Islams position on Evolution

Vajradhara said:
Salaam Adiyl,

thank you for the post.



why is that?



that humans didn't come from apes, both apes and humans come from a common ancestor.



those words do not really belong here... science doesn't really deal in absoluteist terms like "impossible". it may well be so improbable that it is virtually impossible, however, since science recognizes the limitations of the instruments, it cannot say "impossible".

however, i would be more than happy to have you explain how it is "scientifically" impossible, if you would care to.



you realize that we are using the Modern Synthesis, correct? using information from 1966 is going to be woefully out of date and inaccurate predicated upon the continuing discoveries in the various fields.

further, if you are going to cut and paste someone elses work, you need to properly attribute it to the author. please review the Code of Conduct on this forum for more details on this policy.



i'll check your link here, hopefully, it will have information that is more current.

i checked the link... have you read what they have to say regarding your faith at this site? i find it rather unusual that you would cite, as your evidence, a website that feels your religion is misguided, at best.

do you, perhaps, have something written by a scientist that has been peer reviewed and is published in a scientific journal or publication which substantiates your view? it would be really excellent if it was a bit more current than the mid 1960's.

metta,

~v

I think you'd enjoy reading this


Life is as complex as the universe, and if the last chapter provided you with a dose of spiritual experience, this chapter will supply you with another dose. The factories, inside your 100 trillion cells, will bewilder you. The length of the DNA in your body, which exceeds the distance between the Earth and the Sun, is incomprehensible. The optimal structural design of the birds’ bones attests to an Omnipotent Creator. Yet the evolutionists want to convince everyone that we have gone from hydrogen to human! In doing that, they are introducing the following definition of the hydrogen gas:

"Hydrogen as an odorless, tasteless, flammable, invisible gas which, if given enough time (say 10 billion years), becomes people!"

Again, as you read this chapter, keep asking questions: Who, Why, and How, you will have only one logical answer: "God is the Mighty Creator and He made it His Way."
What exactly is life, and how and where did it begin. Scientists’ answers to these questions are changing as discussions and theories pour in from fields as diversified as oceanography and molecular biology, geochemistry and astronomy. Did life start as organic soup in a warm pond, or under the hellish skies of a planet, unknown to us, racked by volcanic eruption and threatened by comets and asteroids. Then the intruders from outer space may have delivered the raw material necessary for life. The basic concept of evolution is that life started spontaneously, here on Earth or on an unknown planet, and took a very slow process to evolve from atoms to amino acids to proteins, to cells, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, and finally to human. This idea is very similar to some monster like Frankenstein, pieced together from different dead elements and jolted into life by lightening bolts.
Proteins are the building blocks of living organisms. They make up much of the structure of all life forms. At the atomic level, a protein molecule consists almost entirely of a handful of elements - hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, and most importantly carbon. Because carbon easily forms multiple bonds with as many as four other atoms at once, it acts as a kind of glue cementing together the pieces of life’s complex molecules. The reason that carbon bonds so easily is that it has relatively few electrons. In a carbon atom, electrons orbit a nucleus in what may be thought as concentric shells. In all atoms, each shell may hold certain number of electrons. The inner shell accommodates as many as two, while the next one can hold eight electrons. But a carbon atom has only six electrons; two electrons in the inner shell and four in the next, leaving four vacancies in the outer shell.
Proteins are large complex organic compounds, made up of twenty different kinds of smaller compounds called amino acids. Large protein molecule consists of hundreds of thousands of amino acids. One protein differs from another in its number, sequence, kind, and arrangement of amino acids. A peptide is a two or more amino acids kept together by a chemical bond called the peptide bond. Hair and fingernails are proteins that differ because of amino acids. Hemoglobin is a blood protein made of 4 chains of amino acids. The twenty different kinds of the amino acids can form an almost endless number of proteins, 2.5E18 or 2.5 billion billion. It is estimated that the number of kinds of proteins in a human body ranges from 10,000 to 50,000.
It is hard to imagine that a human being starts as one single fertilized egg. It grows and develops inside its mother until birth. At birth, a baby is made up of over 60 trillion cells. As early as 1900, scientists knew that chromosomes were located inside the nucleus of a cell. They also knew that chromosomes carried hereditary information in complex molecule called DNA, short for deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA is named for the sugar deoxyribose, which it contains. However, the structure of the DNA was not known until 1953, when scientists suggested a model for DNA. That model looks like a twisted ladder with rungs, made up of four nitrogen bases. One molecule of DNA may contain 20,000 pairs of these bases.
When a cell is divided and replicates itself, by a process called mitosis, the DNA molecule must also make exact copies of them. First, the DNA molecule comes apart like a zipper being unzipped. The two halves of the DNA separate between the base pairs. Then new bases, from the contents of the nucleus, attach to each half like puzzle pieces. Thus two identical DNA molecules are formed. Like a biological librarian, DNA preserves the information needed to fashion the protein molecules. A similar compound called RNA, short for ribonucleic acid, helps turn these instructions into reality. No evolutionist can be sure how or when DNA and RNA first emerged on Earth. The key to the DNA-RNA partnership is a shared language, spelled out along the DNA strands in three-letter "words" called codons. A codon is made up of the bases of three successive DNA nucleotides. The most common codons simply specify a particular amino acid.
If codons are words, genes are the sentences they form, beginning with a special initiator codon and ending with a terminator. A gene’s message consists of a list of required amino acids, arranged in an order needed to make a particular protein. DNA’s genetic messages are readily duplicated by messenger RNA, a molecule that effectively assembles itself during the copying process. Incorporating DNA’s instructions in its own structure, the messenger RNA then travels out to the machinery of the outer cell, where it begins the manufacturing of a specific protein molecule by following the recipe it carries.
To translate genetic information into proteins, living organisms follow a complex manufacturing process. Work begins as a strand of messenger RNA enters the cell’s protein assembly area, carrying a genetic code for a particular protein. The messenger RNA goes on its way through the watery interior of the cell in search of a structure called the ribosome. Typically a millionth of an inch across, these sophisticated protein assembly machines are equipped both to read the messenger RNA’s orders and to carry them out.
Once the messenger RNA docks at a given ribosome, the ribosome looks for the beginning of the RNA message, then attaches there. Messenger RNA proceeds to wiggle through the ribosome, allowing it to read the RNA codons in sequence. For each codon, the ribosome chemically signals to the transfer RNA, a type of RNA, whose job is to deliver a single amino acid. When the transfer RNA arrives, carrying the required amino acid, it touches down just long enough to unload its amino acid. Then, the ribosome links the incoming amino acid to a growing peptide chain. This process is remarkably efficient even in a bacterium; one ribosome can attach twenty separate amino acids to a peptide chain every second!
After the final codon has been read and its message obeyed, the ribosome releases a finished peptide chain into the cell. The peptide’s electrochemical properties will quickly wrap it and other peptides into the folded arrangement that forms a particular protein molecule. The molecule’s work will depend on its identity: the protein known as collagen provides structural support in bone and ligaments, for example, while proteins called antibodies fight disease.
Assuming that all of the above was self-developed without the Hand of a Mighty Creator is analogous to believing that a monkey randomly throwing pieces of brick, iron, wood, and glass over a long span of time to make a magnificent high-rise building!
It is extremely hard to believe that a biology teacher explaining the above process without getting excited. This is not a simple process. Yet, this is a simple proof that God exists, and He is the Only One that can design this process.

Would you do yourself a favor? Read the above process again, and ask yourself who directed this step? It is inconceivable that nature could organize this process with such detail and efficiency.

http://www.usislam.org/30life.htm
 
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. it is a fact that allele frequencies change within a population over time. it is a theory that natural selection with mutations and modification by descent are the means by which these frequencies change.

Dr. Gould has a wonderful explanation of this:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

I replied to this by saying that the doctor doesn't know what he's talking about, because he's confusing simple words with his convoluted explanations on them. He continues on saying that facts does not mean absolute certainty...I tell you that this dude needs to consult a lexicologist. Is it not a fact of absolute certainty that the EARTH is SPHERICAL? can this fact ever take U-turns? IT is a FACT that human beings require oxygen to LIVE. Is this not a absolutely certain fact. Can this fact EVER change for us humans? It is a FACT that the basic cell, cytoplasm contains over 50% of H20. Can this fact ever change? It is a FACT that when you chop someone's head off, blood gushes out and the person is rendered DEAD. Is this not an ABSOLUTE CERTAIN fact? Will there be a day in the future when you cut or even slit someone's throat, he can still walk and talk? Why don't you refer to this site for more interesting ABSOLUTE FACTS about Science http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/factfile/factfile1_20.asp
 
Further more, you seem rather intelligent. I would very much appreciate it if you could either by your own or with a group of PhD holder scientists to apply the MODERN SYNTHESIS approach to explain the articles on this website http://www.usislam.org/30life.htm .
 
Who made everything He has created good, and He began the creation of man from clay. Then He made his offspring from semen of worthless water . Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him the soul , and He gave you hearing , sight and hearts. Little is the thanks you give! (32:7-9) (Hilali/Mohsin)

(Asad says that in classical arabic the word af’idah a metonym for both "feelings" and "minds"; so he has translated it so).

Not going into the causality & effects of Darwinism , in the light of above mentioned verses , some scholars like Dr. Israr Ahmed & Javed Ahmed Ghamdi have concluded that there is a good possibility that this is a hint for evolution. The verses clesrly say that "the organism man" was created from clay ( or constituents of caly ) . Later on , it started reproducing sexually . Then God made him more manlike , & breathed his soul ( which can be considered as the abality to think & a lot of other things that differentiate animals from man ) into him . With the use of "thumma", the verse divides evolution of man into 3 phases .

1 . From non-living matter to living organism ( He began!!! )
2 . Asexually reproducing to sexually reproducing organism
3 . From sexually reproducing organism to thinking/feeling man

Although the scholars say that there is also a possibility of these verses being an allegorical representatin of something other than physical/genetic evolution .

In my personal view , Islam never says that evolution is impossible . There should be debates on this , which are hindered by the extreme anti-evolution views of muslims/most religious people , & fierce athiestic views of evolutionists . The problem here is not man or evolution , but the very exisence of God & thiesm . Man is either a product of coincidence ( darwinistic view ) or a creation of God ( creationistic view ) .
 
Namaste Aidyl,

thank you for the post.

Aidyl Nurhadi said:
I think you'd enjoy reading this

why would you think this?

Life is as complex as the universe, and if the last chapter provided you with a dose of spiritual experience, this chapter will supply you with another dose.

it did not.

The factories, inside your 100 trillion cells, will bewilder you.

they do not. they did before i had accurate knowledge of these things. now that i do, i am not bewildered by them. it is, however, awesome.

The optimal structural design of the birds’ bones attests to an Omnipotent Creator.

that does not follow. their design attests to Natural Selection and evolution as much as it attests to anything.

Yet the evolutionists want to convince everyone that we have gone from hydrogen to human!

nope. you misunderstand the position of Evolution. remember, Evolution starts with the basic assumption that "life exists" and seeks to explain the vast diversity of life forms.

you are talking about Abiogenesis, which is a different theory.

In doing that, they are introducing the following definition of the hydrogen gas:

"Hydrogen as an odorless, tasteless, flammable, invisible gas which, if given enough time (say 10 billion years), becomes people!"


you cannot find a single scientist that supports evolution that would make a false claim like this. if you can, please provide a cite so that i can cure my increduility.

What exactly is life, and how and where did it begin. Scientists’ answers to these questions are changing as discussions and theories pour in from fields as diversified as oceanography and molecular biology, geochemistry and astronomy.

are you suggesting that changing ones views based on new information is somehow not good?

Did life start as organic soup in a warm pond, or under the hellish skies of a planet, unknown to us, racked by volcanic eruption and threatened by comets and asteroids. Then the intruders from outer space may have delivered the raw material necessary for life.

different theory altogether. this is part and parcel of Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

Assuming that all of the above was self-developed without the Hand of a Mighty Creator is analogous to believing that a monkey randomly throwing pieces of brick, iron, wood, and glass over a long span of time to make a magnificent high-rise building!


no, it is not. that is emotive rhetorical nonesense.

It is extremely hard to believe that a biology teacher explaining the above process without getting excited. This is not a simple process. Yet, this is a simple proof that God exists, and He is the Only One that can design this process.

there is no method by which it can be determined that any of this is "designed" by any sort of being. until such a being can be demonstrated, this is simply a religious belief.

Would you do yourself a favor? Read the above process again, and ask yourself who directed this step? It is inconceivable that nature could organize this process with such detail and efficiency.

http://www.usislam.org/30life.htm

a "who" never enters into the equation for my world veiw. it is not inconceivable since that is the way things are. it is demonstrable

metta,

~v
 
Namaste Aidyl,

thank you for the post.

Aidyl Nurhadi said:
I replied to this by saying that the doctor doesn't know what he's talking about, because he's confusing simple words with his convoluted explanations on them.

actually, what he is doing is explaining how the technical meaning of the term in scientific circles is different than the vernacular meaning of the term used by laypeople. in so doing, he is pointing out how laypeople misunderstand the technical use of the terms.

He continues on saying that facts does not mean absolute certainty...

that is absolutely correct. you have heard of the Uncertainty Principle?

Is it not a fact of absolute certainty that the EARTH is SPHERICAL?

we are talking of things below the scale of classical physics here, the Quantum scale.

here's a link to a good primer on this material:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/

metta,

~v
 
Back
Top