why Creationism is farcical and Evolution is a meritable Scientific Concept

[ScimitarXEdge]

Not to stir up any animosity from the last evolution debates; but this covers many points not addressed in previous debates which I believe all of us can benefit from learning and understanding.

YouTube - ‪Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism‬‏

[Alchemist]

Yes...

it is very difficult for you to believe in a Creator who could will whatever He wants however He wants which by no means is cognizable by your limited knowledge and imagination.

We already know that you are not a sincere believer but a half hearted muslim. The only reason you are a muslim is so you could go pretending to be morally superior to everyone else.

Despite debunking the foundations of the phylogenetic tree and showing all proofs against its fraudulent and deceitful methodology you still post some random vid like it is the holy grail or the arch of the covenant - proof for your delusional materialistic aqida and reason d'etre of your agnosticism. This is no more than a mythology of creation that has been rehearsed since the first kafir forgot that his Maker is All Power. Only a fool would argue that either evolution or "creationism" is a science ...neither are sciences...and not even this Youtube post so don't feel too good about ur self for digging it out.

Better to eat pork then post this filth son - if only you knew.

[Digital Malang]

Nadeem Haque. From Microbits to Everything: Beyond Darwinism and Creationism.(Book review).


The idea that biological evolution is intrinsically opposed to any form of religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths, is a commonly held notion amongst laymen and academics of both religious and irreligious backgrounds alike. However, Nadeem Haque in the third and final volume of the innovative From Microbits to Everything series sets to put an end to the debate between Darwinism and creationism and attempts to find a middle way between the two seemingly contradictory philosophies. By presenting a new mechanism for the evolution of life that fits in with the model of the universe being proposed in the first two books of the series coauthored by M. Muslim, a clear unification of physics and biology is achieved - at least in theory.

The thesis of the book is divided into two portions, the first of which deals with an understanding (i.e. reinterpretation) of the creation and evolution of all life forms as is mentioned in the Qur'an. The second portion of the thesis describes a new mechanism for the evolution of life that is assumed to go hand in hand with both the Qur'anic perspective of the universe and Haque's and Muslim's perspective of the structure and constituents of the universe in both the micro and macro scale proposed in Volumes 1 and 2. Though the book may show a glimpse of the reality of the mechanisms underlying the natural world, it fails to empirically prove both portions of its thesis.

New discoveries may eventually lend evidence to the claims present in the book. Despite this, the need for Islamic scholarship to tackle the theory of biological evolution as is understood by modern biology is highlighted by the overwhelming lack of acceptance amongst Muslims worldwide; the denial of the traditional understanding of the mechanisms driving biological evolution found in From Microbits to Everything: Beyond Darwinism and Creationism being evidence of this.

Haque presents a new mechanism for biological evolution that has its pivot in the revised physics of Volumes 1 and 2. The main emphasis that Haque makes with regards to the forces underlying the evolutionary changes that organisms go through is that it is "purely internal mechanisms for being the driving force of evolution, in terms of generational change in the genome due to structural and network changes in its components" (pp. 40-41). The actual mechanism which is proposed by the author is called "motion based programming" which involves the subtle changes in the genome of organisms that affect their phenotypes. According to Haque, the changes do not happen randomly, but rather through a divinely controlled process which involves a very interesting process called qausi-equilibrium.

This qausi equilibrium is defined as being the state in which a structure is stable, and then subsequently reaches a threshold as a result of the internal motion of the elements constituting the structure, or even the position of the structure itself, after which the structure reaches a new state (p. 33). The example (but more appropriately the analogy) of a book on a shelf is given where it falls off the shelf after being in a seemingly stable state. Indeed, others like Michael J. Denton have reached similar conclusions regarding the possibility of evolution being a directed phenomenon and even concludes that it is premature to reject out of hand the possibility that during the course of evolution specific preprogrammed genetic rearrangements have occurred at specific times.

Though this process may seem like just another way of looking at how genetic mutations occur, Haque strays from conventional evolutionary biology in that he asserts that no natural selection is involved by these "programmed" mutations. Instead, "everything follows pathways that are governed by quasi-equilibrium," including both living and non-living systems (p. 35). What this means from an evolutionary perspective is that organisms do not change in response to the environment because of selective pressures that make the best adapted organisms within a population have more offspring, and hence a larger portion of the population with the best adapted traits through generations, but instead, a generation of organisms are programmed via motion based programming due to "inbuilt pathways" to exhibit phenotypic changes that are best suited to the environment. Those from the population that "are not in sync die out" (p. 35).

Though this process is described as being "natural and automatic," it is asserted by the autor that it is a divinely sustained process (p. 34).

The processes mentioned by Haque certainly explain some phenomena that are seen throughout the fossil record, such as the relatively quick and sudden changes in the evolutionary history of the morphology of certain animals despite hundreds of thousands to millions of years of stasis. As pointed out by R. A. Kerr, it is a indeed a conundrum that if stability is the rule, and if selection tends to freeze organisms against change, then this raises the question of how selection ever transformed organisms so dramatically: "How do you get from funny little Mesozoic mammals to horses and whales? From Archaeopteryx to hummingbords."

Haque's answer to this is that "We need to gain a new understanding of 'information' and couple it with quasi-equilibrium to understand how evolution transpires" (p. 33). In spite of this, the modern understanding of the theory of evolution (ie. Darwinian evolution coupled with Punctuated Equilibrium), which would be best described as the author's antithesis, is not proven wrong in the book. One of the main reasons why is the fact that no such empirical evidence exists to show that certain organisms have not been subject to change in a manner that contradicts the processes outlined in the modern understanding of the theory of evolution.

Admittedly, the modern understanding of the theory of evolution does not explain how and why certain mutations cause an organism to exhibit a certain phenotype, but are thought of as being random beneficial mutations. The mechanisms for the purely internal changes in the genome of organisms that are outlined by Haque may be a theistic alternative to randomness and chance that is conventionally thought of to be the reason why everything is the way it is. It should be noted that, contrary to popular belief, there is nothing Islamically wrong with the belief that natural selection is the mechanism by which biological evolution works so long as it is not based on the philosophical assumption that all cause and effect are separate from the divine will and predestination (qadr).

In fact, the prominent expert in Islamic law, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, says in one of his letters regarding the topic of biological evolution: From the point of view of tawhid, Islamic theism, nothing happens "at random," there is no "autonomous nature," and anyone who believes in either of these is necessarily beyond the pale of Islam.

Thus, it is clear that if a Muslim were to accept biological evolution as scientific fact, which is unanimously agreed upon by the scientific community, then Haque's mechanism for evolution is not the only theologically acceptable theory that explains the process of evolution.

Though Haque's contention as to how species have diversified and evolved through time is not theologically in conflict with the traditional understanding of Islam, his idea that the Prophet Adam (peace be on him) is also a direct descendant of other life forms is certainly against what most scholars would consider the orthodox view of Adam's creation. According to Haque, "God did not suddenly create Adam out of clay. Adam was programmed to arise after billions of years of evolution" (p. 59).

The clay or dust that Adam was created from, which are mentioned in the Qur'an in "7: 12; 17: 61;18: 37; 22: 5; 30: 20; 35: 11; 40: 67" and elsewhere, are said to be the primary catalyst which helped to form the first basic molecules of life which, through the process of evolution described in the book, gave rise to the vista of different species on Earth after many millions of years eventually leading to man (p. 27). The Prophet Adam (peace be on him) is described as being quite literally "born embryological the same way we were and had a mother and father" (p. 52). This interpretation of Haque seems at first to contradict clear cut texts in the Qur'an and Hadith literature about Adam's special creation such as the verse of the Qur'an that states, "Verily, the likeness of 'Isa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was" (3: 59).

It may be implied from this verse that Adam (peace be on him) was a miraculous creation just as the Prophet 'Isa (Jesus) (peace be on him) was created miraculously. However, it is asserted by the author that the dust mentioned in the verse talks about the cosmic stardust from which ultimately all planets and life descended. Haque's argument with regards to how Adam (peace be on him) evolved from earlier life forms seems to be a modern interpretation of Islamic texts that disregards classical Islamic scholarship and consensus.

In all fairness, however, Haque's argument that all life originated from the direct activity of clay does seem to make sense if taken as an argument by itself and independent of classically held scholarly opinions. Haque's model is founded upon a mechanism that removes the God-of-the-gaps and one that brings a unified view of physics and biology that applies even to the emergence of humans. The rise of human consciousness is also explained very well within this framework in such a way that it does not contradict the verses of the Qur'an.

This idea seems to fit in neatly with a "Qur'an - only" interpretation of the Qur'an itself because of the potential ambiguity in the Qur'anic texts when read separate from classical exegeses. If one as a Muslim is fine with holding a belief that is not held by the majority of Muslims (i.e. the Sunni majority, also known as Ahl al-Sunnah wa 'l-Jama'ah), then one would hail Haque's theory of the origin of man as being the long sought after truth of both the Qur'an and biological evolution. However, according to Keller, who follows the traditional Sunni creed, believing in Adam (peace be on him) as being created in an evolutionary fashion is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an.

Others like Nadim al-Jisr allow the scope of the theory of evolution to apply even to humanity given that it is absolutely proven with rational evidence that humans did indeed evolve and also with the aforementioned assumption of divine will. Additionally, 'Abd al-Hamid al-Zindani allows for the embracement of either one of the two mentioned opinions held by Keller and al-Jisr.

Dr. Israr Ahmed, another well known Muslim figure who follows the traditional Islamic creed, puts forward a view very similar to Haque's "in a 2004 lecture on Human Personality and 2 forms of Knowledge as part of televised Round Table with Dr. Israr Ahmed": From the interaction of water and clay started the life on this planet. From a single cell to the most evolved Homo sapiens. It might have taken millions of years...but then Allah...selected one Homo sapiens and blew into him the spirit...Now we have a human being.

Because of the inconsistency with how the traditional approach to Islam deals with the creation of Adam (peace be on him) and how modern thinkers like Nadeem Haque approach the subject, a Muslim would definitely feel uncomfortable accepting Adam (peace be on him) as being descended from other life forms as is proposed in the book. A detailed legal opinion and ruling (fatwa) with regards to the theory of evolution applying to humanity is not found abundantly in Islamic literature and as such many different viewpoints are espoused by Muslims scholars.

It is perhaps because of the general confusion amongst Muslim scholars about the theory of evolution that many scholars have rejected the theory outright or have doubted its credibility. For this reason, Haque should have included in his book a detailed chapter explaining what is acceptable for a Muslim following the traditional Sunni creed to believe in with regards in particular to the creation of the Prophet Adam (peace be on him) in the context of evolution. In addition, there should have also been a detailed suggestion of what the purpose of vestigial organs and genes are in the framework of his theory. Without it, a Muslim may read the book and get an incomplete idea of what to believe of the book and what to reject. Instead of providing something to believe in, it provides food for thought; not something so satisfying to an audience of Muslim readers hungry for knowledge!

Besides Haque's theory laid out in his book, he does a great job in avoiding any and all ad hominem attacks. Unlike many Muslim anti-evolutionists like Adnan Oktar who are particularly hostile to the theory of evolution, Haque does not attack upholders of Darwinian evolution with an atheistic philosophy purely on the grounds that they are atheists. Instead, Haque attempts to show that his ideas are more logically coherent than those held by believers in Darwinian natural selection. Haque also does a fantastic job of explaining his ideas in a detailed and logical fashion such that one with basic knowledge of biology and chemistry will understand the book quite thoroughly.

The contentions held in the book must certainly be looked at by all Muslim scholars following the traditional Sunni methodologies. For Haque's book to be taken seriously by the general Muslim public it should first pass the filtration of traditionally educated scholars who are well versed in both scientific and sacred education. If these people of knowledge are not well educated in secular knowledge, then those who are knowledgeable in sacred knowledge will often give misunderstood judgements on issues pertaining to science, hence a dichotomy is created between religion and science.

Unfortunately, many Muslim scholars and prominent figures of today are not knowledgeable simultaneously in both areas of study. As a result, many people associate Islam with creationism and unequivocal rejection of biological evolution. Many of the world's well known Muslim figures like Adnan Oktar and Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri openly promote creationism and denounce biological evolution on the grounds that evolution is a scientifically debunked theory. Haque's attempt to unite the understanding of biological evolution with a Qur'anic outlook of the universe may be the solution to the problematic situation of Muslims regarding biological evolution. If Haque's thesis is accepted by a number of well known Muslim scholars, then it is without any doubt that, at least from a Muslim's perspective, evolution is, in fact, the unifying theory of biology.

[Alchemist]

^Pure conjecture. Just another speculative argument predicting the birth of X-Men.


"Quasi equilibrium" - what does that even mean? Equilibrium but not really?


And since when did a mutation lead to a beneficial phenotype?

The author is merely speculating and even in this review it clearly says that it contradicts the Qur'an but then tries to rationalize that contradiction -which is circular. So basically if you want to be a heretic believe the book of speculation.

[ScimitarXEdge]

beautiful Digital Malang; evolution is not a threat to religion as backwards scientifically ignorant fanatics like Alchemist believe. You can affirm evolution and affirm religion and there's no actual conflict except ones people invent for themselves.

[بصير]

Nowhere in the Holy Quran is creationism outlined, yes it mentions that we are created but nowhere is a specific mechanism specified. Evolution is not a theory but fact and theory, in the scientific paradigm a “fact” is simply a conception for which there is overwhelming evidence and the idea that species evolve is scientific fact, the details of the mechanism is theory. Religion is merely a metaphysical paradigm, it is not a methodology for determining anything about natural phenomena and the sooner we realize this, the better for the Muslim community

In fact, the support for empirical/rational paradigms over dogma on these issues is nothing new either, not even to orthodox Islam, even the eminent Imam Ghazali for example, supposedly a foremost opponent of rationalism, supported these paradigms over dogmatic dispute. His position is delineated by his comment on solar and lunar eclipses and what a relevant aphorism it is

“Whosoever thinks that to engage in a disputation for refuting such a theory is a religious duty harms religion and weakens it. For these matters rest on demonstrations, geometrical and arithmetical, that leave no room for doubt.”
http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/i...t.aspx?id=1016

[Alchemist]

Nowhere in the Holy Quran is creationism outlined, yes it mentions that we are created but nowhere is a specific mechanism specified.

My dear,
Nowhere does Evolution specify the mechanism of speciation and abiogensis either. It is as vague on the issue as is the Qur'an.
Had the theory given a specific mechanism we would have been able to produce life in the laboratory, cured AIDS and bioengineered babies down to the most specific traits.

I like how people who don't even know what evolution entails like to presume that it is more true than the word of the Qur'an and even supercedes the ahadith that does specify the "mechanism" of creation - What was the mechanism by which Issa ibn maryam fashioned the clays and by the will of Allah brought it to life? Do you know?

[torkham]

The Books are not literal! Examine the concept 'man made of clay' with 'human body as being mostly water', for instance.

The biblical stories (therefore Torayt accounts) are parables.

Many misunderstandings in religion have been modified, from burning of witches to the persecution of Galileo's planetary model - in the end scientific ideas had to be eventually ACCEPTED by the religious institutions.

it is the paradigms of thought that have not shifted for creationists, and ironically the same creationists unwittingly accepts the fruits of the scientific method - the unquestioning trust in modern medicine to the principles flight, allowing chemicals to aneasthesize their bodies for surgeries and accepting bernoulli's ideas of laminar flow and pressure differences.

until the parties accept the limits of our collective reasoning and current lack of comprehensive evidence, here is a thought, Adam and Hawa are icons that represent the dawn of thought in the evolution of the Primates and Primative Conscience.

I have said this before and I like to say it again, Quran is a profound Book, we have to first master the knowledge of mathematics, natural sciences, philosophy especially epistomology (the knowledge around us) IF we wish to analyse the Quran, especially the Pop Science embryo morphologies and making monumental generalisations.

[Alchemist]

The Books are not literal! Examine the concept 'man made of clay' with 'human body as being mostly water', for instance.

The biblical stories (therefore Torayt accounts) are parables.

Many misunderstandings in religion have been modified, from burning of witches to the persecution of Galileo's planetary model - in the end scientific ideas had to be eventually ACCEPTED by the religious institutions.

it is the paradigms of thought that have not shifted for creationists, and ironically the same creationists unwittingly accepts the fruits of the scientific method - the unquestioning trust in modern medicine to the principles flight, allowing chemicals to aneasthesize their bodies for surgeries and accepting bernoulli's ideas of laminar flow and pressure differences.

until the parties accept the limits of our collective reasoning and current lack of comprehensive evidence, here is a thought, Adam and Hawa are icons that represent the dawn of thought in the evolution of the Primates and Primative Conscience.

I have said this before and I like to say it again, Quran is a profound Book, we have to first master the knowledge of mathematics, natural sciences, philosophy especially epistomology (the knowledge around us) IF we wish to analyse the Quran, especially the Pop Science embryo morphologies and making monumental generalisations.

Sounds like you just copy pasted an argument off of google because the level of cliche in your argument shows no sign of original thought.

First you have to prove that evolution is a science, but palentology is more an art than a science so comparing it to the hard sciences is fallacious since evolution has bared no fruit of its own that "creationists" have "benefited" from ... but you presume it has?

Secondly, the cases of galilioe and the burning of witches being the cartoony story of "science vs. religion" is strictly a western narrative and has not appeared in other cultures and societies so the idea that science has triumphed over religion (as secularism/rationalism had replaced the power of the Roman Catholic Church) is far from reality. Religion had advocated for a belief in a spirit of man, and intangible entity, a non-deterministic and unknowable quality to life and the universe when the Scientificism of the 17th century stubbornly adhered to a mechanistic, materialistic and deterministic perspective up until the 20th century when the nature of the atom proved the religious "nutters" in the right ..but do you give kudos or acknowledge that much? Rather you parrot the atheist's argument for having washed himself of religious "superstitions" and accepted "rationalism" as his guiding light...and now you say that one should first learn the sciences before learning the Qur'an as if the former is the light and the later the lantern.

If Adam and Hawa are merely "icons", or is the other would belief, "archetypes", then they are no more REAL than dragons and fairies.

It really is a black and white issue ...you either believe that Allah created Adam from clay, or you believe that Allah did not create humans. Rather you would believe Him to be merely the First Cause, and bound by Natural Law, devoid of the Power that He has. It is a flawed argument to pursue in the first place, since it leads to an infinite regress, to believe that species evolve from each other (when there is no evidence of it) to the extent that a monkey could potentially give birth to a human. I didn't watch planet of the apes ...but it sure has had a strong impact on people's psychy.

[torkham]

sorry alchemist, i think your claim that my response is google cut and paste is unsubstantiated. if you want to argue my points and make claims, please make citations, preferably harvard style.

[torkham]

before i engage in response, which i should, after carefully reading your reply, ask your self or just consider the following (rhetoric) questions for sake of brevity:

1have you travelled in an aeroplane?
2have you been to a doctor (of medicine, you know the one who has studied medicine and surgery)?

1if you travel in a plane willingly, you have unwittingly accepted the scientifc heritage behind it, and that very science investigates knowledge in a inductive way, using scientific method, deductive reasoning, you know, logic and syllogism. the same method that helps mankind to understand the cosmos

2if you don't consider evolution credible, then i know some pirs and fakirs who live in villages all over afghanistan, who will give you tawiz, with quranic kalam, and they assuredly will mend your real ailments. I like to see who you would visit if you have a compound fracture and require IV drip, a doctor of medicine or a village hakeem.

my point is, before delving into a through lengthy response, that science and logic is a powerful tool available to us (unfortunately to some few who are blessed with mental capacity to use it with efficacy) to solve issues like the worldly debate of creationism and evolution. that is what i mean when I say learn about the world (go to china if you have to) before you try to JUSTIFY or ANALYSE the profound words of the quran. Belief and niya is enough.

now mr alchemist, go turn your base metals to gold!

and before you shoot another charming reply, it is clear that there is no conclusive argument to creationism or evolution, science has theories, which as you know are dynamic and ready for Popper's falsification, and conversely, creationist ideas do not fit RIGOROUS logic. whole debate is a dynamic system trying to reach the ultimate truth.

as for your black and white reference, believe Allah created adam from clay, i will only concede to my absolute belief in allah, the quran, and the hadees made during life of our beloved prophet Mohammad(S).

For now, Mr Alchemist, go and try turning your base metals to gold or find out where i have cut and pasted my answer, with citations please.

[Alchemist]

before i engage in response, which i should, after carefully reading your reply, ask your self or just consider the following (rhetoric) questions for sake of brevity:

1have you travelled in an aeroplane?
2have you been to a doctor (of medicine, you know the one who has studied medicine and surgery)?

1if you travel in a plane willingly, you have unwittingly accepted the scientifc heritage behind it, and that very science investigates knowledge in a inductive way, using scientific method, deductive reasoning, you know, logic and syllogism. the same method that helps mankind to understand the cosmos

2if you don't consider evolution credible, then i know some pirs and fakirs who live in villages all over afghanistan, who will give you tawiz, with quranic kalam, and they assuredly will mend your real ailments. I like to see who you would visit if you have a compound fracture and require IV drip, a doctor of medicine or a village hakeem.

my point is, before delving into a through lengthy response, that science and logic is a powerful tool available to us (unfortunately to some few who are blessed with mental capacity to use it with efficacy) to solve issues like the worldly debate of creationism and evolution. that is what i mean when I say learn about the world (go to china if you have to) before you try to JUSTIFY or ANALYSE the profound words of the quran. Belief and niya is enough.

now mr alchemist, go turn your base metals to gold!

and before you shoot another charming reply, it is clear that there is no conclusive argument to creationism or evolution, science has theories, which as you know are dynamic and ready for Popper's falsification, and conversely, creationist ideas do not fit RIGOROUS logic. whole debate is a dynamic system trying to reach the ultimate truth.

as for your black and white reference, believe Allah created adam from clay, i will only concede to my absolute belief in allah, the quran, and the hadees made during life of our beloved prophet Mohammad(S).

For now, Mr Alchemist, go and try turning your base metals to gold or find out where i have cut and pasted my answer, with citations please.

What does going to the doctor and flying in an aeroplane have to do with the theory of evolution?

You are going about this backwards. Do you even know what evolution is? You just assume that it is a science but you don't even know what is science about it. So first educate your self on the issue then form an opinion about it. Rather, you are lumping it with science, and taking criticism towards the theory as criticism of "Science"...
Then again your esteem for science is out dated. Your attitude towards it is reminiscent of the Muslims of the 19th Century who were quickly finding themselves at the mercy of infidals and blaming their fall on their "backwards" for adhering to Islamic beliefs that were disbelieved by their "superiors". So they were quick to deny the miracles of khalq and the signs of proof given by Allah over "rationalism" ...so we had a new school of materialist muslims who came up with new sects like the Ahmadies or Naychari.


Even still, science isn't a master or a god that can contest the truth of the Qur'an.
So we sit on airplanes and cars and ships and donkies to travel...big deal.

Most doctors kill more patients than they save by the way.
Did you know that it was a scientist's mistake that cause the spread of AID's? He was using live monkey's kidney tissue for developing vaccines and inoculated the local African population...so with science it is a double edged sword, there are both harmful and beneficial uses but don't make it sound like I owe my life to the scientific method - which is a ridiculous notion to begin with. Your argument is irrelevant.

[torkham]

1. the reference to flying and doctors, mr alchemist, is to highlight your acceptance of a tried and tested method of science

2. me knowing science, well that is a subjective point, anyone can brag about it , however to address your point, i am a physicist with 20 years in aerospace industry as a research engineer in aircraft structural integrity. so i have some idea of science and human reliance on science

3. i would never propose failures due to backward muslims at mercy of infidel, in fact i am a proponent of concept that highlights that muslims have struggled due to greedy, crafty dirty westerners who have cheated muslims and other human groups, plaigerised ideas, stolen lands and tried pushing muslims and other indiginous people around, the westerners (whites) have been historically corrupt, thieves and cheats, in this context

4. i challenge your assertion that I suggest science is a master. you will see in my thread that i say science and the scientific method is a dynamic process of searching truth, and it has all the limitations of inductive methods, and i separate belief and science, two different methods of adhering to a fact, however science in a worldly world is the best we have

5. the big deal in sitting in planes is the blinkered tunnel vision of people who challenge science, their denial of science, even when sitting 10000m in air for long hours, it is an illustration of their denial

6. true, mistakes by doctors kill people, but why dont you look at numbers of people who died before discovery of antibiotics, or child birth deaths due to lack of modern science, list can go on. but your assertion of aids epidemic, you need to balance the benefits of good practice with losses due to malpractice

7. as for you owing/not owing your life to the sciences, well good thing you dont suffer polio, diphtheria, bihazia or other fatal diseases in absence of modern medicine

8. what has this to do with evolution . . . . tangibly we were discussing the reliability of the method used in determining evolution, and you have seen my response, the method is dynamic, it may be falsified, but it is perhaps the best answer at the moment

9. finally im a muslim, i have total belief in islam and sunnah. but i use logic, rational thinking, empiricism when searching for worldly truth. the truth of our existence, allah, alhamdulillah, i have absolutely no doubt in the quran and sunnah.

[khushal]

Thats bush, for those that dont get it.

[Alchemist]

1. the reference to flying and doctors, mr alchemist, is to highlight your acceptance of a tried and tested method of science

2. me knowing science, well that is a subjective point, anyone can brag about it , however to address your point, i am a physicist with 20 years in aerospace industry as a research engineer in aircraft structural integrity. so i have some idea of science and human reliance on science

3. i would never propose failures due to backward muslims at mercy of infidel, in fact i am a proponent of concept that highlights that muslims have struggled due to greedy, crafty dirty westerners who have cheated muslims and other human groups, plaigerised ideas, stolen lands and tried pushing muslims and other indiginous people around, the westerners (whites) have been historically corrupt, thieves and cheats, in this context

4. i challenge your assertion that I suggest science is a master. you will see in my thread that i say science and the scientific method is a dynamic process of searching truth, and it has all the limitations of inductive methods, and i separate belief and science, two different methods of adhering to a fact, however science in a worldly world is the best we have

5. the big deal in sitting in planes is the blinkered tunnel vision of people who challenge science, their denial of science, even when sitting 10000m in air for long hours, it is an illustration of their denial

6. true, mistakes by doctors kill people, but why dont you look at numbers of people who died before discovery of antibiotics, or child birth deaths due to lack of modern science, list can go on. but your assertion of aids epidemic, you need to balance the benefits of good practice with losses due to malpractice

7. as for you owing/not owing your life to the sciences, well good thing you dont suffer polio, diphtheria, bihazia or other fatal diseases in absence of modern medicine

8. what has this to do with evolution . . . . tangibly we were discussing the reliability of the method used in determining evolution, and you have seen my response, the method is dynamic, it may be falsified, but it is perhaps the best answer at the moment

9. finally im a muslim, i have total belief in islam and sunnah. but i use logic, rational thinking, empiricism when searching for worldly truth. the truth of our existence, allah, alhamdulillah, i have absolutely no doubt in the quran and sunnah.

Points 1 - 7 are totally irrelevant. When did I ever deny anything about science? Can you make "harvard style references" to these ridiculous assertions of yours?

Point 8 - here is the irony - the theory evolution is not falsifiable.

Point 9 - You say you believin the Quran, but then 3 posts earlier you called Adam and Hawa (alihima salam) as "symbolic icons" rather than real living beings created by Allah directly ...rather than from primates.

Please don't make another lengthy irrelevant argument ...learn about evolution first then form an opinion about it. Just because you know about airplanes doesn't mean you know evolution.