Is Evolution Compatible with Islam?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

In Islam, learning knowledge is encouraged - else we would not have had our golden age. Shame about the Mongol magogs doing away with all that. But that's another thread.

Yes, the Qur'an encourages Muslims to seek knowledge. Does it specify or limit what kind of knowledge?

How entertaining are you?

I will leave the judgement on that question in your capable hands.

Sometimes, faulty theories work up to a point, until they are disproven completely and replaced by better theories, which in turn can also be disproven that's science. So I don't put much faith in "human evolution" as I have seen no providential information for it.

I am aware of how science progresses. Your last sentence doesn't follow from the other things you've said. Evolution is the best theory we have right now to explain human development, and it will remain so until contradictory evidence or a new and better theory emerges.

Not required to be explained by science. But human memory. Most traditions in the world, from South America to China and all inbetween believe in the "prime pairing" who were created by God!!!

So? Does that mean it's true?

It's an axiomatic belief which doesn't require proving with science, same way one cannot prove with science that you know for a fact that you had a great great great great great grandmother - we accept we had one because it's an axiom! No science required!

Deductive reasoning is sufficient to prove you had a great great great great great grandmother; it is not enough to prove that all humans descended from a single mating pair.

Not to mention Occams Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the best. Over complicating things without merit is akin to focusing on the finger and losing all the heavenly glory - to quote Bruce Lee lol, but he made a solid point as an atheist (the irony isn't lost on me lol)

If you trust Occam's Razor, then forgive me for asking, but why do you believe in God? Instead of admitting that you don't know how the universe came to be, you assert the existence of a being more complex than anything that has ever been observed. That couldn't be much more contrary to Occam's Razor, surely?

And Muslims believe that every nation was sent Prophets and Messengers

Are you now going to claim that Thales of Miletus was an Islamic prophet? Because, if so, you know I'm going to ask you for evidence of that.

Indian mathematics and sciences, Chinese medicine and sciences, African medicine sciences, etc etc etc - all because Allah encourages the Muslim to seek knowledge which "benefits"!!!

I'm not sure what your claim is here.

We agree!

Sometimes we do. I think in general I'm more inclined to find evidence for the assertions I make, however. You're excellent value, though, and your inquisitive nature is very beneficial for those who read you on the forum. Long may you run. :shade:

Peace

Greetings,

Her post is a little confusing. It sounds like she believes we did not evolve but states that evolution could still be possible.

I can see how the post makes sense on its own terms. I think the confusion comes from the fact that once you allow miracles, then anything is possible, whether it appears to makes sense or not.

Peace

Greetings,

We're talking about evolution and its compatibility with islam - not miraculous births

Yes, and umie has just provided a perfect way of reconciling the two - as long as you believe in miracles.

Peace

 

[AabiruSabeel]

Does it specify or limit what kind of knowledge?

Why do you even ask that? Futile questions are not allowed.

Deductive reasoning is sufficient to prove you had a great great great great great grandmother; it is not enough to prove that all humans descended from a single mating pair.

It seems you have not done your homework. Recent scientific research has shown that all human beings descend from a common ancestral pair of a man and a woman, Adam :as: and Hawwa :as:.

See http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/562
and http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/465 [SUP]1[/SUP]

Allah :swt: has already said that He has created us all from a single man and a woman.

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). [49:30]

There were no other human-like apes who later became humans. Whatever type of apes were there at the time of Adam :as:, you can also find those types of apes present today. Have they all evolved into humans? If that was the case, you wouldn't find any apes present today.

Surely, Allah :swt: will show them all the signs and these scientists will have eventually realize the truth which was already revealed by Allah.

Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things? [Fussilat: 53]



--
1. For anyone wondering what the correction is, it is a minor spelling correction and it says there on that page:

“Y weigh in again on modern humans” by R. L. Cann (2 August, p. 465). In the figure, Denisovians should have been spelled Denisovans. The HTML and PDF versions online have been corrected.​

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Why do you even ask that? Futile questions are not allowed.

I asked because I was curious to know the answer. Why do you think it's a futile question?

It seems you have not done your homework. Recent scientific research has shown that all human beings descend from a common ancestral pair of a man and a woman, Adam :as: and Hawwa :as:.

You are talking about genetic Adam and mitochondrial Eve. They are quite different from the Adam and Eve mentioned in scripture. For one thing, they were certainly not the first humans to exist. Also, most researchers believe they existed thousands of years apart. You have managed to find two papers that suggest they may have coexisted, give or take thirty thousand years or so. This could well be true, but more research and evidence is needed before this idea becomes a part of mainstream science. It will also take a lot more than deductive reasoning, which was my original claim that you were supposed to be responding to.

There were no other human-like apes who later became humans.

If you can provide compelling evidence for this claim, you might win a Nobel prize. It would change modern biology fundamentally.

Whatever type of apes were there at the time of Adam :as:, you can also find those types of apes present today. Have they all evolved into humans? If that was the case, you wouldn't find any apes present today.

I can only invite you to learn more about the topic.

Peace

 

[AabiruSabeel]

You are talking about genetic Adam and mitochondrial Eve. They are quite different from the Adam and Eve mentioned in scripture. For one thing, they were certainly not the first humans to exist. Also, most researchers believe they existed thousands of years apart. You have managed to find two papers that suggest they may have coexisted, give or take thirty thousand years or so. This could well be true, but more research and evidence is needed before this idea becomes a part of mainstream science. It will also take a lot more than deductive reasoning, which was my original claim that you were supposed to be responding to.

If you can provide compelling evidence for this claim, you might win a Nobel prize. It would change modern biology fundamentally.

See this thread again: How science fails to explain complete truth

Science is still somewhere in between and it has not arrived at the final result until now. Whereas we already have the final answer revealed to us in the Qur'an that Adam and Hawwa were the first human beings on earth.

The papers that I have referred are from the Science journal, which is one of top journals in the world. Only the best researches get published there after undergoing a thorough review process. A language and arts teacher wouldn't know what it takes to publish a paper in a scientific journal.

You can continue to undermine our responses as much as you want, but one thing is clear, ultimately all of them will arrive at the same conclusion which is already revealed by Allah :swt:.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

See this thread again: How science fails to explain complete truth

Science is still somewhere in between and it has not arrived at the final result until now. Whereas we already have the final answer revealed to us in the Qur'an that Adam and Hawwa were the first human beings on earth.

The papers that I have referred are from the Science journal, which is one of top journals in the world. Only the best researches get published there after undergoing a thorough review process. A language and arts teacher wouldn't know what it takes to publish a paper in a scientific journal.

You can continue to undermine our responses as much as you want, but one thing is clear, ultimately all of them will arrive at the same conclusion which is already revealed by Allah :swt:.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about, regarding science or my knowledge of it. Trying to educate you on the topic is proving difficult, so I shall leave it to others to respond to you if you choose to make any further contributions to this discussion.

Peace

 

[BurningHeart]

See this thread again: How science fails to explain complete truth

Science is still somewhere in between and it has not arrived at the final result until now. Whereas we already have the final answer revealed to us in the Qur'an that Adam and Hawwa were the first human beings on earth.

The papers that I have referred are from the Science journal, which is one of top journals in the world. Only the best researches get published there after undergoing a thorough review process. A language and arts teacher wouldn't know what it takes to publish a paper in a scientific journal.

You can continue to undermine our responses as much as you want, but one thing is clear, ultimately all of them will arrive at the same conclusion which is already revealed by Allah :swt:.

It is certainly not easy to publish a paper on reputed journal. And what is stared is point on.

One of our papers has been long overdue to be published. I noticed it requires some cross examination by external people who are expert in that field. For example this paper was about the study of detection of carbon fiber composites via NDT.

The in charge of journal, Dr Tom Hanks, has still not gone through the review process completely to allow it to be published.

What I really do find interesting is that there were works published within the journal that were convincing in writings and display but the data collected and its discussion was contradictory to the conclusion. Either it is was our short coming of not understanding the papers correctly or it was so that these papers were given a free ticket to be published?

It did raise questions, if you have connections in the field of research you can get free tickets for your work to be published in good journals. While quality works of other people can be neglected.

There is a possibility of bias of a certain mentality to be endorsed within the papers being published in a journal by the cross examiners.

If anyone does not believes it, I invite them to enter any field of research and witness it for yourself.

I have personally given up trying to study further on topics such as evolution. Because there is a sense of bias and blind faith involved. Certain mentality does seems to be forced to pass through to allow certain papers to be published. There are always opening towards it.

I do find intriguing how people, especially those that propagate evolution, quote scientists on their findings. It does raises a question isn't this blind faith? We have not seen the practical data that was being retrieved in the experiments but they are just displayed. No one can confirm if there is honesty involved in the process or not.

Another point is people quickly jump to read the conclusions of the journals instead of analysing the data and its analysis critical. Which means questioning it, very few do tho.

Al hamdulillah it is a blessing that Islam gives the final ultimate answers to the questions. Science has a long way to go to reach the ultimate point, and who knows we may all be dead by then the thing is people who will always look upon science will not be able to reach the final conclusion by the time they will pass away.

 

[keiv]

Yes, the Qur'an encourages Muslims to seek knowledge. Does it specify or limit what kind of knowledge?

Seeking knowledge is what leads people to turn to Islam. Its those who limit themselves (whether through bias, ignorance, or even arrogance) that are holding themselves back.

I can see how the post makes sense on its own terms. I think the confusion comes from the fact that once you allow miracles, then anything is possible, whether it appears to makes sense or not.

Peace

Good, maybe you can help explain what she was saying because I certainly cannot see humans in their present form living amongst evolving human-like-apes. Also, do you think using theories, which we know can change at any time, is any better at explaining things? Because anything can be possible with that as well without making sense. State a theory that a particle smaller than the dot on this screen started everything we know to exist today 14 billion years ago all on its own.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Seeking knowledge is what leads people to turn to Islam. Its those who limit themselves (whether through bias, ignorance, or even arrogance) that are holding themselves back.

You didn't answer my question, but I agree (if I'm understanding you correctly), placing limits on the search for knowledge is not good in general.

Good, maybe you can help explain what she was saying because I certainly cannot see humans in their present form living amongst evolving human-like-apes.

I interpret umie as saying that she believes in evolution among plants and animals because the evidence for it is overwhelming, but she doesn't believe in human evolution and accounts for it by asserting the miraculous creation of Adam.

Also, do you think using theories, which we know can change at any time, is any better at explaining things?

Better than what?

You have scientific theories to thank for the technology that enables us to have this conversation now.

Because anything can be possible with that as well without making sense.

Anything is possible apart from the things we know to be impossible.

State a theory that a particle smaller than the dot on this screen started everything we know to exist today 14 billion years ago all on its own.

The Big Bang theory. It's incomplete, but it's the best theory we have, and it's improving all the time.

Peace

 

[Ümit]

Start a topic on the miraculous nature of Jesus pbuh's birth, and you will be in your element.

Here? this thread is about the compatibility of evolution with Muslims! You're way off the mark. And beating dead horses!

@czigibson, i'll be around for another few hours if you wish to continue !

It is not about Jesus pbuh's birth. that was just an example explaining how miracles does not have to change natural processes like reproduction process or evolution.

but again, nevermind...you are starting to get rude, trying to be funny by saying I should start another topic...that bothers me.

If you are not willing to look at this issue from other viewpoints than say it...you do not have to mock me.

Are you saying its possible that apes were still in the process of evolving to humans while Adam and Eve (pbut) were on the Earth? So humans and evolving apes were living together?

In that case, some of us are descendants of evolved apes while others are descendants of Adam and Eve (pbut)?

Or are you saying that evolution stopped once Adam (pbuh) was created? If that's the case, what happened to the evolved apes who were almost human like?

For the record, I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

[/QUOTE]
No, that would be kufr. all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. evolution of apes until Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve being "descendants of apes" with a miracle so that they could come to earth without a birth. after that, only descendants of Adam and Eve.

What happened to evolving apes who existed shortly before Adam and Eve? I don't know. maybe they got extinct?

Again, I am not trying claim that evolution took place...I am saying that it is plausible. I do not have all the questions to this.

 

[Ümit]

Greetings,

I interpret umie as saying that she believes in evolution among plants and animals because the evidence for it is overwhelming, but she doesn't believe in human evolution and accounts for it by asserting the miraculous creation of Adam.

Peace

I do not believe in evolution in the same way as I believe in Allah. Evolution is a theory..which changes through time with new discoveries. But it is very plausible and it is the best explanation we have, so I do support evolution.

you also do not believe in the laws of Newton or archimedes. yes, these laws are pretty accurate at we came this far with our science and technology thanks to them...but nevertheless that still is an approximation of reality at some point.

I also support human evolution to some point...we are not a complete new species...we still have too much in common with other animals...but I do think Allah interfered in this process by the creation of Adam pbuh without a birth. like giving a little final push in the right direction.

And I believe the human evolution is still going on. for example the first humans lived for 1000 years...like Adam as and Noah as and some other prophets if I am not wrong.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

Evolution is the best theory we have right now to explain human development,

I agree with you, I think it is a wonderful understanding as to how life adjusts to its surroundings.

I still believe that God created all the species according to their kind. Once they have been created, I think the theory of evolution provides a good scientific explanation as to how species survive together.

The theory suffers in my opinion, when it is used to extrapolate back a few billion years to single cell life. I have tried to keep an open mind as to how the eye and the skeleton may have evolved, but the explanations I have read do not seem convincing. I picked out the eye and the skeleton, because they are essentially mechanical objects, and I have some understanding about how they work.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[keiv]

Greetings,


You didn't answer my question, but I agree (if I'm understanding you correctly), placing limits on the search for knowledge is not good in general.

To answer your question, no.

Better than what?
You have scientific theories to thank for the technology that enables us to have this conversation now.
Anything is possible apart from the things we know to be impossible.
The Big Bang theory. It's incomplete, but it's the best theory we have, and it's improving all the time.

Peace

Is the theory of evolution better at explaining our (human) beginning than the creationists (Islamic in this case) explanation? Depends on who you ask right? With the theory of evolution (not absolute), anything is possible whether it makes sense or not. In terms of what I said about theories, that was meant for the theory of evolution, specifically our beginnings is where I was getting at. From an Islamic point of view, we view our creation as absolute being that we were born from Adam and Eve. From a scientific point of view, the theory is that our ancestors were ape like creatures millions of years ago and before them, they were a different species and so on and so forth all leading to the very beginning. I don't know if science will ever catch up, but I do agree with you in the fact that it's getting better

No, that would be kufr. all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. evolution of apes until Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve being "descendants of apes" with a miracle so that they could come to earth without a birth. after that, only descendants of Adam and Eve.

What happened to evolving apes who existed shortly before Adam and Eve? I don't know. maybe they got extinct?

Again, I am not trying claim that evolution took place...I am saying that it is plausible. I do not have all the questions to this.

I do not believe in evolution in the same way as I believe in Allah. Evolution is a theory..which changes through time with new discoveries. But it is very plausible and it is the best explanation we have, so I do support evolution.

you also do not believe in the laws of Newton or archimedes. yes, these laws are pretty accurate at we came this far with our science and technology thanks to them...but nevertheless that still is an approximation of reality at some point.

I also support human evolution to some point...we are not a complete new species...we still have too much in common with other animals...but I do think Allah interfered in this process by the creation of Adam pbuh without a birth. like giving a little final push in the right direction.

And I believe the human evolution is still going on. for example the first humans lived for 1000 years...like Adam as and Noah as and some other prophets if I am not wrong.

This?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=539&v=xFXxJva_99c

 

[Ümit]

To answer your question, no.




Is the theory of evolution better at explaining our (human) beginning than the creationists (Islamic in this case) explanation? Depends on who you ask right? With the theory of evolution (not absolute), anything is possible whether it makes sense or not. In terms of what I said about theories, that was meant for the theory of evolution, specifically our beginnings is where I was getting at. From an Islamic point of view, we view our creation as absolute being that we were born from Adam and Eve. From a scientific point of view, the theory is that our ancestors were ape like creatures millions of years ago and before them, they were a different species and so on and so forth all leading to the very beginning. I don't know if science will ever catch up, but I do agree with you in the fact that it's getting better





This?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=539&v=xFXxJva_99c

Where did you find this? This is just what I am talking about...he is also talking about a miracle...he is even giving the same example of Jesus being born without a father.

Vallah I did not see this video before. thanks for sharing!!

 

[keiv]

It’s funny because I thought that you may have watched it. I think I was trying to better familiarize myself with different timelines within the evolution theory and I somehow came across that.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

To answer your question, no.

I am glad to hear that the Qur'an places no restrictions on what kind of knowledge may be sought.

Is the theory of evolution better at explaining our (human) beginning than the creationists (Islamic in this case) explanation?

Yes, much better. It has masses of supporting evidence behind it, whereas creationism has none.

Depends on who you ask right?

Maybe, but the answer will usually correlate directly with education level.

With the theory of evolution (not absolute), anything is possible whether it makes sense or not.

This is a bizarre assertion. What exactly do you mean by "anything is possible"? Do you think it's possible to find a modern chimp fossil in a Precambrian layer of rock?

In terms of what I said about theories, that was meant for the theory of evolution, specifically our beginnings is where I was getting at.

You said:

Also, do you think using theories, which we know can change at any time, is any better at explaining things?

As if theories are necessarily vague and purely speculative. I'm simply pointing out that theories have in many cases helped to produce tangible results that we all benefit from. Yes, theories can change - when the evidence changes.

Peace

 

[Ümit]

It’s funny because I thought that you may have watched it. I think I was trying to better familiarize myself with different timelines within the evolution theory and I somehow came across that.

No I really didn't see that video.
I did not think about where Adam as got the other 21 chromosomes from...
I just thought it was a good example of how a natural process doesn't have to change when Allah makes one exception.

The birth of Jesus as does not change the natural human reproduction process. this requires a man and a woman having sexual intercourse with each other...and it was like that before the birth of Jesus as and did not change after his birth. So Jesus as was a one time exception on this rule.

Likewise is (or at least seems to be) evolution. the existence of Adam as on Earth without a birth was a one time exception on the natural evolution process. this evolution process did not change after Adam as came to earth, nor did it stop.

So my conclusion still is like: evolution is still very plausible.

 

[keiv]

Greetings,



I am glad to hear that the Qur'an places no restrictions on what kind of knowledge may be sought.

I can't imagine that a religion which limits or restricts people from seeking knowledge while also encouraging it, would attract so many people to it (hence, my first answer). In terms of specifics, I'd say Allah commands Muslims to seek knowledge on Islam first and foremost for the sake of better understanding our own beliefs. In terms of limitations though, I think the video in the OP along with other individuals similar to Subboor, and of course historical Muslim figures, should clear up or answer any questions one may have in terms of the religion holding people back.

Yes, much better. It has masses of supporting evidence behind it, whereas creationism has none.
Maybe, but the answer will usually correlate directly with education level.
This is a bizarre assertion. What exactly do you mean by "anything is possible"? Do you think it's possible to find a modern chimp fossil in a Precambrian layer of rock?
As if theories are necessarily vague and purely speculative. I'm simply pointing out that theories have in many cases helped to produce tangible results that we all benefit from. Yes, theories can change - when the evidence changes.

Peace

The claim is that, based on the evidence we have now, it took us millions of years from first walking to being able to start fires, but only a matter of thousands of years from starting fires to building skyscrapers, flying planes, and playing on iPads and we have climate change to mostly thank for this rapid change in our cycle of evolution. The assertion that anything is possible means that what we think we know today about human evolution based on what's considered evidence, could easily change with further advancement in technology. Isn't that what is limiting us afterall? Or it could be religion as some would like to think.

Sorry for not using bigger words or citing scientific research studies in my posts. I'm just a low educated creationist whose trying to better understand the world I live in.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

Yes, much better. It has masses of supporting evidence behind it, whereas creationism has none.

Ok, I agree that there is probably no real scientific evidence to support creationism. In the same way there is no scientific evidence as to how life started in the first place.

I also believe there is a certain amount of dishonesty in the claims made to back up the ToE. Take Nilsson Pelger's explanation as to how many generations it might take for the eye to evolve. Their conclusion seems to assert that this is how it happened all in the blink of an eye. But where is the real evidence it happened this way?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I can't imagine that a religion which limits or restricts people from seeking knowledge while also encouraging it, would attract so many people to it (hence, my first answer).

Yes, it would be a deeply unsound state of affairs.

In terms of limitations though, I think the video in the OP along with other individuals similar to Subboor, and of course historical Muslim figures, should clear up or answer any questions one may have in terms of the religion holding people back.

I find that looking at the history of religion produces far more questions than it answers, particularly when it comes to the area of scientific discovery.

The claim is that, based on the evidence we have now, it took us millions of years from first walking to being able to start fires, but only a matter of thousands of years from starting fires to building skyscrapers, flying planes, and playing on iPads and we have climate change to mostly thank for this rapid change in our cycle of evolution.

The climate change clause is vague, but the rest all sounds reasonable. Why do you bring it up?

The assertion that anything is possible means that what we think we know today about human evolution based on what's considered evidence, could easily change with further advancement in technology.

Yes, theories can change as new and better evidence arrives. This is a strength, not a weakness. It's also different from saying "anything is possible".

Imagine a physicist who said "I haven't changed my mind about anything in physics since 1900". Do you think he/she would be a good physicist or a bad physicist?

Sorry for not using bigger words or citing scientific research studies in my posts.

Neither of these things necessarily has a bearing on the truth or falsity of what you say.

I'm just a low educated creationist whose trying to better understand the world I live in.

Why not educate yourself then? You will then be less likely to believe things without evidence.

Peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Ok, I agree that there is probably no real scientific evidence to support creationism.

You are quite correct.

In the same way there is no scientific evidence as to how life started in the first place.

There is evidence but we don't yet have a full explanation of how life began. There is no shame in saying "we don't know".

I also believe there is a certain amount of dishonesty in the claims made to back up the ToE. Take Nilsson Pelger's explanation as to how many generations it might take for the eye to evolve. Their conclusion seems to assert that this is how it happened all in the blink of an eye. But where is the real evidence it happened this way?

Nilsson and Pelger's paper on the eye is speculative and based on deductive reasoning. It shows an evolutionary pathway that might account for how eyes evolved. What is dishonest about it?

Peace