't disagree with 'evolutionary' changes within a species such as the differences in the tortoises or the finches on the different islands of the Galapagos, but I would imagine that tortoises with different shell shapes or finches with different beaks are still sexually compatible. My perspective is that evolutionists go too far in how much they claim ToE adequately explains the origin of different species. Horses and donkeys are very similar and they produce a viable, but sterile mule. The horse and donkey differ in chromosomal number due to a Robertsonian fusion that results in abnormal chromosomal pairing in meiosis and near complete male sterility. In order for this fused chromosome to become homozygous then two individuals with exactly the same mutation must find and mate with each other.
Sorry, but no, ToE does not show that a Creator is unnecessary. ToE (as you know it) is completely incompatible with Islam because it does not acknowledge the fact that a Creator was required. I would be more receptive to ToE discussions if the so-called scientists were more honest in admitting the deficiencies of ToE along with examples of the frequencies that I mentioned above. I get particularly irate when so-called scientists use honest scientific facts in half-truths to make exaggerated claims for the validity of ToE exclusively by natural means.
My point is valid in that to go from one species to another, there would have to be individuals with characteristics of both the ancestor and the descendant species with the descendant species having a selective advantage that displaced both the ancestral and the transitional species.
The changes are directional in that it must have a selective advantage to become ascendant. I agree that it is 'not an exact science'.
My biggest beef (complaint) with ToE is its insistence on the absence of Allah (swt) from the process.
I am unclear as to your point about Jesus (as) in reference to evolution; however, my understanding is that Jesus (as) being born to a virgin came about in the same means that Adam (as) did. My point is that Jesus (as) most definitely did not arise through evolutionary processes and, therefore, the Quranic evidence is that neither did Adam (as), but rather Allah (swt) said, "Be!" and he was created.
I agree with the first part and slightly disagree with the last part.
I slightly disagree with that, because selective advantage is based on environmental factors, and they don't have any direction. For example, dinosaurs we believe are extinct but it is possible they might be alive on some remote Island where environment was suitable for their survival. So evolution doesn't have any direction in essence, and I'm not sure evolution is the right word. It is just about looking at the data about life (mainly fossil records) we have and trying to understand it. It has many problems in critical areas, and atheist who come to argue don't even understand the theory, they just read some books and go to popular ToE sites. It is not easy to drive conclusions from fossil data, and it may even not be accurate. One historical example is here: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof88.htm
Well, atheist seems to have hijacked ToE, but their complaint is that God is not falsifiable scientifically. Which is true for any other scientific theory.
Your understanding is correct, but I have two sub points:
A central tenet of ToE is 'survival of the fittest' which implies that the most fit will survive while others do not. However, this selective advantage may be limited to a certain environment that may actually be disadvantageous in others. The example is the different finches on the Galapagos Islands that had beaks conducive to feeding on plants specific to each island.
It is very unlikely that a T.rex colony exists on some remote island, but that is not to say that different environments exert different selection pressure on the available genetic variation and diversity.
I agree that the involvement of Allah (swt) in the existence of existing and extinct life forms is not subject to the scientific method. Yet evolutionists insist on the validity of ToE without pointing out or even admitting to the inadequacies and deficiencies of ToE with a qualifying statement that subsequent scientific evidence may or may not shed additional light on the subject.
I had started a thread on this very subject http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...ure-jesus-alayhi-salam-birth.html#post1409315
I rather liked that article.
Did you read my post about the difference between a horse and a donkey with my conclusion that the 'naturalistic evolution' of even a single mutational difference between the two species is so mathematically impossible as to make it definitely dependent upon Allah (swt) as Creator and Designer for even this very small change to have come about? The further implication is that the cascade of huge differences from a so-called 'common ancestor' to the various life forms makes the absence of Allah (swt) a mathematical impossibility. Rather than disprove the existence of Allah (swt), the absurdity of naturalistic ToE strengthens my faith in Allah (swt) as the Creator.
As a Muslim, what role do you see that Allah (swt) played in abiogenesis and the subsequent arrival of various species? Do you believe that Allah (swt) is the Creator, Sustainer and Lord of the universe and all that exists or did it all arise naturally without the design, direction and control of a Higher Being?
This is a good point, but I am unclear as to why atheists feel a need to disprove "God did it". I see that an agnostic approach to be more reasonable than an atheistic one. I am OK with some one saying, "I believe that mankind evolved through natural selection that exploited the genetic and biological variation that arose through mutations, genetic recombinations and such, but we do not adequately understand the details for how this happened." To me ToE is little more than a belief system that plays loose with scientific facts and terminology to convince the uneducated of its veracity.
I admit that I do not know the details of how the species arose, but I am convinced that a Higher Power was and is required.But there will always be gaps in our knowledge, so there will always be room for "God did it" and atheists will never be able to fully show that God isn't required to explain it. In the end the only truly honest answer is "I don't know" but not many want to admit that
It is not, actually it is response to Atheist "God of the gaps" attitude. I usually see atheist on forums and facebook, whenever there is a process explained scientifically, say look there is no God it happens because of this and that. Well, process doesn't mean there is no Creator, hence, it is false dichotomy.It is the inverse of the god of the gaps. Theists fill gaps in our understanding with "God did it" and atheists look for natural explanations to show that God isn't needed. But there will always be gaps in our knowledge, so there will always be room for "God did it" and atheists will never be able to fully show that God isn't required to explain it. In the end the only truly honest answer is "I don't know" but not many want to admit that
Yup, because explanation of something with process behind it doesn't mean there is no Creator. You are using a PC, it has processes, doesn't mean it has no Creator, simple as that. Read article I quoted, it is about this issue.