Is human evolution compatible with the quran?

[TDWT]

Ok, I'm done beating around the bush and just going to be honest now. Can human evolution be reconciled? I mean, there is so much evidence for it, and the DNA evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. In response, Yasir Qadhi said that maybe god made it appear that humans evolved or some domino effect. I heard it is against the quran closely but I am not sure. I post this here as this is where most people are, so what are thoughts?​

​

 

[crimsontide06]

I personally do not try to figure out something that I do not understand. God created evolution and how it works. That's good enough for me. How is works? It's not for me to understand...

 

[MidnightRose]

Ok, I'm done beating around the bush and just going to be honest now. Can human evolution be reconciled? I mean, there is so much evidence for it, and the DNA evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. In response, Yasir Qadhi said that maybe god made it appear that humans evolved or some domino effect. I heard it is against the quran closely but I am not sure. I post this here as this is where most people are, so what are thoughts?​

and welcome to the forum!

Here are two threads that should help out:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/6570-biological-evolution-islamic-perspective.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/134295227-evolution-islam.html

Both threads have good information and discussion on what you're looking for, :ia:.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Can human evolution be reconciled?

So, can they show me a species that they have experimentally evolved out of another species?
In general, what experiments can we repeat in order to find counterexamples for that claim?
As you know, it is not enough to stare at something and then conjecture about it.
In this field, only experimental testing is allowed to support the claim.

 

[drac16]

No, I don't believe it is reconcilable. The Qur'an says very clearly that man was created from clay-- not that man came into existence slowly after millions of years of evolution. Adam [peace be upon him] was the first man and he didn't come from a primitive form of primate.

 

[kritikvernunft]

No, I don't believe it is reconcilable. The Qur'an says very clearly that man was created from clay

It is vague enough to always be true, no matter how you redefine man or clay.
Furthermore, the Quran does not sail under the flag of provability (=math) or falsifiability (=science). In Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Immanuel Kant nicely explains why morality, i.e. the list of forbidden behaviours may not be hypothetical but must at all times categorical. Hence, the Quran correctly sails under the flag of axiomatizing categorical imperatives.

... not that man came into existence slowly after millions of years of evolution ...

The Quran does not describe the precise mechanism in which man was created from clay. I actually do not see why it should. The problem addressed in the Quran does not lend itself to that. We are looking at what types of behaviour are explicitly impermissible -- the other types of behaviour not being mentioned obviously being permissible -- and who exactly is the source for this list of impermissible behaviours, i.e. morality. It is the One God, Creator of the Universe, our Beloved Master, who pronounced and promulgated this list of impermissible behaviour, while giving us the God-given right to engage in everything that is not forbidden. Within this context, of asserting rules of morality, it is of absolutely no importance whatsoever in what way, or according to what mechanism exactly, man was created from clay.

Furthermore, that the people who claim that man was evolved from primates, and who claim to be sailing under the flag of falsifiability (=science), explain to us what experiments we should be able to repeat in order to evolve a man from a primate.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you kritikvernunft;

The Quran does not describe the precise mechanism in which man was created from clay.

Agreed, and for evolution to be true, Allah would somehow have to mix the DNA from an ape, with the DNA of clay, that he made man from. Maybe Allah made variations of clay apes that mated, and we have evolved from this mating.

As you say, Allah does not have to say how he made man from clay, but it is enough to trust that Allah has the power to make man from clay, should he choose to do so.

In the spirit of searching for God the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Eric

 

[Steven Caro]

I think a lot of commentators on here should go to the Natural History Museum in London and look at the Human Evolution section. It won't bite to gain a little knowledge. You can still have God in your life, but you won't be as badly informed. Win Win.

 

[kritikvernunft]

I think a lot of commentators on here should go to the Natural History Museum in London and look at the Human Evolution section. It won't bite to gain a little knowledge. You can still have God in your life, but you won't be as badly informed. Win Win.

I think that a lot of commentators would benefit from understanding the distinction between history and science. If you are not repeating experiments in order to search for counterexamples for a particular theorem, you are NOT doing science whatsoever. Hence, producing validation for "evolution" can only be achieved in a lab and not in a museum. Furthermore, I am sick and tired of all these pseudo-intellectuals whose only capability is to memorize ideological conjectures, en provenance from questionable textbooks. Solve an even utterly simple math equation for a change, if you are that smart! ;-)

 

[Steven Caro]

To Kritikvernunft. What a ridiculous reply. Evolution has been validated by natural science which is a branch of science. Wake up. A museum is for the layperson to go and see the information. Do you expect the whole population to do a degree in natural science? And yes, there are a lot of questionable books about aren't there.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Evolution has been validated by natural science which is a branch of science.

"Validated" means that we can repeat experiments in order to look for counterexamples for the claim that a man can be evolved out of a primate.

So, now we need a suitable primate. Where can we find one?

Next, we will simply reapply the procedure that has allegedly allowed these other researchers to evolve a man out of that primate. We expect to obtain the same results as he did. Feel free to provide us with the description of that experiment.

 

[Steven Caro]

Oh dear, I really think it would help you to go and see it for yourself. And Natural 'History' Museum doesn't mean it's history as you were thinking of it. You should be aware that there is science involved in the study of 'natural' science. The clue is in the name. Evolution is observable through fossil records, DNA and various other observable methods. Modern man evolved out of a common ancestor, not a primate as you are thinking. Go and see the evidence. Try to understand there are many branches of science. You really need to research a lot more if you are going to keep up with the human race. Do yourself and humanity a favour and go. It's free plus there are dinosaurs there too. I realise you might find that a bit hard to swallow, but I imagine you believe some pretty crazy stuff that you can't even see so maybe you'll get it. Anyway, spend sometime in there and then if after that you are still so sure it's not true then good luck to you.

 

[Abz2000]

Allah does not invalidate the possibility of the Quran but rather hints at it in numerous places, the rest falls in place with sincere study and honest evaluations of what we observe with our God given tools and faculties of reason used in a halaal way.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Oh dear, I really think it would help you to go and see it for yourself.

Sure. Feel free to give me a link to an experiment in which they evolve a man out of a primate.

Evolution is observable through fossil records, DNA and various other observable methods.

Let's use an utterly simplistic definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.


You can clearly see that nobody gives a flying f*ck about the fact that anything would be just observable.
Seriously, nobody cares!

Try to understand there are many branches of science.

Yeah, such as alchemy and astrology! ;-)
They may have given you a "degree" in sociology or "political science" but these things are not science at all, and if that is all that you have to show for, you are not an intellectual, since nothing of what you do, is based on accredited validation methods, because those are hard, and not for everybody, but everybody still wants a "degree". Why don't you solve an utterly simple math problem, or do something else that does not amount to just repeating nonsense out of imbecile humanities' textbooks, and then come back! Seriously, if they have conned you into spending years, wasting your time on that bullsh*t, it would certainly explain why you are not employable at all ... ever! ;-)

 

[MisterK]

Disregarding the fact that men are primates, so evolving a man out of a primate is a non-starter, and shows a misunderstanding of science and evolution, it is not required to evolve one species into another in a lab setting to verify evolution.


As has already been stated, genetic testing, the fossil record, and more all provide an astounding amount of evidence in support of evolution. The theory of evolution, which is the explanation for the process and mechanisms of evolution actually has more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity has.


This evidence can, and has, been shown to allow for testable predictability and the formation of hypotheses. Here is one article explaining this very thing:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality

If someone doesn't want to accept the very large amount of evidence for evolution, that is their choice. Evolution being real doesn't mean it wasn't designed and put into play by Allah, Subhana wa t'alaa, after all. But claiming evolution/evolutionary theory is not scientific is either, at best, a statement of ignorance on the matter, or, at worst, intentional intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Serinity]

Disregarding the fact that men are primates, so evolving a man out of a primate is a non-starter, and shows a misunderstanding of science and evolution, it is not required to evolve one species into another in a lab setting to verify evolution.


As has already been stated, genetic testing, the fossil record, and more all provide an astounding amount of evidence in support of evolution. The theory of evolution, which is the explanation for the process and mechanisms of evolution actually has more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity has.


This evidence can, and has, been shown to allow for testable predictability and the formation of hypotheses. Here is one article explaining this very thing:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality

If someone doesn't want to accept the very large amount of evidence for evolution, that is their choice. Evolution being real doesn't mean it wasn't designed and put into play by Allah, Subhana wa t'alaa, after all. But claiming evolution/evolutionary theory is not scientific is either, at best, a statement of ignorance on the matter, or, at worst, intentional intellectual dishonesty.

I don't believe that we came from apes.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

 

[kritikvernunft]

it is not required to evolve one species into another in a lab setting to verify evolution.

no testing = no science
Therefore, it is not science.

...all provide an astounding amount of evidence in support of evolution.

No, no. We want something that can be tested.

The theory of evolution, which is the explanation for the process and mechanisms of evolution actually has more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity has.

hasSupportingEvidence is pretty much a binary (yes/no) variable, unless you are using a formal framework in which it is not, but I somehow suspect that you are not! ;-)
It means that we can repeat an experiment in order to find counterexamples for evolution. These experiments do not exist, and there is nothing to test.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality

We are not going to change the rules of the game for everybody who cannot meet the criteria, because that means that alchemy and astrology are coming in again through the back door. So, no. No. We won't. If the obstacle is insurmountable for you, then you should consider why exactly we have thrown up that obstacle. We do that, exactly because we know that it will be insurmountable for you! ;-)

 

[MisterK]

no testing = no science
Therefore, it is not science.

No, no. We want something that can be tested.

hasSupportingEvidence is pretty much a binary (yes/no) variable, unless you are using a formal framework in which it is not, but I somehow suspect that you are not! ;-)
It means that we can repeat an experiment in order to find counterexamples for evolution. These experiments do not exist, and there is nothing to test.

We are not going to change the rules of the game for everybody who cannot meet the criteria, because that means that alchemy and astrology are coming in again through the back door. So, no. No. We won't. If the obstacle is insurmountable for you, then you should consider why exactly we have thrown up that obstacle. We do that, exactly because we know that it will be insurmountable for you! ;-)

And since you choose to ignore that it can and has been used to form testable hypotheses, and it can and has been used for predictability, in addition to ignoring the other evidence supporting it, I'm done with this conversation. I will not waste anymore of my time in debate with somone showing such blatant disregard for the facts of matter.

 

[M.I.A.]

it seems only fair to test the Quran by the state of the people of the time..

the state of science at the time..

for instance if a person were told that man is made of clay, it does not make it any easier to explain the situation.

it's just a given that does not elude to the complexity of the situation..

although with a little thought it can be expanded upon.

...so now I'm a carbon based lifeform.

not really any easier to explain.. but with a few years of eduction most people become competent with the terminology.

it's probably important to consider that philosophy is no longer considered a hard science..

although throughout the ages there is no doubt about how philosophy influenced and established the beginnings of the scientific method..

literally missing the complexity of the situation asking simply for reproducible results and predictability..

and I'm sure it's the case with evolution.. why?

because new branches of science appear all the time.


I used to be a scientist but I was never really any good at it.. don't ever question the textbook example.

 

[Scimitar]

human evolution the words still make me laugh

sorry, as you were