Evolution contradicts Islam

[Alchemist]

Straw man
I never said you said this I'm summarizing your argument; also coupling it with your MSN argument, which we had a few days ago. Please read the quotation you quoted.

Your argument was that Evolution isn't real because you believe God can just create things by saying "Kun"; we agree, but this does not mean that "Kun" and the evolutionary processes don't coexist, for what's "kun" for Allah(swt) is not always "kun" for us, it can undergo sequences of change and variation. Just like all matter in the universe has gone through at some point. Your contention was that evolution would thus imply Allah(swt) needed to depend on time/finite material forces i.e. this would violate his sovereignty.






Actually no, I used reducitio ad-absurdum; your reasoning for not accepting Evolution on account that it requires sequences and differential gradients to engender a species, it can't be real because it would violate the idea that Allah(swt) creates by saying "kun" and it is; even though even in the Qur'an , even in a metaphoric understanding, it describes a process in creating Adam (as) not merely saying "Kun"; although that doesn't preclude that kun may have been used at some higher level of things. Now if we take the idea that all processes run on the same dictum as evolution; that is , (time)*(differential gradient)= development + engendering, then this is where it becomes absurd. Now of course you see a "distinction" because the others are more directly perceivable as they don't require scales of geologic or stellar time.




I haven't compared life cycles of species. I have compared processes, things which depend on other preexisting events, conditions and elements to exist. This is the crux of why you cannot accept evolution as already highlighted. You're again positioning a false dichotomy here. You're assuming That any sort of sequential development of a species contradicts the postulate "Allah creates what he wills". If anything it seems your argument and the construct it conveys is more in rejection of Allah(swt)'s sovereignty than the opposing view.



exactly; if there's no evidence, then how is it that all organisms have essentially the same biochemical components, like proteins, amino acids, fats, sugars etc. Why aren't animals made of rocks and humans made of air. or better yet, why aren't Humans Literally a product of silicates which are in clay? The answer is simple; evidence that we're we are all links, and it's demonstrated through the biochemical cursors.



no proof, but we can see one species of iguana become another and thus cannot mate with the parent species and/or two different species which can mate but produce a sterile offspring. It's not that proof doesn't exist, it is just that some individuals due to some very absurd understanding of God Literally using his hands to create Humans (which contradicts the "kun" as it is argument you made in MSN, if we take it LITERALLY of course), think that accepting such evidence would mean rejecting Allah(swt) and thus will reject such evidence.




I get it, but the statement itself doesn't mean he didn't "will" evolution and that it was his "will" for creatures to be created with 4 legs and some 2 and some fly and swim, through a process of evouition.

I mean there's a verse where he says "he made all life out of water"; we're alive so the clay, so do these stories contradict? Because clay isn't "water", so either the story can't be literal or the Qur'an contadicts itself.
We know from linguistic understanding of Arabic that idioms are used in the Qur'an and use of their analogical properties we can distinguish which verses are literal and which are not. A verse like "all living things were created from water" is literal, A clay Adam, is figurative. Even when we deal with the idea of God's will, the Arabic does not indicate that it must be understood in the way you portray.




That's funny you're creating a fallacy of equivocation by misusing the word "will" narrowly. if God can will something to existence, he can certainly will evolution.

Your argument hs is horribly circular, The process isn't valid because it's false and therefore not valid.

Evolution never represented in the Qur'an?

Surah Al Nuh ayah 13-15

ma lakum la2 ta2rajouna lilahi waqar. wa qad khalaqkum waqara?
Alam tarou kayfa khalaqa Allahu sab'a samawat tibaqa?



Since I already addressed this point, I won't repeat myself. But if we take these ahadith literally, that means Allah(swt) is finitely bound by physical constraints since his hands "turn night into day" and also that day and night are not due to physical processes due to gravity. Which contradicts what you're claiming here anyways since you said yourself that Qur'an describes the Universe came into existence in stages. And also if we take this literally then it's saying Allah(swt) is finite, because time is sequential pattern of events, and thus can have described in discrete intervals, is Allah(swt) discrete intervals? LOL



Not at all I'm bringing up the creation of the Universe; since it demonstrates how it's creation was by "kun"; and yet also described by stages. Therefore there's nothing that precludes the same condition for evolution of species. I didn't even mention the big bang? I just said the universe has an origin, and that it developed in stages. Big Bang hasn't played into this argument yet ....but I'm not a big bang person, I'm more on the side of the M-Theorist camp.




Amateurish, but also revealing how much you really don't know about the subject we're discussing.

Oh wise sage...holy of hollies ...answer this


Creation Ex Nihilo.

Believe it or not?

[ScimitarXEdge]

if we make a list of ALL evolutionary biologist in the past 200 years, most would turn out to be racist and eugenicists. Galton, the father of eugenics was a staunch believing evolutionist. Hitler's mein kempf (my struggle) influenced by Darwin's, Struggle for Existence, also from Ernst Haeckel, who published a book, in 1905, entitled, Der Kampf um den Entwicklungs-Gedanken ("The Struggle over Evolutionary Thinking").


Darwin wrote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.


variation on a scale from ape, to negorid to caucasian.

And Al-Jahith proposed evolution and he was descended from Ethiopians

[ScimitarXEdge]

Oh wise sage...holy of hollies ...answer this


Creation Ex Nihilo.

Believe it or not?

In the ultimate sense yes, but in the existential sense, no.

[Toramana]

Depends on the conception of God. There may be difficulty reconciling the theory of evolution with the anthropomorphic conception of God but the Panthiestic view of God or Diesm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism can provide a coherent explaination. As for the invalidity of ET, any scientific theory dervied through a (valid) process of induction is valid as long as there is an observation that contradicts it. So far, there hasn't been encountered any case invalidating it.

[Mujib]

We know from linguistic understanding of Arabic that idioms are used in the Qur'an and use of their analogical properties we can distinguish which verses are literal and which are not. A verse like "all living things were created from water" is literal, A clay Adam, is figurative.

The interpretation of Qur'anic verses is not simply based upon an understanding of Arabic idioms. Can you refer to a single tafsir that interprets Adam's (as) creation from clay only in terms of analogy related to Arabic idioms?

The tafsir of Sura Rahman, verse 14:

(He created man) i.e. Adam (of clay like the potter's) out of which pottery is made. (Tafsir Ibn `Abbas)

He created man, Adam, of dry clay (salsāl, a dry hollow mud producing an echo if tapped), resembling the potter’s (fakhkhār, clay that has been baked). (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

There are several sahih hadiths that relate this process in more detail.

Evolution never represented in the Qur'an?

Surah Al Nuh ayah 13-15

ma lakum la2 ta2rajouna lilahi waqar. wa qad khalaqkum waqara?
Alam tarou kayfa khalaqa Allahu sab'a samawat tibaqa?

Firstly, that is an incorrect transliteration of the verses. They read: "Ma lakum la tarjuna lillahi waqara / Wa qad khalaqakum atwara / Alam taraw kayfa khalaqallahu sab`a samawatin tibaqa." And, secondly, the tafsir of the relevant verse is:

(When He created you by (diverse) stages?) The stages refer to sperm drops, blood clots, small chunks of flesh and bones, etc. (Tafsir Ibn `Abbas)

when verily He created you in stages? (atwār is the plural of tūr, which means a state). Thus the sperm-drop is one state, the blood clot is another state, and so on, until the creation of the human being is complete: reflecting on [the manner of] his creation necessarily leads to belief in his Creator. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

And Al-Jahith proposed evolution and he was descended from Ethiopians

Al-Jahiz died in 869. He wrote on the influence of environment on animals, but that cannot be said to be a proposal of the theory of macro-evolution that is popular today.

[Alchemist]

In the ultimate sense yes, but in the existential sense, no.

heretic.

[Alchemist]

These evolutionist, can't think straight. So who was Adam? the missing link between primates and homo sapians?

Oh but they will say, "punctuated equilibrium" which basically means, that one day out of a lizard's egg a chicken was born, so one day from a chimpanzee's womb adam was born?


Fallacy Ad Absurdum?






And what about all the Sahih Ahadith that describe creation?



And Scimitar, what do you think of the birth of Isa Ibn Maryam?
Where do you suppose the other set of 23 chromosomes came from? Please answer.

[Alchemist]

Depends on the conception of God. There may be difficulty reconciling the theory of evolution with the anthropomorphic conception of God but the Panthiestic view of God or Diesm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism can provide a coherent explaination. As for the invalidity of ET, any scientific theory dervied through a (valid) process of induction is valid as long as there is an observation that contradicts it. So far, there hasn't been encountered any case invalidating it.

Wrong!

Scientific theory is based on OBSERVABLE facts. So far there have not been any observed facts of speciation. Oh yeah ... evolution is not even falsifiable... how convenient.

Now scimitar is nodding his head to goat, and toromana... you'r starting to show ur true colours.

[ScimitarXEdge]

heretic.

the typical emotional black mail of those who mask their ignorance with dogma.

[Alchemist]

the typical emotional black mail of those who mask their ignorance with dogma.

so answer my question

what do you believe in regards to the birth of Isa ibn maryam?

where did the other set of 23 chromosomes come from?

p.s ur the one getting emotional.

[Baygham]

so answer my question

what do you believe in regards to the birth of Isa ibn maryam?

where did the other set of 23 chromosomes come from?

p.s ur the one getting emotional.

the other 23 chromosomes came from a story. Just like the beautiful "badri jamala khaperai" appeared in the story of 'Saiful maluk'.

Now that we have no DNA from Isa iln maryam to test it to tell you where it came from and thus determine as to who impregnated who. Just like we have no DNA of any khaperai to tell you which species badri jamala cames from.

If isa ibn maryam was born today in the village of nazarath, we could easy do a simple paternity test that would have revealed the source of the 23 chromosomes.

[ScimitarXEdge]

The interpretation of Qur'anic verses is not simply based upon an understanding of Arabic idioms. Can you refer to a single tafsir that interprets Adam's (as) creation from clay only in terms of analogy related to Arabic idioms?

The tafsir of Sura Rahman, verse 14:

(He created man) i.e. Adam (of clay like the potter's) out of which pottery is made. (Tafsir Ibn `Abbas)

He created man, Adam, of dry clay (salsāl, a dry hollow mud producing an echo if tapped), resembling the potter’s (fakhkhār, clay that has been baked). (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

There are several sahih hadiths that relate this process in more detail.



Firstly, that is an incorrect transliteration of the verses. They read: "Ma lakum la tarjuna lillahi waqara / Wa qad khalaqakum atwara / Alam taraw kayfa khalaqallahu sab`a samawatin tibaqa." And, secondly, the tafsir of the relevant verse is:

(When He created you by (diverse) stages?) The stages refer to sperm drops, blood clots, small chunks of flesh and bones, etc. (Tafsir Ibn `Abbas)

when verily He created you in stages? (atwār is the plural of tūr, which means a state). Thus the sperm-drop is one state, the blood clot is another state, and so on, until the creation of the human being is complete: reflecting on [the manner of] his creation necessarily leads to belief in his Creator. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

Al-Jahiz died in 869. He wrote on the influence of environment on animals, but that cannot be said to be a proposal of the theory of macro-evolution that is popular today.

You aren't responding with anything profound, Tafsir Jalalayn also claims the Earth is flat. It only verifies the essence behind my argument; that the understandings given by the Islamic Savants of past in regards to the Ontology of the Universe and its contents as well as the genesis of living beings was based on their limited scope of knowledge and their assumptions based on what available data they had. Since such Savants did often restricted themselves only to certain source materials, and thus would only render verses based on limited source materials. This isn't true of other scholars such as Zamakhshari. Thus the Tafsir only reflects the knowledge of the individual scholars and their source material. Don't misunderstand me Jalalayn, is a great Tafsir, and Great Scholar( or rather scholars); but they were not inerrant, and we can measure/gage their errancy by their understandings of things based on the attitudes amongst their circle. For understanding legal literature Jalalayn is Great, as the information regarding them is still relevant. As for whether verses deal with evolution or the shape of the Earth or similar things. His opinion is merely a dogma.

The Crux of your response suffers from an intrinsic circularlity; Islam denies evolution because the Scholars deny evolution, the Scholars deny evolution because Islam denies it. You are using at best teritiary source material; the opinions of individuals who even by your own admission did not actually simply rely on lexical understanding; but just other assumptions.

It's also interesting to note that Al-Kashshaf, the Tafsir of the MU'ATAZILI Scholar, Zamakhshari renders many of these verses as implicating several layers of meaning, one layer insinuating evolution of species, since a literal creation from clay by the hands of God, would simply degrade Tawhid.

It is clear you have not had a reading or any familiarity of Al-Jahith; and are dependent on Christian-Creationist Rhetoric such as "macroevolution"; a term although valid, not used envogue in Scientific Circles, as all macroevolution is, is an aggregate result of microevolutions.

Al Jahith's own words will set this issue straight; believe me this is evolution; not as you described it merely the "effect of the environment"

Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."

[ScimitarXEdge]

so answer my question

what do you believe in regards to the birth of Isa ibn maryam?

where did the other set of 23 chromosomes come from?

p.s ur the one getting emotional.

LOL I really misjudged your intelligence.

and how is Isa ibn Maryam(as)'s birth relevant here? You're shifting goal posts and changing subjects

the 23 sets of chromsomes came from microevolutions which became macroevolutions. Consider it like a computer when there's more or more varigated information, it became necessary to develop new chromosomes to hold them and hence new species.

[Alchemist]

LOL I really misjudged your intelligence.

and how is Isa ibn Maryam(as)'s birth relevant here? You're shifting goal posts and changing subjects

the 23 sets of chromsomes came from microevolutions which became macroevolutions. Consider it like a computer when there's more or more varigated information, it became necessary to develop new chromosomes to hold them and hence new species.

Answer the question.

What do you think of Isa ibn Maryam's birth?

Explain it in your own words...

saying "it came from micro evolution" means that microevolution is a person or a thing then saying that "microevolution became macroevolution" is just absurd.

Are you saying that Maryam had already 46 sets of chromosomes? Do you understand that the germ line is distinct? Do you understand how a zygote is formed? Do you understand what meosis is?

This is VERY relavent to our discussion and I am not changing Goal post. Second time your using your fallacy list fallaciously.

An intelligent person can explain complex phenomenas in simple words. Don't dodge the question by using equivocation, which seems to be your best arsenal here. Leave this micro to macro nonsense out of our discussion because we are talking about ONE individual and his mother who gave birth to him with no father, or ever having intercourse. Do you deny this? Answer, yes or no. Not "yes and no", Mr. Mutazali.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Answer the question.

What do you think of Isa ibn Maryam's birth?

Explain it in your own words...

saying "it came from micro evolution" means that microevolution is a person or a thing then saying that "microevolution became macroevolution" is just absurd.

Are you saying that Maryam had already 46 sets of chromosomes? Do you understand that the germ line is distinct? Do you understand how a zygote is formed? Do you understand what meosis is?

This is VERY relavent to our discussion and I am not changing Goal post. Second time your using your fallacy list fallaciously.

An intelligent person can explain complex phenomenas in simple words. Don't dodge the question by using equivocation, which seems to be your best arsenal here. Leave this micro to macro nonsense out of our discussion because we are talking about ONE individual and his mother who gave birth to him with no father, or ever having intercourse. Do you deny this? Answer, yes or no. Not "yes and no", Mr. Mutazali.

Firstly; as far as Islam is concerned, Isa's birth was considered a "mu'ajazah", and thereby doesn't follow the usual sets of natural laws of the universe. The literary depiction of his life/birth would mean the Qur'an is being literal about the event. So what can be said here is "God intervened on the other mechanisms of the universe", according to the Qur'an

Saying something is so absurd, that it's absurd and thus is absurd, is such a vacuous tautology that I can't perceive where its relevance would be.

And you're making another false dichotomy/nonsequitur/no true scotsman, that intellect has to do with simplicity or complexity of words

Microevolutions are changes in the chemical signatures in the DNA, when those signatures change enough over time, and develop a new chromosome to contain the new information, this is a macroevolution and this causes changes in species.

Maybe I should follow Amir Al Ghaznawi's suggestion to DZJ, and give you a pop up book.


leave the macro/micro out of the discussion even though you thanked Mujib, in a post where he word dropped it but lets bring up the Birth of Isa? Strange