Do Muslims believe in creationism or evolution?

Karl Hungus

This just popped into my head, and I thought I'd ask. Creationism seems to be something that really only American morons believe (Like I said, seems to be, the reality could be completely different than how it simply seems), but do Muslim countries and such teach evolution or is it creationism in some form or another? I'm not trying to start a debate, it's just a simple query.

Thanks for any answer.

InFront

Karl Hungus wrote: »

do Muslim countries and such teach evolution or is it creationism in some form or another?

As someone who received most of his education in Ireland, I'm not sure of how this works in Muslim countries in general.

Personally I don't adhere to creationism and wouldn't consider myself a creationist. I think it would be wrong to put a specific date on the origin of the world, for example as young Earth creationists do based on the Christian book of Genesis.

It's an extremely interesting interface between science and Islam and I suppose 'intelligent design' would best sum up my personal views on the subject.

I think the crux of the question is in the issue regarding evolution is that of a random mutation. As Muslims we believe that nothing can happen without the authority of Allah, and as such we take the viewpoint that this mutation is the will of Allah - i.e. not so random as it appears. To that end, the design is intelligent, or steered by Allah.

Nevertheless, if someone asks a Muslim what the freezing point of water is, he wil say 0°c, even though he believes water only freezes at 0°c because it is - every time - the will of Allah.
This is also the nature of a random mutation that gives rise to succeeders, in my opinion - it seems so independent, so self-reliant that it is sometimes hard to imagine there is another party there influencing it, but I believe that just like the freezing point of water, or a nucleotide base sequence, there is intent to all of Allah's work, even if it cannot be seen.

Hobbes

IIRC creationism covers where everything came from, which Evolution doesn't.

As for 0c that depends on the pressure the water is under.

estebancambias

Muslims should believe in Creationism. How could any Religous person not? Creationism covers everything including the creator...so a Muslim(or any Religous person) should still believe in Creationsim even if they believe evolution is at work.

SkepticOne

InFront wrote: »

I think the crux of the question is in the issue regarding evolution is that of a random mutation. As Muslims we believe that nothing can happen without the authority of Allah, and as such we take the viewpoint that this mutation is the will of Allah - i.e. not so random as it appears. To that end, the design is intelligent, or steered by Allah.

Nevertheless, if someone asks a Muslim what the freezing point of water is, he wil say 0°c, even though he believes water only freezes at 0°c because it is - every time - the will of Allah.
This is also the nature of a random mutation that gives rise to succeeders, in my opinion - it seems so independent, so self-reliant that it is sometimes hard to imagine there is another party there influencing it, but I believe that just like the freezing point of water, or a nucleotide base sequence, there is intent to all of Allah's work, even if it cannot be seen.

I would call this view theistic determinism as it is a view about the nature of chance in general.

Intelligent design is different in that it believes in chance and random events but holds that evolution through random selection cannot account for the complexity of life we observe and that there must have been an intelligent designer.

I think what the OP means by creationism is specific opposition to evolution in particular the idea that people are descended from apes in favour of a literal interpretation of one's holy book (e.g. the Bible or Koran).

the_new_mr

Well, as a matter of fact, there's a little bit of debate in the Muslim world about what the Quran has to say on the matter.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not sure which is right but I do know this: It doesn't really matter. I believe that whatever happened was/is God's will. It's not going to affect how I live my life from day to day so I won't bother thinking about it. If somebody else wants to then they're free to do that. I'd like to know what they come up with

Hobbes wrote:

As for 0c that depends on the pressure the water is under.

And whether or not it contains impurities

Nerin

Muslims should believe in Creationism. How could any Religous person not? Creationism covers everything including the creator...so a Muslim(or any Religous person) should still believe in Creationsim even if they believe evolution is at work.

im religious, i do not follow creationism, i've my own idea thats logical to me that lets religion and science stand side by side.

Creationism seems to be something that really only American morons believe

i wouldnt say that (in case i got in trouble )
not only do irish morons believe in it,
shock,horror, some irish smart people believe in it also. which can be a little scary at times.

Nevertheless, if someone asks a Muslim what the freezing point of water is, he wil say 0°c, even though he believes water only freezes at 0°c because it is - every time - the will of Allah.

thats a fair enough answer.

Bottle_of_Smoke

the_new_mr wrote: »

Well, as a matter of fact, there's a little bit of debate in the Muslim world about what the Quran has to say on the matter.

any links?

BuffyBot

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/657/ is a basic guide to this I stumbled on not so far back

Bottle_of_Smoke

That's pretty much saying Muslims can't believe Human's evolved from a common ancestor of humans. Can see this causing trouble in the middle east alright.

BuffyBot

It's one view/interpretation. There are others out there.

condra

BuffyBot wrote: »

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/657/ is a basic guide to this I stumbled on not so far back

Scary!

Suff

I agree with the info in the link. and in regards to the theory of evolution...its a theory after all, I Don't understand how people taking it as a confirmed one!

Suff

Suff wrote: »

I agree with the info in the link. and in regards to the theory of evolution...its a theory after all, I Don't understand how people taking it as a confirmed one!

Scientific theory does not mean "idea". It means a highly backed-up explanation of actual facts.

Ciaran500

Suff wrote: »

I agree with the info in the link. and in regards to the theory of evolution...its a theory after all, I Don't understand how people taking it as a confirmed one!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, those of us that read and post here try to be respectful and open to learning regarding islam when we do.. the least you give is is the same consideration towards science. 'it's only a theory' is as flawed an argument as the recent islam hates teddy bears threads.

condra

Suff wrote: »

I agree with the info in the link.

It is basically saying, "it says it in the koran so it must be correct and true".
This is utter naivity.

and in regards to the theory of evolution...its a theory after all, I Don't understand how people taking it as a confirmed one!

I don't understand how any intelligent, rational human could deny evolution, unless they haven't spent at least a few minutes reading about it and contemplating it. It is simple, elegant, logical, and backed up by overwhelming evidence.

wes

Suff wrote: »

I agree with the info in the link. and in regards to the theory of evolution...its a theory after all, I Don't understand how people taking it as a confirmed one!

That argument is used quite a bit by creationists, its been pretty much destroyed at this point.

Evolution is very much a fact. There are many resources that you can read to learn about it.

Also, plenty of Muslims can reconcile evolution with there faith. Just like plenty of Christians, Jews etc.

Suff

My arguments are foucusing on the evolution of Man:

The theory hasn't been validated yet, its been based on a study of great apes fossils. the group is called "Hominidae" today it includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. this is based on DNA studies. but humans also share very simular DNA with other creations such as dogs and cows (stem cells studies).

The 98.5% similarity with chimps has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. the differences include Cytogenetic differences which are differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events.

Examples of these differences include:

1- Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.

2- At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.

3- 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. these could be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.

4- The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.

5- Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed a large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes. They found a number of regions that might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.

Most studies only considered substitutions and did not take insertions or deletions into account.they have missed perhaps the greatest contribution to the genetic differences between chimps and humans. Missing nucleotides from one or the other appear to account for more than twice the number of substituted nucleotides.

Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. using this percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!

A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.
the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this recent single origin about 100,000 - 200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. In contrast, some studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons have produced a much more recent MRCA from 6,500 years ago.


References:

-Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M. 1998. ‘Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.’ Chromosoma.
-Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science.
-Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol.
-Gibbons, A. 1998. ‘Which of our genes make us human?’.
-Sigurgardottir, S., Helgason, A., Gulcher, J.R., Stefansson, K., and Donnelly P. 2000. ‘The mutation rate in the human mtDNA control region.’ Am J Hum Genet.

wes

Suff, what your saying isn't really a case for creationism from what I can see. Its a question on mans origins. Hardly a challenge against Evolution. I don't really see what your trying to get at.

Suff

wes wrote: »

I don't really see what your trying to get at.

My point, Humans and chimps do share a number of DNA characteristics and propeties however the differences are major and sizable enough to lable them as separate beings.

wes

Suff wrote: »

My point, Humans and chimps do share a number of DNA characteristics and propeties however the differences are major and sizable enough to lable them as separate beings.

I don't think anyone says that we are the same as chimps. We have a common ancestor and thats about it.

nesf

bluewolf wrote: »

Scientific theory does not mean "idea". It means a highly backed-up explanation of actual facts.

Suff wrote: »

I agree with the info in the link. and in regards to the theory of evolution...its a theory after all, I Don't understand how people taking it as a confirmed one!

Both of you need to nail down the concepts you are using to examine this a bit better to be honest. I'm not trying to be cruel here but the two quotes above capture the lack of precision/understanding on both sides.

izzyflusky

wes wrote: »

That argument is used quite a bit by creationists, its been pretty much destroyed at this point.

Evolution is very much a fact. There are many resources that you can read to learn about it.

Also, plenty of Muslims can reconcile evolution with there faith. Just like plenty of Christians, Jews etc.

Evolution IS NOT a fact by any means. And creation is also backed up by science and there are many sources where you can read about it too. The problem is most people discard creation straight away, and don't even bother reading or gettin to know more about it. Not saying you do, because I don't know you, but many people do.

wes

izzyflusky wrote: »

Evolution IS NOT a fact by any means. And creation is also backed up by science and there are many sources where you can read about it too. The problem is most people discard creation straight away, and don't even bother reading or gettin to know more about it. Not saying you do, because I don't know you, but many people do.

Creationists need to do a lot of work if they want to respected as a legitimate science. The work is not there. I don't think it ever will be. I have seen there arguments proven wrong time and again.

izzyflusky

Maybe you haven't looked for it enough. Now, I'm not a big expert on the subjects but I have read plenty of articles on it. So the work is there, the only difference its that the media, i e. famous magazines, publishers, etc. don't want to publish the work. And more often than you think misleading information is given to the public. Not misleading because a creationist scientist says so, but also evolutionists scientists agree that it's not true. As long as it is bought you know...

nesf

izzyflusky wrote: »

Maybe you haven't looked for it enough. Now, I'm not a big expert on the subjects but I have read plenty of articles on it. So the work is there, the only difference its that the media, i e. famous magazines, publishers, etc. don't want to publish the work. And more often than you think misleading information is given to the public. Not misleading because a creationist scientist says so, but also evolutionists scientists agree that it's not true. As long as it is bought you know...

You do realise that the media publishing or not publishing something has no real relevance when it comes to scientific work?

izzyflusky

It does in the way that that's what people end up believing. As in scientist claiming that they've discovered this which proves evolution, when even other evolutionists say it's not true. It comes out in science magazines, etc so people think it must be true. Thats what I meant

nesf

izzyflusky wrote: »

It does in the way that that's what people end up believing. As in scientist claiming that they've discovered this which proves evolution, when even other evolutionists say it's not true. It comes out in science magazines, etc so people think it must be true. Thats what I meant

What people end up believing and what science is about are two very different things. At times we might want people to believe what science has shown, for all intents and purposes, to be the case, but that isn't what science is about itself. What goes on in technical journals is a long way from what your average person on the street believes to be the case. Generally because what goes on in those journals is stuff that that person couldn't care less about.

wes

izzyflusky wrote: »

Maybe you haven't looked for it enough. Now, I'm not a big expert on the subjects but I have read plenty of articles on it. So the work is there, the only difference its that the media, i e. famous magazines, publishers, etc. don't want to publish the work. And more often than you think misleading information is given to the public. Not misleading because a creationist scientist says so, but also evolutionists scientists agree that it's not true. As long as it is bought you know...

The evidence for Creationism isn't very good at all. The onus is on Creationists to make there case, they simply haven't done a good job. To me it smacks of people trying to pass religion off as science and doing so, does both religion and science a disservice.

Haris83

A muslim cannot believe in evoulution, because it is against basic concept of Islam. Personally, I find it very hard to believe in 'random rule' in defining species.

For opinions of islamic scientists on evolution, you can visit www.harunyahya.com

Medina

Hi all,
I do not believe in evolution.
The simple reason I don't believe in evolution is that if you go back to the beginning of the world with this theory (and I don't know the ins and outs of the theory) then basically what you are saying is after the big bang, the components in the earth somehow started to form living creatures (probably by some chemical process) which eventually evolved into various species which also evolved to all there is today , humans included.

While I don't have a problem as such with the big bang itself (as I believe that God made that happen to form the earth) what I don't believe is that life came about by itself. I have never heard of any other explosion where eventually a creature came out of it. For example , at any bomb site in the world today, the same atmospheric/chemical conditions exist which we can live in, yet no new species independently forms from the remains of that explosion. Nothing ordered at all forms independently even if it were not living. That is proof enough for me that everything is as someone said 'intelligent design' of a Creator.

ex nihilo nihil fit, "nothing comes from nothing." - Latin proverb

Bottle_of_Smoke

Medina wrote: »

Hi all,
I do not believe in evolution.
The simple reason I don't believe in evolution is that if you go back to the beginning of the world with this theory (and I don't know the ins and outs of the theory) then basically what you are saying is after the big bang, the components in the earth somehow started to form living creatures (probably by some chemical process) which eventually evolved into various species which also evolved to all there is today , humans included.

While I don't have a problem as such with the big bang itself (as I believe that God made that happen to form the earth) what I don't believe is that life came about by itself. I have never heard of any other explosion where eventually a creature came out of it. For example , at any bomb site in the world today, the same atmospheric/chemical conditions exist which we can live in, yet no new species independently forms from the remains of that explosion. Nothing ordered at all forms independently even if it were not living. That is proof enough for me that everything is as someone said 'intelligent design' of a Creator.

ex nihilo nihil fit, "nothing comes from nothing." - Latin proverb

There's a difference between the type of expolsion that's created from a car bomb than that of one resulting from the origin of the universe, I mean it's like comparing caps with semtex.

Also doesn't "nothing comes from nothing" suggest God couldn't come from nothing?

Anyway I'd avoid using "I don't believe in evolution" Evolution can be shown with bacteria & anti-biotics. Be better to say "I don't believe life on earth came about due to evolution"

Schuhart

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Also doesn't "nothing comes from nothing" suggest God couldn't come from nothing?

I'm incredibly glad someone else pointed this out.

Now get of that, Houdini.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Anyway I'd avoid using "I don't believe in evolution" Evolution can be shown with bacteria & anti-biotics. Be better to say "I don't believe life on earth came about due to evolution"

Just quibbling (well, maybe a little more than a quibble). My layman's understanding is that evolution isn't about how life started on earth. Its about how species develop, once some form of life exists - ie, that life mutates and different environmental conditions will naturally sort out which variations prosper.

There's a youtube video that I'm more fond of that a decent person should that illustrates this in simple terms. (OK. mostly I like it because the background music is the theme from Black Beauty).

Medina

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Also doesn't "nothing comes from nothing" suggest God couldn't come from nothing?

I was waiting for someone to say that BottleofSmoke
And you are quite right in a way. God didn't come from nothing as He precedes Everything - including Nothing;)
It does means Something cannot be produced from Nothing. From Nothing you will get Nothing.
But God is not produced from anything, He is not the effect or result of anything, He does not 'come from' anything. Whereas evolution states that we do, as does religion, just with different origins.
He precedes creation since He created All.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

There's a difference between the type of expolsion that's created from a car bomb than that of one resulting from the origin of the universe, I mean it's like comparing caps with semtex.

There isn't any difference. Explain to me how out of the disorder after any explosion, order independently forms? Saying its like comparing caps with semtex means absolutely nothing since they are the means of the explosion not the result of it.

Medina

Schuhart wrote: »

My layman's understanding is that evolution isn't about how life started on earth. .

But doesn't everything have to evolved from something according to the theory of evolution? If you stay within the realm of science alone, then after the world was formed, evolution started surely? Which is the start of creation in a scientist's view? Or when did evolution start then?

Schuhart

Medina wrote: »

He precedes creation since He created All.

One way or another, I sort of guessed it would be turtles all the way down.

Medina wrote: »

But doesn't everything have to evolved from something according to the theory of evolution?

As I understand it (and this is just from reading popular science works - not any formal study, and I'm not claiming expertise) the question of how life started is a topic in itself, and not in the scope of evolution. Evolution starts once you get single cell organisms, and takes it from there. How those single celled organisms came to be is just a different matter - and, as I understand it, there is no certain view on that.

Before we go there, and hopefully we won't, I take it you do appreciate there's an ocean of difference between not knowing how something happened and declaring that God must have done it.

The point about evolution that seems to cause the problem for religion is not that it does not attempt to explain the origin of single celled organisms. Its that, given single celled organisms, there's no particular need to depend on divine intervention to produce us. This makes it harder (but not impossible) to maintain that humans have some special place in creation - as we were produced by essentially the same process as every other species.

Specifically, as I understand it, Islam doesn't have a particular problem with evolution being the mechanism through which other animals emerged. But some scholars (from what I can gather) see a problem in interpreting the statement that God created Adam from clay as consistent with humans being the product of evolution. (I don't have the Quran reference for that statement about Adam's creation, but you may be aware of it yourself.)

As I understand it, there are two core things relating to 'why is all this here' that are not really understood yet by science. One is how the Universe is here at all - that Big Bang concept can reasonably explain how things develop from a moment after the start of the universe, including how elements form and so forth. But the initial impetus is not understood. The other thing not yet understood is how life starts. What is reasonably well understood is how life develops and how species emerge.

Medina

Schuhart wrote: »

One way or another, I sort of guessed it would be turtles all the way down.

One way or another, I sort of guessed you would resort to sarcasm instead of rational debate in the end

Schuhart wrote: »

As I understand it (and this is just from reading popular science works - not any formal study, and I'm not claiming expertise) the question of how life started is a topic in itself, and not in the scope of evolution. Evolution starts once you get single cell organisms, and takes it from there. How those single celled organisms came to be is just a different matter - and, as I understand it, there is no certain view on that.

How can it be a different matter? Only relevant definition of evolution:any process of formation or growth; development: (www.dictionary.com) . As far as I see it, if after the big bang some of elements of the periodic table existed here on earth, for a single cell organism to be the eventual product of some of the element then it had to come from a combination of these elements being fused in a certain way.The process of formation - evolution. That would be logical. Yet these elements co-exist today and still science has not shown us how they came to produce a single cell organism. Nor is there any example of it happening in the world. And why should it have stopped since evolution would have to be continuous?

Schuhart wrote: »

Before we go there, and hopefully we won't, I take it you do appreciate there's an ocean of difference between not knowing how something happened and declaring that God must have done it.

And there's a world of arrogance between not knowing how something happened, never being able to prove it and continuing to claim God could not have done it.

Schuhart wrote: »

The point about evolution that seems to cause the problem for religion is not that it does not attempt to explain the origin of single celled organisms. Its that, given single celled organisms, there's no particular need to depend on divine intervention to produce us. This makes it harder (but not impossible) to maintain that humans have some special place in creation - as we were produced by essentially the same process as every other species.

The fact it doesn't explain single cell organisms is a problem for the theory of evolution not for religion The Amoeba as a single celled organism doesn't pose any threat to the belief that divine intervention produced us at all Schuhart.

Schuhart wrote: »

Specifically, as I understand it, Islam doesn't have a particular problem with evolution being the mechanism through which other animals emerged.

Where did you get this idea?
If God built all creatures from the same building blocks (atoms) then why is it so crazy to think that we didn't come about as a process of evolution, with each species in a different stage of evolution, but that we are all created from the same building blocks by God, just in different forms?!!

Schuhart wrote: »

But some scholars (from what I can gather) see a problem in interpreting the statement that God created Adam from clay as consistent with humans being the product of evolution. (I don't have the Quran reference for that statement about Adam's creation, but you may be aware of it yourself.)

In the Quran God also says we are created from water. Clay is a substance made up of elements ,and many of those elements exist in us also. Science has also proved the Quran right in terms of water being part of our substance.

Schuhart wrote: »

As I understand it, there are two core things relating to 'why is all this here' that are not really understood yet by science.

Don't you mean 'how?' as science wouldn't even grant a 'why' since its random and without reason/design according science itself.

Schuhart wrote: »

One is how the Universe is here at all - that Big Bang concept can reasonably explain how things develop from a moment after the start of the universe, including how elements form and so forth. But the initial impetus is not understood. The other thing not yet understood is how life starts. What is reasonably well understood is how life develops and how species emerge.

That initial impetus would have to be some form of evolution. Some process of formation. As I said before, all the same chemical elements and atmospheric conditions that would have first allowed this initial impetus to start would have to be the same or similar to how it is now since life has existed ever since. Yet nothing can be reproduced today by all those scientists. And I believe it can't since order cannot come from disorder. Back to the bomb site.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Schuhart wrote: »

Just quibbling (well, maybe a little more than a quibble). My layman's understanding is that evolution isn't about how life started on earth. Its about how species develop, once some form of life exists - ie, that life mutates and different environmental conditions will naturally sort out which variations prosper.

Yes pretty much. It can't really be denied. (I'm not saying you can't deny humans evolved)

A very simplified example:

Lets say theres black rocks with green moss growing on them. Theres some beetles living on the rocks/moss. Some are very white, some are completely black, some in between. Birds flying above eat them but with the birds eyesight no colour of beetle blends in better against the green coloured moss.

Then the weather changes so drastically so that the moss recedes & the black rock can be seen. Now the birds will have difficulty seeing the black beetles but can spot the white ones easily. This means that black beetles are more likly to survive & have more offspring, meaning the next generation will be more likely to be black.

It could be said the beetles evolved black colour to avoid the birds. This can be misleading as no indivdual beetle actually changed its colour(so look in a biology book rather than a dictionary), just those who happened to have or mutated to have black genes reproduced because they survived to do so.

Medina wrote:

I was waiting for someone to say that BottleofSmoke
And you are quite right in a way. God didn't come from nothing as He precedes Everything - including Nothing
It does means Something cannot be produced from Nothing. From Nothing you will get Nothing.
But God is not produced from anything, He is not the effect or result of anything, He does not 'come from' anything. Whereas evolution states that we do, as does religion, just with different origins.
He precedes creation since He created All.

It's a bit late to try & get my head around that so I'll check it tomorrow;)

There isn't any difference. Explain to me how out of the disorder after any explosion, order independently forms? Saying its like comparing caps with semtex means absolutely nothing since they are the means of the explosion not the result of it.

I actually meant that the results are also completely different.

But doesn't everything have to evolved from something according to the theory of evolution? If you stay within the realm of science alone, then after the world was formed, evolution started surely? Which is the start of creation in a scientist's view? Or when did evolution start then?

No, evolution is just the inherited changes or traits in a species between one generation & the next. It's not a religion & doesn't have to account for how life started. That's why I think you're better off saying "I don't believe life on earth came about due to evolution"

Science has also proved the Quran right in terms of water being part of our substance.

I'd imagine scientists were aware of that before the Quran was written in fairness.

Where did you get this idea?
If God built all creatures from the same building blocks (atoms) then why is it so crazy to think that we didn't come about as a process of evolution, with each species in a different stage of evolution, but that we are all created from the same building blocks by God, just in different forms?!!

There's scientific evidence to suggest they did & there's nothing in the Quran to say it didn't. http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/657/

The fact it doesn't explain single cell organisms is a problem for the theory of evolution not for religion

No it's not. Stop listening to young-earth creationists! To be honest I don't think this matters. I don't really care about how the universe started & I don't think I'm going to find out in my lifetime. I'm very interested in natural selection as I think it accounts for human psychology & emotions very well. Whether we evolved from lower apes or were created.

Schuhart

Medina wrote: »

One way or another, I sort of guessed you would resort to sarcasm instead of rational debate in the end

Would that it were only sarcasm.

Medina wrote: »

How can it be a different matter? Only relevant definition of evolution:any process of formation or growth; development: (www.dictionary.com) .

If we’re talking about evolution in the sense used by Darwinists and contested by creationists, it means what I said. It relates to life producing variation with environment determining by natural selection which variations prosper. It does not encompass the origin of life. Can I suggest that using the word to mean two things will not assist understanding – and runs the risk of us talking about two different things.

This is what evolution means in the context we are discussing. This is what origin of life means. I’ve no problem with you raising the origin of life question (although I frankly haven’t much to say about it). But do call it what it is.

Medina wrote: »

And there's a world of arrogance between not knowing how something happened, never being able to prove it and continuing to claim God could not have done it.

Generally, atheists don’t say that God could not have done it. We just say there’s an equal chance that the universe was blown out of the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure, or any other arbitrary myth that we want to create.

Medina wrote: »

The fact it doesn't explain single cell organisms is a problem for the theory of evolution not for religion

Well, religion doesn’t really attempt to explain it (see turtles above).

Medina wrote: »

Where did you get this idea?

From reading the opinions of scholars who purport to be learned in the ways of your faith. Here’s one example.

All indicate that according to the Qur'an human beings are intrinsically at a different level in Allah's eyes than other terrestrial life (by their special nature, celestial provenance in paradise, and spirit or soul) whether or not our bodies have certain physiological affinities with them. This is the prerogative of the Maker to create.

As far as other species are concerned, change from one sort of thing to another does not seem to contradict revelation, for Allah says: "O people: Fear your Lord, who created you from one soul [Adam, peace and blessings be upon him] and created from it its mate [his wife, Hawwa’], and spread forth from them many men and women." (An-Nisa': 1)

Medina wrote: »

Don't you mean 'how?' as science wouldn't even grant a 'why' since its random and without reason/design according science itself.

You are probably right that ‘how’ is a better word than ‘why’ in this context.

Medina wrote: »

As I said before, all the same chemical elements and atmospheric conditions that would have first allowed this initial impetus to start would have to be the same or similar to how it is now since life has existed ever since.

This doesn’t really hold. If it did, the Earth would still be populated by dinosaurs and we’d still be rodents. Conditions change enough to mean that certain forms of life thrive and others don’t. Similarly, conditions can change to an extent that life can no longer be supported. It can therefore be envisaged that conditions suitable for the origin of life are not consistent with the conditions we need to go about our business - but, as I said, there is no clear idea of what those conditions are.

nesf

Medina wrote: »

Don't you mean 'how?' as science wouldn't even grant a 'why' since its random and without reason/design according science itself.

Science inherently answers the "how?" question. It isn't really that concerned with the "why?". The problem is people confuse the latter for the former occasionally.

takumi

guy called Harun Yahyah wrote this http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_01.php

trying to refute darwin's theory . its intresting.

Medina

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

A very simplified example:

Thank you Bottle of Smoke for the example, I do understand how evolution after creation is supposed to work and your example makes sense to me. However, I think my biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn't encompass the 'origin of life'. The way I see it , this theory of evolution is incomplete since the 'initial impetus' of creation as Schuhart referred to is not considered to be within the bounds of the theory. And logically to me, it should be, since science would have to take the stand that life itself 'evolved' from something. Yet it just sweeps away this particularly inconvenient problem and calls for it to be a separate theory.

At the end of the day, some people say that believers of a religion (any religion) are not working on the basis of rationality or logic but on faith. Yet according to science, after the big bang the world was formed and some time later a 'single cell organism'. Now -using my (i'm sure you will say 'flawed') logic - to get from the stage of rocks , dust and whatever matter resulted from the big bang to a 'single cell organism' , in my mind those elements would logically have had to have 'evolved' 'fused' 'mutated' (whatever word you want to use) somehow to cause that, if science is to be considered correct. Because, that's all there was according to science - rocks and elements and minerals like the surface of many planets. If divine intervention didn't occur, then single cell organisms should still be able to form (or 'evolve') from rocks and elements and minerals (I use evolve as a verb not the theory) as they did back then. That would be logical. Yet it doesn't happen. That's why I don't believe in it. It doesn't cover the origin of life (thanks Schuhart) because it can't , but to my mind that is where the theory is incomplete.

So it doesn't matter why the results of any explosion are, you will never end up with a single cell organism forming from it.


By the way whats a young earth creationist?

Medina

Medina wrote:

Thank you Bottle of Smoke for the example, I do understand how evolution after creation is supposed to work and your example makes sense to me. However, I think my biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn't encompass the 'origin of life'. The way I see it , this theory of evolution is incomplete

It's not supposed to encompass the origin of life.
That's like saying a manual on building bicycles is incomplete because it doesnt explain the origins of life.

Medina

bluewolf wrote: »

It's not supposed to encompass the origin of life.
That's like saying a manual on building bicycles is incomplete because it doesnt explain the origins of life.

No its like saying 'how to build a bike' with already existing parts , not telling you how the parts themselves were built.

Medina

Medina wrote: »

No its like saying 'how to build a bike' with already existing parts , not telling you how the parts themselves were built.

Well if you want to assemble a bike, you don't need to know the history of metals from the bronze age and how smelting started, do you? Or where those metal ores came from? Or where the earth came from to have those metals there?

Medina

If you want to know how to build a bike, then you want to know how those parts are made.

Medina

Medina wrote: »

If you want to know how to build a bike, then you want to know how those parts are made.

Not if you just want to assemble it - and you still don't need the history of metal.

Medina

Let's say in this analogy back to the manufacturing phase...and this manufacturing phase is the bit thats missing. You have metal, then you have parts...how??

That to me is part of the theory of how to build a bike. If your theory starts after the parts are made then the theory is incomplete

Bottle_of_Smoke

Medina wrote: »

Thank you Bottle of Smoke for the example, I do understand how evolution after creation is supposed to work and your example makes sense to me. However, I think my biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn't encompass the 'origin of life'. The way I see it , this theory of evolution is incomplete since the 'initial impetus' of creation as Schuhart referred to is not considered to be within the bounds of the theory. And logically to me, it should be, since science would have to take the stand that life itself 'evolved' from something. Yet it just sweeps away this particularly inconvenient problem and calls for it to be a separate theory.

No its like saying 'how to build a bike' with already existing parts , not telling you how the parts themselves were built.

Let's say in this analogy back to the manufacturing phase...and this manufacturing phase is the bit thats missing. You have metal, then you have parts...how??

That to me is part of the theory of how to build a bike. If your theory starts after the parts are made then the theory is incomplete

What is your point here? Are you saying we should reject the theory because it doesn't explain the origins of life?

If divine intervention didn't occur, then single cell organisms should still be able to form (or 'evolve') from rocks and elements and minerals (I use evolve as a verb not the theory) as they did back then. That would be logical. Yet it doesn't happen. That's why I don't believe in it.

Careful now, i think its being investigated in lab conditions to see if it's possible. If they did manage to create a cell from elements/minerals would you then believe in evolution?

young earth creationists wiki

AngryHippie

Medina wrote: »

I was waiting for someone to say that BottleofSmoke
And you are quite right in a way. God didn't come from nothing as He precedes Everything - including Nothing;)
It does means Something cannot be produced from Nothing. From Nothing you will get Nothing.
But God is not produced from anything, He is not the effect or result of anything, He does not 'come from' anything. Whereas evolution states that we do, as does religion, just with different origins.
He precedes creation since He created All.

Thats an irrational point. While it may convince you, unfortunately it is not relevant to a rational argument or discussion. You can't just say, yeah but God was there first. Grow up.

On the explosives thing, think nuclear, think mutation, its not pretty but its life-forms being changed by explosions. anything other than nuclear is just a glorified fire.


I'm pretty sure there are Muslims out there that have beliefs that aren't in accordance with the Koran. Just the same as I'm a Catholic but think the book of Genesis is just the poor mans Simarillion.