Hawking hasn't changed his mind about God

[Roshina]

The first man on Earth was created, by God, from scratch – there was no evolving involved.

"Behold, thy Lord said to the Angels: 'I will create a vicegerent on earth." (Quran, 2:34)"

Humans and animals were created from dust:"From the (earth) did We Create you, and into it Shall We return you, And from it shall We Bring you out once again." (Quran, 20:55)

However, if you’re talking about how humans have evolved over the years, then that’s a completely different issue.

What do you mean?

Well yes of course, it’d be impossible to list everything, and yes, we should.


The story of Adam and Eve is also considered metaphorical by modern day Christians.

I say this since, Allah didn’t state He created them for a joke, (astahfrughAllah), the Qur’an clearly says states they *were* created, and they are our common ancestors.

How is it metaphorical? Please explain, I’m intrigued.

Because scientists produced a widely accepted theory, we are to fashion our beliefs in accordance to recent supposed findings? Before the theory was produced, I’m pretty sure there was less confusion.

Well now, I ask you again, to define your concept of evolution. There is in fact a theory which states humans evolved from apes, but I do somewhat acknowledge that there are other concepts to evolution.

Ahhhh ... but, Palwasha Jaan! Why believe that human's evolution mean God had nothing to do with it? You see, theist thinkers (Muslim or otherwise) argue that God WAS involved in evolution. They don't reject evolution at all. And I think it makes most sense to say that God "paved way" for evolution to happen a certain way so as to actually play a role in it. Theists, then, say that, yes, evolution happened and is still happening -- but not without the help or will of God. This is why I think Muslims should familiarize themselves with not just atheistic views on evolution but theistic ones as well. 'Cause guess what: it's already been done and said.

So to utterly deny it and say, no, it didn't happen at all contradicts science and gives readers the impression that "all" Muslims don't believe in evolution or that Muslims aren't "allowed" to believe in evolution or that Islam is inherently against evolution when it's merely the misunderstanding that some Muslims have about evolution and Islam.

I once said in another thread, also on evolution, that things are "just a theory" until our "scholars" find it in the Quran. You know, something like the Big Bang. We're told, "it's JUST a theory" -- but then Zakir Naik finds Quranic verses that can be interpreted to support the Big Bang. Similarly, when one day, evolution is *proven* as a fact (as we'd expect, no scientist rejects evolution and almost all accept it as a fact because of the overwhelming evidence that supports this "theory"), our "scholars" are going to start reading the Quran more carefully to see which Quranic verses can be re-interpreted to support evolution after all. And then we can say, "See, see? Islam and Science go hand-in-hand."

That's just how things are. Classical Muslim scholars and thinkers didn't read the Quran to search for evidence for the Big Bang -- but today's ones do. One can't even wonder why, since it's obvious: We live in a world that is run by science today more than ever before, and many a times, you have to "prove" to people why it's okay to believe in science. They won't accept science unless and until you give them religious and spiritual reasons to do so.

By the way, this thread is starting to be a repetition of past threads on evolution, such as http://www.pashtunforums.com/religio...-we-come-3615/ and http://www.pashtunforums.com/science...hes-both-4120/. I suggest members to go through at least these two threads before saying anything further about evolution because it's already been said.

[Baygham]

..............................
"He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs." (Quran, 31:10)
............................

There are species now present that dont come in pairs. i.e. are not male or female.

Guys the 7th century arabians (and the Quran) had no clue about evolution, just like they had no clue about fission, fusion, gravity, speed of light, DNA, RNA, electron, proton etc. These are all modern concepts and if we are to deny them based on their absence or presence in Quran, we will not find even the few 'chowkidari' jobs that are now avilable for pashtoons in a few places.

While the infidels, based on their infidel evolutionary theories have developed molecular biology with global revenues just from that industry that are at least a million times more than all the economic production of all the 'jahil' pashtoons.

The world loves idiots that consume and consider being part of innovation and progress as kufar. The more consumers the more slaves for developed countries, no wonder they keep funding these fanatic mullahs left and right.

[Dust]

This post by Palwasha is a classic example of how Muslims fail to even understand their own book. What does vicegerent mean? The answer would shed light that Adam did not come into being all of sudden, without a gradual process.

[Baygham]

............................

Qrrantugai khore, you cannot reconcile Quran with modern science. Insisting that it does, is no different than denying experimental facts encountered in life as they contradict the Quran.

Quran is scripture, 7th century melody, part of our psyche as our collective social experience. Its not a source of any knowledge, past or future and certainly not a substitute for pain staking research to advance our collective knowledge. Knowledge that helps us predict the future better, makes living more tolerable and improve the human condition in this world.

[Dust]

There are species now present that dont come in pairs. i.e. are not male or female.

Guys the 7th century arabians (and the Quran) had no clue about evolution, just like they had no clue about fission, fusion, gravity, speed of light, DNA, RNA, electron, proton etc. These are all modern concepts and if we are to deny them based on their absence or presence in Quran, we will not find even the few 'chowkidari' jobs that are now avilable for pashtoons in a few places.

While the infidels, based on their infidel evolutionary theories have developed molecular biology with global revenues just from that industry that are at least a million times more than all the economic production of all the 'jahil' pashtoons.

The world loves idiots that consume and consider being part of innovation and progress as kufar. The more consumers the more slaves for developed countries, no wonder they keep funding these fanatic mullahs left and right.

Your post is only valid as far as modern terminology is concerned. What you are proposing is a logical fallacy. The rest of your post is full of ad hominems.

You don't have to insult in order to get your point across.

[Dust]

Qrrantugai khore, you cannot reconcile Quran with modern science. Insisting that it does, is no different than denying experimental facts encountered in life as they contradict the Quran.

Quran is scripture, 7th century melody, part of our psyche as our collective social experience. Its not a source of any knowledge, past or future and certainly not a substitute for pain staking research to advance our collective knowledge. Knowledge that helps us predict the future better, makes living more tolerable and improve the human condition in this world.

I have read the Quran and it is not like what you are describing. Just because one does not agree with it it does not mean that one should disgrace it. This is not the approach of the learned.

[Baygham]

Your post is only valid as far as modern terminology is concerned. What you are proposing is a logical fallacy. The rest of your post is full of ad hominems.

You don't have to insult in order to get your point across.

It is the second time a faithful mentioned ad hominems in response to a post of mine. In the waste of my youth, I did not find time to study Latin, but thanks to wikepedia I was able to compensate for my wasteful youth. Wiki says.
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise

Thanks for improving my vocab.

[Roshina]

Qrrantugai khore, you cannot reconcile Quran with modern science. Insisting that it does, is no different than denying experimental facts encountered in life as they contradict the Quran.

Quran is scripture, 7th century melody, part of our psyche as our collective social experience. Its not a source of any knowledge, past or future and certainly not a substitute for pain staking research to advance our collective knowledge. Knowledge that helps us predict the future better, makes living more tolerable and improve the human condition in this world.

Baygham Gwala, I'm an advocate of education, learning, and thinking, and I will remain one even after my last breath.

I disagree with your approach because it discourages looking at other viewpoints. I want us to broaden our horizons so much that what you're saying (religion and science cannot reconcile no matter what) becomes as much a possible conclusion as would an entirely opposing view (religion and science can be perfectly reconciled). If you've done enough research to bring you to this conclusion, great -- but not all of us have done that. So give us the chance to learn as well and then make our OWN conclusion, which may or may not agree with yours.

I understand you believe that there's no way to reconcile religion with science, but I consider this narrowmindedness. Why? Because it prevents us from looking, studying, and understanding further. You see, that's just ONE side of the whole issue of science vs. religion. There are several others, and all should be looked at carefully and given equal attention; none should be accepted as facts just like that, especially when one hasn't studied other possibilities to an equal extent.

What I advise Muslims as well as non-Muslims to do is to understand that this issue is much larger than what their understanding of it might be. Indeed, there are many arguments that the Quran/Islam contradicts science in many aspects, but there are rebuttals to those as well; there are then rebuttals to those rebuttals, and the debate never ends.

I don't want us to make a conclusion just like this. If you've studied this so thoroughly that you have tons of examples to prove your point, then I welcome you to do it. But you must be fair and acknowledge the understanding and interpretation of those Muslims who are 100% pro-science as well as 100% pro-religion. To say that one can't support both religion and science at the same time is to imply that all scientists are religion-less or anti-religion -- and vice versa -- when we know that's completely untrue. And to claim that "Well, yeah, okay, they may support religion, but they're wrong because you just can't reconcile the two" is to claim that your understanding is more correct or close to correct than the others', and I for one could NEVER respect such a backward opinion.

Another thing is that you're talking to a majority-Muslim group. You therefore can't say, "Give up religion because it contradicts science." You'll never get anywhere with this kind of approach, and this is why I don't support it. So how would you debate with a Muslim who is pro-evolution and pro-God and another Muslim who is entirely anti-evolution but pro-God?

[Dust]

Baygham,

As a friend, I would also suggest that you don't blindly attack the scriptures of the Muslims. Their book has a lot of good in it. Don't forget that it sparked the institutionalization of knowledge. If it was not for the early Muslims, the whole of Greek philosophy, as an example, would have vanished forever.

So, just like you learnt some Latin terms, it would not hurt for you to also learn some history of what Muslims have done for society.

One must call a spade a spade.

[Baygham]

Baygham Gwala, I'm an advocate of education, learning, and thinking, and I will remain one even after my last breath.

I disagree with your approach because it discourages looking at other viewpoints. I want us to broaden our horizons so much that what you're saying (religion and science cannot reconcile no matter what) becomes as much a possible conclusion as would an entirely opposing view (religion and science can be perfectly reconciled). If you've done enough research to bring you to this conclusion, great -- but not all of us have done that. So give us the chance to learn as well and then make our OWN conclusion, which may or may not agree with yours.

I understand you believe that there's no way to reconcile religion with science, but I consider this narrowmindedness. Why? Because it prevents us from looking, studying, and understanding further. You see, that's just ONE side of the whole issue of science vs. religion. There are several others, and all should be looked at carefully and given equal attention; none should be accepted as facts just like that, especially when one hasn't studied other possibilities to an equal extent.

What I advise Muslims as well as non-Muslims to do is to understand that this issue is much larger than what their understanding of it might be. Indeed, there are many arguments that the Quran/Islam contradicts science in many aspects, but there are rebuttals to those as well; there are then rebuttals to those rebuttals, and the debate never ends.

I don't want us to make a conclusion just like this. If you've studied this so thoroughly that you have tons of examples to prove your point, then I welcome you to do it. But you must be fair and acknowledge the understanding and interpretation of those Muslims who are 100% pro-science as well as 100% pro-religion. To say that one can't support both religion and science at the same time is to imply that all scientists are religion-less or anti-religion -- and vice versa -- when we know that's completely untrue. And to claim that "Well, yeah, okay, they may support religion, but they're wrong because you just can't reconcile the two" is to claim that your understanding is more correct or close to correct than the others', and I for one could NEVER respect such a backward opinion.

Another thing is that you're talking to a majority-Muslim group. You therefore can't say, "Give up religion because it contradicts science." You'll never get anywhere with this kind of approach, and this is why I don't support it. So how would you debate with a Muslim who is pro-evolution and pro-God and another Muslim who is entirely anti-evolution but pro-God?

Qrratugai khore, your approach is practical, mine a sparring session to ease the ego's suffogation. It is not meant to advance any cause, just ease internal suffering. A kind of psychotherapy. In my day job (away from PF), I prefer to be like you, Practical.

[3.14159265...]

The theory of evolution excludes the role of ANY supernatural being in the origin and survival of the species on the planet. Atheism is the absence of belief in any supernatural being.So it is tempting to assume that both overlap, but that is incorrect. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been validated by "scientific evidence".
Atheism,on the other hand, is just a personal preference of living under a "godless" blue sky due to the absence of "evidence". An atheist/agnostic atheist does not need to believe in the theory of evolution to question God's existence.In principle, evolution is not a prerequisite for atheism.In practice,however, rarely an atheist would disregard the theory of evolution.

This is precisely correct.

Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")

The theory of Evolution is an explanation of the variety of life on earth without the need to invoke God. It does not reject God, it does not assume it. This is a point many people find to subtle. The rejection of a hypothesis is not equivalent to not accepting it.

To answer a common question in this thread "does believing in evolution mean that you can't believe in God?" Well, first the question is badly worded.

Based on the Scientific method, a person may come to accept that the theory of Evolution is an accurate model.

The question then is "If a person accepts the theory of Evolution as an accurate model, does that mean they are irreligious?"

You then have to define what religion means.
a) Religion means belief in God guiding Evolution supernaturally.
b) Religion means belief in the literal wording of Genesis.

In these two scenarios, yes, accepting the theory of Evolution as an accurate model and religion are mutually exclusive.

As to what is relevant to most members here. Suppose by Religion we mean Islam in particular?

This question is being debated currently by many Muslim scholars.

I think the two are not mutually exclusive, as evidence I had a conversation with a Mowlawi in Herat and he held the opinion that they are not mutually exclusive. This of course is appeal to Authority, but that is necessary in this case.

Further there was a very developed theory of Evolution that was common in the Islamic world during the golden age. The theory of Evolution extended to the Evolution of minerals as well. See Kitab-Al-Haiwan, by Al-Jahizi.

Note: Whether or not Islam and Evolution are mutually exclusive has not bearing on whether either is Scientifically correct.

In conclusion to answer the question, one should learn more about the theory of Evolution from Evolutionists (Textbooks on the subject), and more about Islam from Islamic scholars.

Rather than learning about Islam from Evolutionists, and learning about Evolution from Islamic scholars.

Oh, this recent Hawking fuss is hysterical. We don't yet have a Scientific answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Toramana]

This is precisely correct.



The theory of Evolution is an explanation of the variety of life on earth without the need to invoke God. It does not reject God, it does not assume it. This is a point many people find to subtle. The rejection of a hypothesis is not equivalent to not accepting it.

To answer a common question in this thread "does believing in evolution mean that you can't believe in God?" Well, first the question is badly worded.

Based on the Scientific method, a person may come to accept that the theory of Evolution is an accurate model.

The question then is "If a person accepts the theory of Evolution as an accurate model, does that mean they are irreligious?"

You then have to define what religion means.
a) Religion means belief in God guiding Evolution supernaturally.
b) Religion means belief in the literal wording of Genesis.

In these two scenarios, yes, accepting the theory of Evolution as an accurate model and religion are mutually exclusive.

As to what is relevant to most members here. Suppose by Religion we mean Islam in particular?

This question is being debated currently by many Muslim scholars.

I think the two are not mutually exclusive, as evidence I had a conversation with a Mowlawi in Herat and he held the opinion that they are not mutually exclusive. This of course is appeal to Authority, but that is necessary in this case.

Further there was a very developed theory of Evolution that was common in the Islamic world during the golden age. The theory of Evolution extended to the Evolution of minerals as well. See Kitab-Al-Haiwan, by Al-Jahizi.

Note: Whether or not Islam and Evolution are mutually exclusive has not bearing on whether either is Scientifically correct.

In conclusion to answer the question, one should learn more about the theory of Evolution from Evolutionists (Textbooks on the subject), and more about Islam from Islamic scholars.

Rather than learning about Islam from Evolutionists, and learning about Evolution from Islamic scholars.

Oh, this recent Hawking fuss is hysterical. We don't yet have a Scientific answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

I am sorry but what you say here is mis-description of what evolution clearly say or imply. What is creation by the way and how does it relate to religion?

Evolution says, the present physical form that we have is a consequence of natural selection, reproduction, and random mutation. Religion says, God created abruptly what we are and as such we exist in the present form from day 1.

[Dust]

Those of you who understand Math understand that everything in our lives has to do with probability. For example, the probability of getting hit by a car. We'll use this in our argument.

If everyone was afraid of getting hit by a car then no one would leave their home. The streets would be desolate and the economy would suffer and towns would be become ghosts towns. In due time, hunger will kill everyone.

Therefore, it is essential for people to get out of their homes in order to save a society from extinction. People have to be taught to overcome their fear of randomly getting hit by a car. This can only happen with direction, not by "crossing your fingers."

The conditions:

From the moment you leave your home, there are infinite variables all constantly changing and all are susceptible to change without notice.

If someone was to walk with a blindfold then the chance of getting hit would be very high almost close to 1/1. However, if someone was to walk without a blindfold then the chances would shrink. Further, if someone was told exactly how to follow street signs, then the chance would further shrink.

Now, if the driver of the car was wearing a blindfold, then the chance of him hitting someone would be high. If the blindfold was removed, then the chance of hitting someone would shrink. Now, if the driver was told how to follow street signs then the chance shrink.

Now if the pedestrian and the driver were to follow the directions given to them perfectly then the chances for an accident between them to happen is 1/infinity. However, if the directions were pre-calculated, without them knowing, that they should have an accident then the chance would be infinity/1.

Food for thought!

[3.14159265...]

I am sorry but what you say here is mis-description of what evolution clearly say or imply. What is creation by the way and how does it relate to religion?

Evolution says, the present physical form that we have is a consequence of natural selection, reproduction, and random mutation. Religion says, God created abruptly what we are and as such we exist in the present form from day 1.

What are your sources for those definitions?

[Palwasha]

Ahhhh ... but, Palwasha Jaan! Why believe that human's evolution mean God had nothing to do with it? You see, theist thinkers (Muslim or otherwise) argue that God WAS involved in evolution. They don't reject evolution at all. And I think it makes most sense to say that God "paved way" for evolution to happen a certain way so as to actually play a role in it.

First of all, you didn't explain how Adam and Eve is metaphorical, and secondly, you didn't elaborate on your understanding of evolution.

I acknowledge the whole 'God was behind evolution', I know you get non-Muslim thiests who believe that, however, I fail to see how Islam advocates this concept when it clearly states the creation of Adam and Eve in the Qur'an. I mean, I don't know where you're getting it from, please explain the questions I've asked above.

I once said in another thread, also on evolution, that things are "just a theory" until our "scholars" find it in the Quran. You know, something like the Big Bang. We're told, "it's JUST a theory" -- but then Zakir Naik finds Quranic verses that can be interpreted to support the Big Bang. Similarly, when one day, evolution is *proven* as a fact (as we'd expect, no scientist rejects evolution and almost all accept it as a fact because of the overwhelming evidence that supports this "theory"), our "scholars" are going to start reading the Quran more carefully to see which Quranic verses can be re-interpreted to support evolution after all. And then we can say, "See, see? Islam and Science go hand-in-hand."

You can't change your values or religous beliefs according to modern day findings, or adapt them accordingly and re-interpret your sciptures. (There's a word for such people..)