Is what I can percieve all that there is? in other words do I believe in a materialistic philosopy?

or Is there more to reality than what I can percieve? i.e. do I believe in the unseen? Which is the Islamic point of view of reality.

One is based on human conjecture and the other is based on revelation.

The two above questions are outside of the realm of science because science can neither disprove them or prove them. However, how you interperet results and arrive at conclusions depends on what your answer is to those questions.

As Muslims we believe in the Qur’an and the unseen. Islam doesn’t say that it is impossible for one species to have evolved from (or to) another species. This is totally in the realm of possibilities. Therefore, science can be used as a tool from species to species with two exceptions:

1) Man was specially created by God and all men are descendents of adam. Man is still susceptible to the forces of natural selection physically starting with adam. Man is also endowed with a soul which is not susceptible to the forces of natural selection and “random” mutations because science can’t even determine what a soul is.

2) New species can come into existance without having evolutionary ancestor. If God can make a camel out of a rock it is easy for him to create new species from scratch. Which is why a Muslim shouldn’t fall into the trap of: “religion and science are in separate fields in life…” For a Muslim religion encompases all aspects of life and sets the boundaries of scientific endeavor.

Another fundamental problem with evolution (for a Muslim at least) is the definition of one of its main (I believe critical) driving forces, namely “random” mutation. For a Muslim random events do not and can not happen. God makes all events happen and also God knows the future and the results of every action. There is no problem in modeling seemingly random events as random so long as a Muslim understands that in reality randomness doesn’t exist.

This is what I believe in and of course God knows best.

God says in the Koran ” I have created all living things from water” 21:30
This is the theory of evolution which Darwin claimed he originated the theory. It is already there in the Koran 1400 years ago.

Is it logical and rational to think that the God dropped a male elephant and a female elephant from the sky on the same spot and so the mated and millions elephants came about ? This idea is irrational, illogical and unacceptable. God created all living things from water. Science found out that in the beginning there was some bacterias. So God created through these bacterias and water all living things on earth. Is it hard for Him? This theory of evolution is more logical and more koranic.

When God himself said He created all living things from water we got no point to argue. Rememer not to believe in the theory of evolution is a sin as God said Himself that He did through the theory of evolution. And if we do not believe it then it will be a great sin.

Please comment.

mahmood_c@hotmail.com

Following up on my critique of Muslims not accepting evolution and after finding out that Harun Yahya, one of the opponents of evolutionary theory, is not a scientist, I discovered a lecture by a Saudi geologist (specializing in micropalaeontology) Dr…

do u all debate regarding this evolution!!!!

Allah has brought in this quran means of everything!

blessed be god if we indeed were evolved from apes god would let it known to everyone in the quran.

god has described many times about the creation of man, but never joined apes or any other animal with the creation of mankind.

Allah would have known about the debates that would happen in the future regarding mankinds creation and if mankind was really related to apes then god would indeed let it known to all the prophets first.

ALLah never mentioned apes or anyother animal that were involed in the creation of mankind in TORAH, or the BIBLE.

god created every living thing from water and diverted them all in their different form.

Blessed be god who chose us mankind the best among all his creatures.

We mankind should be greatful.

All evolution brought was corruption and rascism

The word ‘theory’ essential derives from the Greek word ‘theoria’ I think, which means something like ‘to have the look’. As we know the more modern word theory is an ‘explanation’ derived from ‘hypothesis’ and for a theory to be valid, it must be tested out. Therefore it is possibly illogical to compare a theory from the biological sciences with an explanation from theology. We can call this a ‘logical fallacy’ when a theory regarding one dimension is held up to scrutiny using a different dimension.

Also there is another theory of evolution which was advanced by the biologist, Lamarck. This theory involves an assessment of how organisms change their environments, and thus precipitate change for other organisms to adapt new behaviours and mechanisms. Certainly humans have changed the environment on many continents, and in Africa perhaps the longest. Most of the large megafauna there have not be made extinct, as a result of adaptation.

The other way to look at this is to try to understand what the symbolic content of the creation myth is and how that would factor in comparing to theories of evolution. Although the creation story indicates that adam was created from mud, it is not exactly certain what is meant by Adam. I think there is another interpretation revealed in the traditions of the historical jews or hebrews. Something to the effect of the meaning of the original letters in the words, Adam Kadmon found in the Torah.

The original Genesis was written in Hebrew, a language which became dead approximately 2500 years before present. The Hebrew of today is not the same language. Migene Gonzalez-Wippler, in A Kabbalah for the Modern World writes that the original hebrew language was not translated accurately until about 1810 when a copy of The Polyglot of Paris was discovered. This was a translation into three languages of the Book of Genesis. One of the languages was the latin, and the greek compared to the original Hebrew. The Polyglot of Paris was originally written in 1510 by Cardinal Ximenes, with permission of the Vatican.

Anyway Gonzalez-Wippler writes:

“The cosmological concepts that are such an intrinsic part of Genesis can be seen, in the light of the original Hebrew text, to have a significant correlation with modern theories on the creation of the universe and the evolution of man.”

In The Book of Genesis [which in ancient Hebrew is Berashith] the literal translation is ‘in the beginning’. Adam Kadmon is not the human species apart from other creation, but rather is the ‘body of God’. Each Hebrew letter represents a principle of the divine creation so that for instance the translitteration of Bearshith ‘In the beginning’ means:

Using the letters and their meanings [Beth, Resh, Aleph, Shin, Yod, and Teth] we have: “The ‘spirit’ of God brought into continuous expression the dual principles of life and death, the pulsation of existence, by containing and realizing it in an infinite array of cosmic manifestations.

Bera: [created] There are three letters in this word, Beth, Resh, and Aleph. Its intrinsic meaning is creation, but in a perpetual, infinite sense.

Elohim: [God] This word is composed of Aleph, Lamed, He, Yod, and Mem. It symbolizes a process by means of which the cosmic energy can be brought into realization.

As we can begin to see, there is a consistent scientific account of creation. In the beginning there was darkness just prior to the ‘Big Bang’ when all energy was condensed into a single microparticle the size of a proton, and of which no light could escape from. Gonzalez says there is no contradiction therefore with the 6 days it took to create the universe and the earth. This happens to be in conformity with current scientific theory because the creation of the universe from a single dense point took place in 6 stages. With respect to light, within light there is no time. All things occur simultaneously within light.

And so on….

Continuing my previous post about evolution, I want to just let you know who Harun Yahya is. HarunYahya is a pen name used by Mr. Adnan Oktar. Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar is a prominent Turkish intellectual. Completely…

I don’t see any difference between “well-developed and well-supported by evidence” and “consensus among scientists.” Such a consensus indeed exists.

Your first reason for disbelieving evolution does not really use any intellectual reasoning, rather you are using faith, which is fine but very different.

I don’t have time to waste on your second objection. Too many people on the Internet have debated what you call “inco[n]sistent and self-contradictory” and not many minds have been changed.

I don’t see what relevance your question has to the discussion at hand.

There are only three assumptions or possibilities that you might have here:

1. I am religious and I DON’T APPLY what you quoted(…chew and digest…) towards my religion.

2. I am religious and and I APPLY what you quoted (…chew and digest…) towards my religion, or,

3. I am not religious.

That being said, I did not understand how my answer to your question, regardless of your assumptions or which one you wish were true, is going to support your point that evolution is well-developed and well-supported by evidence.

In any case, I believe that evidence for everything in this world has to be chewed and digested intellectually and foremostly, with respect to religion.

It will be foolish of me to believe in something, like a religion, that has rules and regulations, without knowing for sure if it is a true religion. Otherwise, I have wasted my time and effort and have lived in a jail all my life.

Conversely, it will be foolish of me to disbelieve in a religion that says ‘I am going to hell if I don’t follow it’, IF it turns out that indeed it is the true religion. Without intellectual chewing and digesting I might ‘miss’ the true religion.

zack: My position is that the theory of evolution is well-developed and well-supported by evidence

This is NOT what you said initially and this is why I have a problem understanding where you stand. First, you said that your evidence regarding evolution is the CONSENSUS among scientists that evolution is well-developed and well-supported by evidence. Now, YOU say that evolution is well-developed and well-supported by evidence.

There is a HUGE difference between the two. If you do not know this difference, your beliefs about evolution are irrelevant by default.

Regarding the original question to your post, I believe evolution to be bogus for two reasons. The first, is that I believe in Allah and I believe the Quran is irrefutable and therefore I believe in Islam. I believe Islam negates evolution and therefore I negate evolution. What I mean by belief is 100%. The second, is that the evidence brought forth by evolution is incosistent and self-contradictory. If you wish I can discuss any of these points.

Sorry for the long post but I think this is an important topic.

Can we apply the same to religion?

I don’t know what your position is regarding this topic.

My position is that the theory of evolution is well-developed and well-supported by evidence and the question of existence of God does not depend on creationism or evolution.

“…but in general I trust scientific consensus on science questions and there has been consensus on the theory of evolution for quite some time now”

So, basically, this is your proof of evolution. There is no need to discuss the scientific evidence for or against evolution in your case, so I will start to discuss with you from what you beleive in i.e. scientific consensus.

What is the definition of scientific consensus? 95% of the scientists have to agree? or more? Do the scientists in question have to have a PhD? If so, does the word evolution have to be in their PhD dissertation? I don’t think we can have a consensus on what scientific consensus is. So why depend on it. I think everyone must chew and digest all the evidence and come up with an answer that suits his intellect. Anything other than that for me is not an intellectual disscussion.

I also find your post difficult to respond to because you are timid about voicing your views. After reading your post I don’t know what your position is regarding this topic.