Evolution and a Muslim's perspective

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok

No counter argument?
So do you agree with everything I said?

Which is fine if that is the case of course.

But since it is a discussion forum, if you disagree I'ld like to know and would also invite you to explain why and how you disagree.

 

[wellwisher]

Humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for millennia. The evolution of domestic plants and animals has been based on human selection. Instead of natural selection, humans have imposed their will in terms of the traits we assume are desirable and useful for the future.

Human selection was done long before Darwin wrote his thesis. All ancients cultures were aware of human selection. Darwin had to go to an isolated place to find somewhere where human selection could be factored out. He could not write his thesis in England, since the land had been developed for centuries, and humans had their selection finger everywhere. Galapagos was raw and virgin so his thesis had a unique and clean example.

Natural selection is a theoretical extrapolation of human selection. Choice is based on natural circumstances apart from human selection. Ironically, medicine is not based on natural selection, even though this is applied biology, using the same theories that believes in Darwin. Doctors try to fight against natural selection in favor of human selection. Natural selection would put the doctors out of business. There is no money in natural selection. If a virus adapts and evolves by natural selection, we do not marvel, but will try to impose new humans selected conditions, so it cannot be naturally selected. The left and right hands of biology, do not seem to communicate with each other.

In religion, man was created in god's image and is slightly lower. The religious order of selection priority is God selection, human selection, and then natural selection. In terms of medicine, we have the rare miracles; God selection, then we man made cures, and then the avoidance of social Darwinism; natural selection is not applied to health and culture. The hypocrisy of medicine makes it hard to accept evolution since it tries so hard to fight against it, using human selection. This seems to add up with semi divine selection on top, both past and the future.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No counter argument?
So do you agree with everything I said?

Which is fine if that is the case of course.

But since it is a discussion forum, if you disagree I'ld like to know and would also invite you to explain why and how you disagree.

Why? What one person understand or view as truth may not agree what others think is true or correct.
There is no need for lenghty argument back and forth. The answer given to @danieldemol OP was only one way to understand it, there may be many ways to understand and give answer to a discussion OP

 

[paarsurrey]

It's pretty intellectually dishonest of you not to quote the parts where it talks about how allah, according to the quran, fashioned Adam from clay:

"We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape..." (15:26)

And in another verse, it is made clear that it really does concern a "special act of creation", as it is noted explicitly that mankind was created from that single original pair:

"Oh humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored among you in the sight of Allah is the who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)" (49:13).


So no, it is pretty explicit about it. There's no "evolution is how god made man" in the quran. Not even by a longshot. Unless, off course, one reads all kinds of stuff into it and / or one starts to arbitrarily view things as "metaphorical" with as only real reason that it is incompatible with scientific findings.

Don't be angry my friend, please:

[23:13] وَ لَقَدۡ خَلَقۡنَا الۡاِنۡسَانَ مِنۡ سُلٰلَۃٍ مِّنۡ طِیۡنٍ ﴿ۚ۱۳﴾
Verily, We created man from an extract of clay;
[23:14] ثُمَّ جَعَلۡنٰہُ نُطۡفَۃً فِیۡ قَرَارٍ مَّکِیۡنٍ ﴿۪۱۴﴾
Then We placed him as a drop of sperm in a safe depository;
[23:15] ثُمَّ خَلَقۡنَا النُّطۡفَۃَ عَلَقَۃً فَخَلَقۡنَا الۡعَلَقَۃَ مُضۡغَۃً فَخَلَقۡنَا الۡمُضۡغَۃَ عِظٰمًا فَکَسَوۡنَا الۡعِظٰمَ لَحۡمًا ٭ ثُمَّ اَنۡشَاۡنٰہُ خَلۡقًا اٰخَرَ ؕ فَتَبٰرَکَ اللّٰہُ اَحۡسَنُ الۡخٰلِقِیۡنَ ﴿ؕ۱۵﴾
Then We fashioned the sperm into a clot; then We fashioned the clot into a shapeless lump; then We fashioned bones out of this shapeless lump; then We clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed it into another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.
[23:16] ثُمَّ اِنَّکُمۡ بَعۡدَ ذٰلِکَ لَمَیِّتُوۡنَ ﴿ؕ۱۶﴾
Then after that you must surely die.
[23:17] ثُمَّ اِنَّکُمۡ یَوۡمَ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ تُبۡعَثُوۡنَ ﴿۱۷﴾
Then on the Day of Resurrection will you be raised up.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 23: Al-Mu'minun

Please peruse the above verses . Will one, please?

Regards
______________
Page-374
Alislam View -

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not only is it possible Biblically but it is also possible scientifically, because science does not know what actually happened. It's all extrapolations in a materialistic philosophical bubble,,,,,,,,,,which assumes no God.

No, science does not assume no God. The sciences make no assumption about God at all. Can "God" be tested by science? I will say that certain versions of God can be tested by a combination of the sciences and logic, but not all versions of God can be tested.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, science does not assume no God. The sciences make no assumption about God at all. Can "God" be tested by science? I will say that certain versions of God can be tested by a combination of the sciences and logic, but not all versions of God can be tested.

I understand ,Science does not and cannot take up this issue, it is not in its terms of reference. Right, please?

Regards

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

It's pretty intellectually dishonest of you not to quote the parts where it talks about how allah, according to the quran, fashioned Adam from clay:

"We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape..." (15:26)

And in another verse, it is made clear that it really does concern a "special act of creation", as it is noted explicitly that mankind was created from that single original pair:

"Oh humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored among you in the sight of Allah is the who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)" (49:13).


So no, it is pretty explicit about it. There's no "evolution is how god made man" in the quran. Not even by a longshot. Unless, off course, one reads all kinds of stuff into it and / or one starts to arbitrarily view things as "metaphorical" with as only real reason that it is incompatible with scientific findings.

Your post is rhetorically convincing but not hermeneutically convincing.

It speaks of creation in a generalized manner, it also does not state that humans were the first creatures on earth.
It speaks of the average birth in a similar manner to the creation of Adam. As various Hadith state, the explicit mention of Adam in the Qur'an appears to be more in regards to the primordial pact ("Am I not your lord?" and the story of Iblis, than as to Adam specifically).
The role of Adam is taken similarly to the role of Abraham by the Qur'an, being that they are typified

“We created man of an extraction of clay, then We set him, a drop, in a receptacle secure, then We created of the drop a clot, then We created of the clot a tissue, then We created of the tissue bones, then We garmented the bones in flesh; thereafter We produced him as another creature. So blessed be God, the fairest of creators!” (Qur'an 23:12‑14)

If the above says that for all of mankind, then how can your interpretation of Adam be correct?

"O mankind! Be wary of your Lord who created you from a single soul, and created its mate from it, and from the two of them, scattered numerous men and women. Be wary of Allah, in whose Name you adjure one another, and the wombs.1 Indeed Allah is watchful over you." (Qur'an 4:1)

We must also factor in:

"Indeed the case of Jesus with Allah is like the case of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was." (Qur'an 3:59)


There are so many other aspects to this like the "preserved tablet" (Lahw-i Mahfoos) which factor into Islamic metaphysics/cosmology, which just make your shallow attempt at exegesis impossible to take seriously.

Here's also an essay about the Islamic origins of evolution theory: http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/uoc/PDF-FILES/(11) Dr. Sultan Shah_86_2.pdf

(yes I know there are hints occasionally in some of the ancient greeks, although it was still not prevalent)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand ,Science does not and cannot take up this issue, it is not in its terms of reference. Right, please?

Regards

Yes, a general "God" cannot be refuted by the sciences. Of course that ignore the fact that the burden of proof always lies upon those making a positive claim. Science can show ideas to be correct by endlessly testing them. Ideas such as gravity, a spherical Earth, or evolution. If one believes that one's version of God means that evolution did not occur that only means that one's version of God is wrong. Not all Muslims reject evolution. Just as not al versions of Christianity reject evolution. Denying the sciences is a bad idea for any religion since one quite often ends up refuting one's own personal version of God. The difference between Flat Earther's (most of them do base their beliefs upon their religion) and evolution deniers is a matter of degree.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, a general "God" cannot be refuted by the sciences. Of course that ignore the fact that the burden of proof always lies upon those making a positive claim. Science can show ideas to be correct by endlessly testing them. Ideas such as gravity, a spherical Earth, or evolution. If one believes that one's version of God means that evolution did not occur that only means that one's version of God is wrong. Not all Muslims reject evolution. Just as not al versions of Christianity reject evolution. Denying the sciences is a bad idea for any religion since one quite often ends up refuting one's own personal version of God. The difference between Flat Earther's (most of them do base their beliefs upon their religion) and evolution deniers is a matter of degree.

It is no business of sciences to indulge in G-d's existence as per its terms of reference, I understand. Right, please?
It is a sign of "G-d's" existence, I understand. Right, please?

[6:104] لَا تُدۡرِکُہُ الۡاَبۡصَارُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ یُدۡرِکُ الۡاَبۡصَارَ ۚ وَ ہُوَ اللَّطِیۡفُ الۡخَبِیۡرُ ﴿۱۰۴﴾
Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105] قَدۡ جَآءَکُمۡ بَصَآئِرُ مِنۡ رَّبِّکُمۡ ۚ فَمَنۡ اَبۡصَرَ فَلِنَفۡسِہٖ ۚ وَ مَنۡ عَمِیَ فَعَلَیۡہَا ؕ وَ مَاۤ اَنَا عَلَیۡکُمۡ بِحَفِیۡظٍ ﴿۱۰۵﴾
Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 6: Al-An`am

Regards

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why?

Because it is a discussion forum. And discussion is how we all learn.

What one person understand or view as truth may not agree what others think is true or correct.

Yes, and that's the very purpose of a discussion forum: to have those people meet and discuss their differences.

But I see you are not interested.
It kind of makes me wonder why you are even here to begin with, but whatevs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't be angry my friend, please:

What makes you think I am "angry"?
Do you consider it "anger" when someone points out the obvious?

[23:13] وَ لَقَدۡ خَلَقۡنَا الۡاِنۡسَانَ مِنۡ سُلٰلَۃٍ مِّنۡ طِیۡنٍ ﴿ۚ۱۳﴾
Verily, We created man from an extract of clay;
[23:14] ثُمَّ جَعَلۡنٰہُ نُطۡفَۃً فِیۡ قَرَارٍ مَّکِیۡنٍ ﴿۪۱۴﴾
Then We placed him as a drop of sperm in a safe depository;
[23:15] ثُمَّ خَلَقۡنَا النُّطۡفَۃَ عَلَقَۃً فَخَلَقۡنَا الۡعَلَقَۃَ مُضۡغَۃً فَخَلَقۡنَا الۡمُضۡغَۃَ عِظٰمًا فَکَسَوۡنَا الۡعِظٰمَ لَحۡمًا ٭ ثُمَّ اَنۡشَاۡنٰہُ خَلۡقًا اٰخَرَ ؕ فَتَبٰرَکَ اللّٰہُ اَحۡسَنُ الۡخٰلِقِیۡنَ ﴿ؕ۱۵﴾
Then We fashioned the sperm into a clot; then We fashioned the clot into a shapeless lump; then We fashioned bones out of this shapeless lump; then We clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed it into another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.
[23:16] ثُمَّ اِنَّکُمۡ بَعۡدَ ذٰلِکَ لَمَیِّتُوۡنَ ﴿ؕ۱۶﴾
Then after that you must surely die.
[23:17] ثُمَّ اِنَّکُمۡ یَوۡمَ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ تُبۡعَثُوۡنَ ﴿۱۷﴾
Then on the Day of Resurrection will you be raised up.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 23: Al-Mu'minun

Please peruse the above verses . Will one, please?

It says humans were created, not evolved.
It also gets the processes of embryology seriously wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It speaks of creation in a generalized manner,

How is that a "generalized manner"? It is pretty explicit.

it also does not state that humans were the first creatures on earth.

Neither did I. But it DOES state that the species homo sapiens started through a single breeding pair that was created (as in: without biological ancestry) .

There's really no way around that. It is very explicit about it.
Unless you wish to argue that it doesn't really mean what it says.....

It speaks of the average birth in a similar manner to the creation of Adam. As various Hadith state, the explicit mention of Adam in the Qur'an appears to be more in regards to the primordial pact ("Am I not your lord?" and the story of Iblis, than as to Adam specifically).
The role of Adam is taken similarly to the role of Abraham by the Qur'an, being that they are typified

“We created man of an extraction of clay, then We set him, a drop, in a receptacle secure, then We created of the drop a clot, then We created of the clot a tissue, then We created of the tissue bones, then We garmented the bones in flesh; thereafter We produced him as another creature. So blessed be God, the fairest of creators!” (Qur'an 23:12‑14)

If the above says that for all of mankind, then how can your interpretation of Adam be correct?

You are not quoting the verses I pointed out, where it says explicitly that humanity was created from a single breeding pair, which was created - not evolved, in 49:13

"O mankind! Be wary of your Lord who created you from a single soul, and created its mate from it, and from the two of them, scattered numerous men and women. Be wary of Allah, in whose Name you adjure one another, and the wombs.1 Indeed Allah is watchful over you." (Qur'an 4:1)

We must also factor in:

"Indeed the case of Jesus with Allah is like the case of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was." (Qur'an 3:59)

Again, it says humans were created from a single breeding pair.

This is just plain incorrect. Even if it would say that that single breeding pair evolved (which it doesn't, off course - au contraire) - it is not correct.

There are so many other aspects to this like the "preserved tablet" (Lahw-i Mahfoos) which factor into Islamic metaphysics/cosmology, which just make your shallow attempt at exegesis impossible to take seriously.

Here's also an essay about the Islamic origins of evolution theory: http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/uoc/PDF-FILES/(11) Dr. Sultan Shah_86_2.pdf

(yes I know there are hints occasionally in some of the ancient greeks, although it was still not prevalent)

Many evolutionary biologists are christians as well.
This is perfectly in line with what I previously said: one has to read things into the text to "interpret" it in light of observations in actual reality. But purely the text, as written, is clearly incorrect.

Yes, many people see it as "metaphorical" and go out of their way to uncover what they call "the true meaning". But let's be serious here: the texts don't say that. The texts, like most other creation myths, talk about humans as if they are some kind of "special" creation, instead of an evolved species not different from all other species.

It could have said "oh, humans, cousins of gorilla's, who developed from your ancestral primates according to our divine plan,..."

But it doesn't, now does it?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Because it is a discussion forum. And discussion is how we all learn.



Yes, and that's the very purpose of a discussion forum: to have those people meet and discuss their differences.

But I see you are not interested.
It kind of makes me wonder why you are even here to begin with, but whatevs.

The reason there is no value to actually reply is that looking at the answer given back in multiple OP , there is no discussion, it is only critique because your view is different to many in this forum. So maybe it is not on purpose from your side, most of the replies you give indicate that everybody other then your self are wrong.
Then discussion is mute for any sense of thoughts

 

[Brian2]

The genome of humans looks like the result of reproduction with modification followed by selection, just like we observe in every biological reproduction event both in the wild as well as in the lab.
There is no reason, at all, to believe that there was artificial genetic manipulation going on at all.

So if your god fiddled around with the genes in our ancient ancestors to "force" the evolution of homo sapiens, then he went out of his way to cover his tracks and to make it look as if it was a natural evolution.

Really? Is man so much like apes that you cannot tell the gigantic difference? You can assume that we are solely the product of evolution but that is just closing your eyes to the fact that we are the rulers on earth, as the Bible tells us we are, and that we are morally superior and inferior to the animals. What humans have is way more than a few changes in the genes.
I don't know exactly how God did it genetically. If I say God came and formed Adam from the mud then you say that we must have evolved because our genes are so similar to the apes. If I say that God may have taken an ape, maybe a dead one, and changed a few things to make it into a man, that also is no good, God is still deceiving us.
Sounds like you have swallowed the naturalistic assumption and it has solidified to the naturalistic fact in you.

 

[Brian2]

Neither did I. But it DOES state that the species homo sapiens started through a single breeding pair that was created (as in: without biological ancestry) .

There's really no way around that. It is very explicit about it.
Unless you wish to argue that it doesn't really mean what it says.....

I don't know exactly what the Koran says about it but I assume it is pretty close to the Bible. In the Bible Adam was made from the dirt in Gen 2 it is way back before plants had evolved than God said that He was going to form man from the the dirt. This was just the forming of the body and it could have been through evolution. The creation of man however was the last bit, on day 6 when God did the creation by breathing spirit from Himself into the body, just as He did to create the man in Gen 2 after forming the man from the dirt. (Gen 1: 26,27, Gen 2:5-7)

 

[Goddess Kit]

Science doesn't arrive at answers by being impatient or making assumptions. Science takes its time, it rightfully states I don't know while attempting to find answers.

 

[Brian2]

No, science does not assume no God. The sciences make no assumption about God at all. Can "God" be tested by science? I will say that certain versions of God can be tested by a combination of the sciences and logic, but not all versions of God can be tested.

True science does not assume "no God" but in it's work science gives naturalistic answers without knowing whether a God exists or not and whether that God has done thing differently to the naturalistic answers. Science's methodology is a-theistic, not anti-theistic.. Science does not judge whether the Bible is correct or not because science is a different sphere of study.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Science actually doesn't even give one thought to the god concept.

 

[Brian2]

Science actually doesn't even give one thought to the god concept.

Science does not give thought to the God concept but we are humans and we do. Science just plods on as if there is no God who could have done anything, and that is why the answers it gives, when it comes to some things are no more than naturalistic hypotheses even if they might graduate to naturalistic theories in time.
People look to scientific answers for some truth and with some questions all they get is educated guesses of what may have happened given no God.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Humans give thought to much, but only one thing that is not real.