The Evolution Conflict

M

Mohsin

Well-Known Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Theory Of Evolution, presented by Charles Darwin says that life started as a result of chance and the living beings slowly evolved in different species. This theory thus denies that Adam(P.B.U.H) was the first man created by Allah(the all mighty God) and was sent to the earth. Thus it is in contradiction with both Quran and the Bible. History tells us that this theory had brought nothing but destruction of mankind, morality and even at some places denied the existance of God.

Please reffer to this book (The Disasters Darwinism Brought To Humanity) http://harunyahya.com/disaster1.php and see how this theory had caused devistation to the people.

The theory, when presented was denied by the scientests because it had no scientific evidence. It was only accepted by anti religious figures and later due to political advantages. However, modren day science has proved that life is too complicated to have been created by chance. Also, living beings cannot evolve from one being to another as otherwise there would have been many half evolved creatures around us. Thus all beings are created in their complete state by God.

Please reffer to this book(The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution ) http://harunyahya.com/evolution01.php to see how modern science had proved the theory wrong.

Now, my question is that since the theory of evolution is incorrect and have contradictions with both Quran and the Bible, thus conflicting religion, why do so many people believe in it? Why is it tought in schools and colleges? Why do many magazines and people of the scientific community defend this theory, and do you, being a religious person, believe in this thoery?
 
There is only a conflict between the accounts if you look for a completely literal interpretation it.

And please note that the Theory of Evolution was not carried into the mainstream secular thinking by "anti-religious figures" working to "political advantage".

The first book on Darwinism you reference - I think I've seen excerpts from this before. The argument involves referencing Nazi Germany as a principle effect of Darwinism, and therefore argues as a good reason to refute Darwinism. And that is not an argument at all, anymore than saying that because Saddam Hussein enjoyed harming others that therefore all Muslims enjoy harming others...thus the Quran should be abandoned. These are not arguments!

It is certainly true that the Theory of Evolution is still in a very early stage of development, even after over one-hundred years, not least because the technical and scientific advances required to test and explore it more directly simply have not been in existence - and many fundamental issues still remain beyond our immediate technological framework (such as the full and proper analysis of the hundreds of thousands of proteins - and their chemical pathways - present in any single organism for expressing genes).

And it is certainly true that there are very real objections to aspects of this theory, and that there is fierce debate within the biological sciences themselves as to the actual different mechanics involved. Overall, though, acceptance of at least the core principles of the Theory of Evolution are accepted scientific fact. (Also note that the Theory of Evolution has changed dramatically since the time of Darwin).

What I find especially sad - and I mean no direct offence to anyone here - is that Islam used to be a very knowledge-driven religion, and founded the Western sciences as we know them. The Quran itself extolls the virtues of knowledge. Yet, lamentably, the fundamentalist voice in Islam brays loudly, and it has no care for science and learning, but instead to the politics of self and demagogues.

Islam used to have a golden age of exploration: Damascus was once a seat of learning and technology more advanced than even London would be for centuries after. Yet from those days has come a sad eclipse of decline from the exploration of the natural world. In that it is like the fundamentalist voice of Islam has turned from God's creations, and thus, also God.
 
Mohsin, I believe that the evolution of species is the hand of God working on earth. I did not say the "Theory of Evolution" because honestly I'm not a scientist and don't understand it well enough to defend it, but I think it is undeniable that species adapt and change to fit into changing enviroments. I don't believe that it all started by "chance", but that does not mean that life couldn't have evolved over the billions of years our planet has been here. I don't think God is in a hurry and a butterfly is no less a miracle to me if it took a billion years or a day to create.

I confess that I don't try to intrepret religious texts literally, I just don't think that religious truth can be expressed by human language. I also think that most scientific truths (evolution) are much more complex than can be summed up in a theory or series of papers. Both science and religion are attempting to get at the truth, just from different angles. To me science is the "what" and religion is the "why". They can each have their place in your life if you want.
 
Namaste all,

the Theory of Evolution simply is a method to describe genetic change in a population over time. that's it. it has rather broad implications however, especially when it comes to the orgin of life on earth.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. it's a fact that it happens and the theories are concerned with the "hows" and "whyfores". if one takes a dogmatic position on this issue one is likely to be mistaken to some degree.

as for Haryun Yahya.. well... suffice it to say that his understanding of Buddhism is not accurate and he's been unwilling to modify his position on this issue, as such, i cannot accept anything that he may have to say with any degree of trust or faith that he's being honest.

in a strange way, i think that Mr. Yahya is a 5th column engaged in an effort to undermine Islam... but that's just me.
 
I agree, the Theory of Evolution was not carried out for secular or anti-religious means, but it has surely been used for it. If you read from the links that I provided, it provides a great detail more in negative aspects then Nazi Germany. I am not offending anyone but reviving some points from history.

I being a Muslim, hate Saddam as his actions were a disgrace to Islam. I would also accept that after the fall of Bagdad by the hands of Ganges Khan, the Muslims never really got back into science, but to say that Muslims are not involved in science is not entirely true. Many Muslims are working as scientest in various countries, but the sad thing is that there are not as much in Muslim countries .This is because the ones that go to get education in foreign coutries e.g UK, America etc, they tend to stay and work there. I will have to agree that Muslims are not good politicians, both internally and externally. This is a big reason that they have now fallen back in science by not providing oppurtunities for scientests.

My question still remains that as the theory is contradicting religion, should it be accepted? After reffering to the links, many aspects will come in front of you that will question about this theory.

As for Mr. Vajradhara, I do not know about Mr. Yahya as if his knowledge about Buddhism is accurate or not. I would like you to reffer to the scientific facts that he had provided in his works and how they are used to prove a point.
 
Shih Yo Chi said:
Mohsin, I believe that the evolution of species is the hand of God working on earth. I did not say the "Theory of Evolution" because honestly I'm not a scientist and don't understand it well enough to defend it, but I think it is undeniable that species adapt and change to fit into changing enviroments. I don't believe that it all started by "chance", but that does not mean that life couldn't have evolved over the billions of years our planet has been here. I don't think God is in a hurry and a butterfly is no less a miracle to me if it took a billion years or a day to create.

I confess that I don't try to intrepret religious texts literally, I just don't think that religious truth can be expressed by human language. I also think that most scientific truths (evolution) are much more complex than can be summed up in a theory or series of papers. Both science and religion are attempting to get at the truth, just from different angles. To me science is the "what" and religion is the "why". They can each have their place in your life if you want.
Click to expand...
Very well put Shin. I like the way you think!:cool:
 
Evolution is a Theory

When theories become dogma, science suffers. New inquiry is stifled.

It is unfortunate that the battles regarding evolution theory and time and money invested heretofore, have caused scientists to take such a hard line on this theory. There are knowledgable scientists who are seriously attempting to postulate other theories but since science has now "accepted" evolution as if it were not theory, but law, there is great difficulty getting any respect for fine new ideas that also have scientific merit.

The development of scientific knowledge is so political within the ivied halls of learning today that new scientists can only jump on old bandwagons: all other wagons are apostate from science's old preistly caste and no funding will be given to anything that does not follow old dogma, even if it is based upon valid scientific data. Research is expensive and can only follow the money.


Now, evolution might be partly true. But to say it is wholy true and the only possible truth and to say that all further scientific study must be based upon it, is IMHO, antithetical to the purpose of science.
 
Evolution is called a theory because that's what scientific ideas are called. There will never be a way to "prove" evolution enough to stop calling it a theory, but enough things that can be reasonably predicted based on the theory have been shown to be true for us to accept evolution as a fact. That's not to say that the chronology currently in place is the right one - that is only to say that the process as described in evolutionary theory is mostly correct.

That's the distinction I make - the distinction between the process of evolution, and the guesses scientists make at how things got to be where they are now. And - I disagree totally that evolution contradicts the Bible or Qur'an.

On another forum, discussing Adam, I postulated that Adam represents that qualitative change over from one lacking in conscious thought (as opposed to instinctive thought) to one possessing the same. And, the Bible gives us the idea that Adam was the name of a species (both Adam and Eve are called Adam in Genesis). To me - this break from the rest is the dawn of humanity - and I believe further that the Adam species that made this qualitative leap in thought was always the same species, and did not leave other kinds of remnants behind, but instead continued to evolve into what we are today.

HM07
HM07
 
Handmaiden07 said:
Evolution is called a theory because that's what scientific ideas are called. There will never be a way to "prove" evolution enough to stop calling it a theory, but enough things that can be reasonably predicted based on the theory have been shown to be true for us to accept evolution as a fact. That's not to say that the chronology currently in place is the right one - that is only to say that the process as described in evolutionary theory is mostly correct.

That's the distinction I make - the distinction between the process of evolution, and the guesses scientists make at how things got to be where they are now. And - I disagree totally that evolution contradicts the Bible or Qur'an.

On another forum, discussing Adam, I postulated that Adam represents that qualitative change over from one lacking in conscious thought (as opposed to instinctive thought) to one possessing the same. And, the Bible gives us the idea that Adam was the name of a species (both Adam and Eve are called Adam in Genesis). To me - this break from the rest is the dawn of humanity - and I believe further that the Adam species that made this qualitative leap in thought was always the same species, and did not leave other kinds of remnants behind, but instead continued to evolve into what we are today.

HM07
HM07
Click to expand...

I suggest that you read the Holy Scriptures before making such claims. I am a Muslim and I have gathered a list of the Quranic verses in which Allah had mentioned about the creation and no where is there any doubt left for you to make such claims as that the Theory of Evolution in not contradicting the Quran and also the Bible as both these books are religious scriptures from one being, Allah(The all mighty God)

____________

[4.1] O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you.


[7.11] And certainly We created you, then We fashioned you, then We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam. So they did obeisance except Iblis; he was not of those who did obeisance.
[7.12] He said: What hindered you so that you did not make obeisance when I commanded you? He said: I am better than he: Thou hast created me of fire, while him Thou didst create of dust.


[16.3] He created the heavens and the earth with the truth, highly exalted be He above what they associate (with Him).
[16.4] He created man from a small seed and lo! he is an open contender.
[16.5] And He created the cattle for you; you have in them warm clothing and (many) advantages, and of them do you eat.


[18.37] His companion said to him while disputing with him: Do you disbelieve in Him Who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man?

[19.67] Does not man remember that We created him before, when he was nothing?

[22.5] O people! if you are in doubt about the raising, then surely We created you from dust, then from a small seed, then from a clot, then from a lump of flesh, complete in make and incomplete, that We may make clear to you; and We cause what We please to stay in the wombs till an appointed time, then We bring you forth as babies, then that you may attain your maturity; and of you is he who is caused to die, and of you is he who is brought back to the worst part of life, so that after having knowledge he does not know anything; and you see the earth sterile land, but when We send down on it the water, it stirs and swells and brings forth of every kind a beautiful herbage.

[23.12] And certainly We created man of an extract of clay,

[24.45] And Allah has created from water every living creature: so of them is that which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them is that which walks upon four; Allah creates what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things.

[25.49] That We may give life thereby to a dead land and give it for drink, out of what We have created, to cattle and many people.

[25.54] And He it is Who has created man from the water, then He has made for him blood relationship and marriage relationship, and your Lord is powerful.

[30.20] And one of His signs is that He created you from dust, then lo! you are mortals (who) scatter.

[30.21] And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect.

[30.40] Allah is He Who created you, then gave you sustenance, then He causes you to die, then brings you to life. Is there any of your associate-gods who does aught of it? Glory be to Him, and exalted be He above what they associate (with Him).

[30.54] Allah is He Who created you from a state of weakness then He gave strength after weakness, then ordained weakness and hoary hair after strength; He creates what He pleases, and He is the Knowing, the Powerful.

[31.11] This is Allah's creation, but show Me what those besides Him have created. Nay, the unjust are in manifest error

[32.7] Who made good everything that He has created, and He began the creation of man from dust.

[36.36] Glory be to Him Who created pairs of all things, of what the earth grows, and of their kind and of what they do not know.

[36.77] Does not man see that We have created him from the small seed? Then lo! he is an open disputant.

[37.96] And Allah has created you and what you make.

[39.6] He has created you from a single being, then made its mate of the same (kind), and He has made for you eight of the cattle in pairs. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers-- a creation after a creation-- in triple darkness; that is Allah your Lord, His is the kingdom; there is no god but He; whence are you then turned away?

[49.13] O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.

[51.49] And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful.

[51.56] And I have not created the jinn and the men except that they should serve Me.

[56.57] We have created you, why do you not then assent?

[64.2] He it is Who created you, but one of you is an unbeliever and another of you is a believer; and Allah sees what you do.

[67.2] Who created death and life that He may try you-- which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving,

[67.3] Who created the seven heavens one above another; you see no incongruity in the creation of the Beneficent God; then look again, can you see any disorder?

[71.14] And indeed He has created you through various grades:

[71.15] Do you not see how Allah has created the seven heavens ,~ one above another,

[76.2] Surely We have created man from a small life-germ uniting (itself): We mean to try him, so We have made him hearing, seeing.

[78.8] And We created you in pairs,

[80.19] Of a small seed; He created him, then He made him according to a measure,

[86.5] So let man consider of what he is created:

[86.6] He is created of water pouring forth,

[88.17] Will they not then consider the camels, how they are created?

[95.4] Certainly We created man in the best make.​

____________________

Now where does it say anything about evolution or that man (or any animal for that matter) was not in his present form (something inferior).
 
Mohsin,

What is your opinion about all the skeletons and fossiles that are discovered each day in Africa (i.e in the Rift Valley), which are, by many methods, dated to up to 4,2 millions of years. Archaelogists clearly claim that they belong to an earlier stage of human evolution. They can even classify them in different stages (australopitecus, paranthropus, homo, etc.).

You ask us how peole can deny the Quran's and the Bible's texts but you don't say how you can deny those scientificaly proven "facts".

If your argument is that one is holy scriptures and the others are human theories, then I must answer that both were written by men and thus, could be equally flawed.

Kal
 
I said:
There is only a conflict between the accounts if you look for a completely literal interpretation it.

And please note that the Theory of Evolution was not carried into the mainstream secular thinking by "anti-religious figures" working to "political advantage".

The first book on Darwinism you reference - I think I've seen excerpts from this before. The argument involves referencing Nazi Germany as a principle effect of Darwinism, and therefore argues as a good reason to refute Darwinism. And that is not an argument at all, anymore than saying that because Saddam Hussein enjoyed harming others that therefore all Muslims enjoy harming others...thus the Quran should be abandoned. These are not arguments!

It is certainly true that the Theory of Evolution is still in a very early stage of development, even after over one-hundred years, not least because the technical and scientific advances required to test and explore it more directly simply have not been in existence - and many fundamental issues still remain beyond our immediate technological framework (such as the full and proper analysis of the hundreds of thousands of proteins - and their chemical pathways - present in any single organism for expressing genes).

And it is certainly true that there are very real objections to aspects of this theory, and that there is fierce debate within the biological sciences themselves as to the actual different mechanics involved. Overall, though, acceptance of at least the core principles of the Theory of Evolution are accepted scientific fact. (Also note that the Theory of Evolution has changed dramatically since the time of Darwin).

What I find especially sad - and I mean no direct offence to anyone here - is that Islam used to be a very knowledge-driven religion, and founded the Western sciences as we know them. The Quran itself extolls the virtues of knowledge. Yet, lamentably, the fundamentalist voice in Islam brays loudly, and it has no care for science and learning, but instead to the politics of self and demagogues.

Islam used to have a golden age of exploration: Damascus was once a seat of learning and technology more advanced than even London would be for centuries after. Yet from those days has come a sad eclipse of decline from the exploration of the natural world. In that it is like the fundamentalist voice of Islam has turned from God's creations, and thus, also God.
Click to expand...
Ah Brian, the Arabia you speak of was before Islam. And it was more the Persians than the Arabs. Arabs were nomadic in nature, and the Persians built the great cities. Kind of like calling a Iranian or an Afghan an Arab...fighting words.

Now as for the question of evolution, if viruses and bacteria count, and evolution is considered a mutation that takes and thrives, then yes science has its repetitive observation with substantial evidence to prove the evolutionary theory.





"Why is it that the micro world moves so fast and the Macro world - so slow?"
 
Namaste Moshin,


thank you for the reply.

Vajradhara will do... a Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. is not necessary, thank you for the consideration though.

i've read all of the material that Harun Yahya has on his website. other Muslims have pointed me in that direction. i've emailed Mr. Yahya on two seperate occassions asking if he would be willing to modify his mis-information regarding Buddhism. he has not responded at this time.

leaving that aside....

since this isn't the Science forum, i do not feel that it is appropriate to go into all the science aspects of any scientific theory let alone the TOE.

you know... when a scientist publishes material, it's usually in a peer reviewed magazine that is vetted by other scientists. should Harun Yahya actually produce work that is published in a scientifically peer reviewed magazine that refutes TOE, i'd be interested to read it. otherwise, it's simply his opinion and it is as good as mine :)

heck.. as far as one can tell... he didn't even graduate from a universtiy... which has no implications on ones intelligence, however, it does not lend credibility to ones theories when they counter the bulk of modern scientific theories.

http://www.harunyahya.com/theauthor.php
 
Mohsin said:
My question still remains that as the theory is contradicting religion, should it be accepted?
Click to expand...
Hi Mohsin, The Baha'i Faith states that science and religion must be in harmony. This is how Abdul-Baha explains the concept of evolution and it makes sense to me.

I'm on my way out now. I hope to get back to this tomorrow.

Loving Greetings, Harmony

"As to the soul of man after death, it remains in the degree of purity to which it has evolved during life in the physical body, and after it is freed from the body it remains plunged in the ocean of God's Mercy.
From the moment the soul leaves the body and arrives in the Heavenly World, its evolution is spiritual, and that evolution is: The approaching unto God.

In the physical creation, evolution is from one degree of perfection to another. The mineral passes with its mineral perfections to the vegetable; the vegetable, with its perfections, passes to the animal world, and so on to that of humanity. This world is full of seeming contradictions; in each of these kingdoms (mineral, vegetable and animal) life exists in its degree; though when compared to the life in a man, the earth appears to be dead, yet she, too, lives and has a life of her own. In this world things live and die, and live again in other forms of life, but in the world of the spirit it is quite otherwise.
The soul does not evolve from degree to degree as a law--it only evolves nearer to God, by the Mercy and Bounty of God." Paris Talks, p 66

"Question.--Does man in the beginning possess mind and spirit, or are they an outcome of his evolution?

Answer.--The beginning of the existence of man on the terrestrial globe resembles his formation in the womb of the mother. The embryo in the womb of the mother gradually grows and develops until birth, after which it continues to grow and develop until it reaches the age of discretion and maturity. Though in infancy the signs of the mind and spirit appear in man, they do not reach the degree of perfection; they are imperfect. Only when man attains maturity do the mind and the spirit appear and become evident in utmost perfection.

So also the formation of man in the matrix of the world was in the beginning like the embryo; then gradually he made progress in perfectness, and grew and developed until he reached the state of maturity, when the mind and spirit became visible in the greatest power. In the beginning of his formation the mind and spirit also existed, but they were hidden; later they were manifested. In the womb of the world mind and spirit also existed in the embryo, but they were concealed; afterward they appeared. So it is that in the seed the tree exists, but it is hidden and concealed; when it develops and grows, the complete tree appears. In the same way the growth and development of all beings is gradual; this is the universal divine organization and the natural system. The seed does not at once become a tree; the embryo does not at once become a man; the mineral does not suddenly become a stone. No, they grow and develop gradually and attain the limit of perfection.
All beings, whether large or small, were created perfect and complete from the first, but their perfections appear in them by degrees. The organization of God is one; the evolution of existence is one; the divine system is one. Whether they be small or great beings, all are subject to one law and system. Each seed has in it from the first all the vegetable perfections. For example, in the seed all the vegetable perfections exist from the beginning, but not visibly; afterward little by little they appear. So it is first the shoot which appears from the seed, then the branches, leaves, blossoms and fruits; but from the beginning of its existence all these things are in the seed, potentially, though not apparently.

In the same way, the embryo possesses from the first all perfections, such as the spirit, the mind, the sight, the smell, the taste--in one word, all the powers--but they are not visible and become so only by degrees.
Similarly, the terrestrial globe from the beginning was created with all its elements, substances, minerals, atoms and organisms; but these only appeared by degrees: first the mineral, then the plant, afterward the animal, and finally man. But from the first these kinds and species existed, but were undeveloped in the terrestrial globe, and then appeared only gradually. For the supreme organization of God, and the universal natural system, surround all beings, and all are subject to this rule. When you consider this universal system, you see that there is not one of the beings which at its coming into existence has reached the limit of perfection. No, they gradually grow and develop, and then attain the degree of perfection. " -Some Answered Questions, p. 197-99
 
Handmaiden07 said:
Evolution is called a theory because that's what scientific ideas are called. There will never be a way to "prove" evolution enough to stop calling it a theory, but enough things that can be reasonably predicted based on the theory have been shown to be true for us to accept evolution as a fact. That's not to say that the chronology currently in place is the right one - that is only to say that the process as described in evolutionary theory is mostly correct.

That's the distinction I make - the distinction between the process of evolution, and the guesses scientists make at how things got to be where they are now. And - I disagree totally that evolution contradicts the Bible or Qur'an.

On another forum, discussing Adam, I postulated that Adam represents that qualitative change over from one lacking in conscious thought (as opposed to instinctive thought) to one possessing the same. And, the Bible gives us the idea that Adam was the name of a species (both Adam and Eve are called Adam in Genesis). To me - this break from the rest is the dawn of humanity - and I believe further that the Adam species that made this qualitative leap in thought was always the same species, and did not leave other kinds of remnants behind, but instead continued to evolve into what we are today.

HM07
HM07
Click to expand...
Thank you, Handmaiden, for explaining scientific theory to me. As a scientist, I am surely in need of that instruction. :D No offense.
The point I was making is that while much about evolution appears to be correct, it should not be accepted as a "fact," but rather as a premise toward further study. Scientists who are involved in related disciplines do see this distinction (except of course for those who have a personal interest in maintaining status quo at all costs: their current grants are based upon it) Again I say when scientific theories become dogma, science suffers.
As to whether evolution contradicts religion it depends on the religion. For many persons who cannot understand science, but swear by it anyway, it is a tenet of their faith. :)
 
Mohsin, My sincere apologies, but after reading the verses you provided, I don't see anything that contradicts evolution. The word create does not imply instantaneous creation in my mind. I see great beauty and wisdom in the verses, but not evidence against evolution. I would think God's perception of time must be quite different than ours.

I wouldn't interpret it this way, but a case could be made for verse 22.5 supporting evolution "from dust, then from a small seed, then from a clot, then from a lump of flesh, complete in make and incomplete”.

I’d like to add that I don’t think whether one believes in evolution or creationism or neither really matters. I think as long as one is on the quest to spiritual fulfillment and is seeking the spirit of God it doesn’t matter how we get there.
 
Phi said:
Thank you, Handmaiden, for explaining scientific theory to me. As a scientist, I am surely in need of that instruction. :D No offense.
Click to expand...
None taken, but I don't think I was replying to you in specific! I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

HM07
 
Kaldayen said:
Mohsin,

What is your opinion about all the skeletons and fossiles that are discovered each day in Africa (i.e in the Rift Valley), which are, by many methods, dated to up to 4,2 millions of years. Archaelogists clearly claim that they belong to an earlier stage of human evolution. They can even classify them in different stages (australopitecus, paranthropus, homo, etc.).

You ask us how peole can deny the Quran's and the Bible's texts but you don't say how you can deny those scientificaly proven "facts".

If your argument is that one is holy scriptures and the others are human theories, then I must answer that both were written by men and thus, could be equally flawed.

Kal
Click to expand...

Please reffer to the link about the second book, and you will come to know how the bones presented had been an act of forgery. Most of the time, an ape's jaw, a man's skull. http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution08.php and a few other page of this book deals with this topic.

In the verses that I quoted, one was
________
[22.5] O people! if you are in doubt about the raising, then surely We created you from dust, then from a small seed, then from a clot, then from a lump of flesh, complete in make and incomplete, that We may make clear to you; and We cause what We please to stay in the wombs till an appointed time, then We bring you forth as babies, then that you may attain your maturity; and of you is he who is caused to die, and of you is he who is brought back to the worst part of life, so that after having knowledge he does not know anything; and you see the earth sterile land, but when We send down on it the water, it stirs and swells and brings forth of every kind a beautiful herbage.​
_________

This verse was also pointed out by Shih Yo Chi as proving toward the theory. I would like to point out a miracle of Quran here. The Quran has spoken about the stages of development of the human body in the mother's womb. There are several verses which deal with the field of embryology and it is in complete harmony with the modern science. The seed is reffering towards the sperm and ova, which after fertalization forms a clot of flesh and the then clings to the mother's womb. It does not say that earlier there was a seed which evolved into a clot of flesh in outside of the mother's body to form new species. This is the development inside the mother's womb. This verse is a miracle as there were no microscopes and electron microscopes when the Quran was revealed that could have been used to know these stages of development. The creation from dust is used to indicate that one of the elemenet of the human body is dust, just like water, just like seed or sperm which has also been mentioned in the Quran.

Many people have said about the spiritual and physical evolution. I have no objection as a man grows old, but still remains a man, not into a process in which he becomes something into his next evolutinary state as Darwin's thoery claims.

To those who think that Quran is not true and a handiwork of man, please reffer to the following links.
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php several scientific miracales are mentioned here. http://www.irf.net/irf/download/index.htm download the lecture 'Is Quran God's word', also 'Quran and Modern Science, Conlict or Conciliation'. These refer to many aspects and deals with many alligations againt the Quran.

I am sorry Vajradhara if any of my actions offended you in any aspect. I will e-mail them about your concern myself. I wanted you again to look for the scientific facts about the fall of the theory. Surely Harun Yahya is not working alone, he might have started the organization and a team probable researchs, but you should refer to the facts, their authenticity rather then the qualification of the auther.
 
Eating unhealthy foods

Before anything else, I want to declare that I believe in God.

(This is getting to be like having to say that you are against international terrorism, before you express an honest opinion against Bush's invasion war on Iraq.)


On evolution vs. God's direct creation, my suggestion is that since adherents of God's direct creation are, I am sure, well versed in all the authoritative religious texts and explanations and defenses of direct creation, I think they owe it also to their faculty of curiosity, to spend one year reading everything they can get their hands on about evolution: the idea, the discovery, and the explanations.


I had a classmate once in my school days who would not eat pig's brain or beef brain, because it's not healthy. Every so often I had animal brain in my lunchbox. One day he could not contain his curiosity any longer, so he asked me whether I was suffering any unhealthy effects from eating brain matter.

"Do you see me any worse for eating brain matter?" I asked him in return. As a matter of fact I was slightly bigger, tougher, and definitely more rough in sports than him -- that shows also in my posts; and unlike him I practically never missed any classes owing to sickness.

"Tell you what," I challenged him, "you eat my lunch and I eat yours; let's see if you will get sick."

Overcome by curiosity, he took the challenge, and learned to appreciate brain food.


So, my good friend, Mohsin and all adherents of direct creation, take some very good quality time to study evolution from the research masters of evolution; and if at the end of the day, you still can't see any merit in evolution, then you are entitled to remain in the credal privilege of religion: not to accept evolution -- invoking some kind of intellectual First Amendment.

Susma Rio Sep
 
i kind of agree with both handmaiden and phi - i don't think the two of you actually disagree! science works by hypothesis-disproof - thus "in the absence of evidence that a given theory is correct, this theory should be accepted as the best explanation we have" i think is the way i'd put it. not, necessarily quite the same thing as "truth" - which i believe is a philosophical term which everyone needs to understand properly. it is a subtle distinction and when scientists start banging on about having the truth and religious people start banging on about the same, i want to bang their heads together. if you want to disprove evolution, do so using the tools that the theory of evolution used, otherwise it's apples and oranges. gravity is also a theory backed up by a certain amount of empirical evidence. you are welcome to not believe it, of course, but wear a *really* thick jumper. personally, i don't see the point of this type of debate and, with all due respect to mohsin, i don't believe the ToE is incompatible with either the Torah or the Qur'an - and although i am not a muslim theologian, there are plenty of muslim theologians of my acquaintance that would maintain the same.

of course, when people try and take the text literally, yes, you're going to run into problems, like "who did cain marry?" for starters. however, i don't believe it's productive to try and spend a lot of time reconciling completely different *systems*, let alone individual points of view. it's not so much apples-and-oranges as it is apples-and-spreadsheets. piling up a group of quotes isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

The point I was making is that while much about evolution appears to be correct, it should not be accepted as a "fact," but rather as a premise toward further study. Scientists who are involved in related disciplines do see this distinction (except of course for those who have a personal interest in maintaining status quo at all costs: their current grants are based upon it) Again I say when scientific theories become dogma, science suffers.
Click to expand...
hear, hear! can we put this up on a big sign in front of richard dawkins' house? heh.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
In the beginning....

Since this topic is all about beginnings, perhps it would be a good idea to research the beginnings of Darwin's theory, "The Voyage of the Beagle."
This treatise contains a concise and accurate description of the credentials of Darwin and his "colleagues", most of whom were not scientists at all!

Which just goes to show that many good and valid scientific boons can come from very bad beginnings. How many better and more valid scientific boons might, then, come from good beginnings?

It further illustrates my point that when theories become dogma, science suffers.

This treatise is by a Christian writer, who gives some Christian opinions, but the facts of the history are concise and correct.
http://www.online-literature.com/darwin/voyage_beagle/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top