Evolution and a Muslim's perspective

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science never says "I don't know if God did it or not",,,,,,,,,,,,that answer is always, "God did not do it".

Find me a single scientific paper that says that.
Good luck with that.

If there is a God you will never find out for sure by studying scientific answers.

Then stop complaining that science doesn't include gods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe science has detected and measured what God did but even if science detects and measures what God did science still says it is detecting and measuring a natural force/phenomenon etc. You do know that don't you.

You don't make any sense here.

Science doesn't make bare assertions. When science proposes natural force X did something, it actually provides a testable mechanism which actually explains, in testable and verifiable manner, what happened and how. And when science can not provide such a testable mechanism, then the position of science is that it is unknown.

When science provides such a mechanism, can science then exclude that some undetectable god had some undetectable role in that?

No. But that also goes for ANY undetectable entity or phenomenon. And these are infinite in number, only limited by human imagination.

Why would anyone bother to include undetectable entities manifesting in undetectable ways playing undetectable roles in anything?

Why would anyone even SUGGEST such a thing in the first place?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know that all the explanations are fine?

Because they work.

They are what they are, naturalistic educated guesses at what must have happened without a God.

The bolded part isn't part of ANY scientific explanation of anything.
And the same goes for graviton fairies or any other unfalsifiable, undetectable entities.

 

[paarsurrey]

Evolution and a Muslim's perspective

[7:12] وَ لَقَدۡ خَلَقۡنٰکُمۡ ثُمَّ صَوَّرۡنٰکُمۡ ثُمَّ قُلۡنَا لِلۡمَلٰٓئِکَۃِ اسۡجُدُوۡا لِاٰدَمَ ٭ۖ فَسَجَدُوۡۤا اِلَّاۤ اِبۡلِیۡسَ ؕ لَمۡ یَکُنۡ مِّنَ السّٰجِدِیۡنَ ﴿۱۲﴾
And We did create you and then We gave you shape; then said We to the angels, ‘Submit to Adam;’ and they all submitted but Iblis did not; he would not be of those who submit.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 7: Al-A`raf

There were humans, I truthfully understand from the above verse of Quran, before Adam. Right, please?

Regards

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you know that all the explanations are fine? They are what they are, naturalistic educated guesses at what must have happened without a God.

How do I know scientific explanations work fine without god(s)?
Well, because none of them contain God claims. They simply aren't necessary, because the explanations make sense without inserting any god(s) into them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe science has detected and measured what God did but even if science detects and measures what God did science still says it is detecting and measuring a natural force/phenomenon etc. You do know that don't you.

If god(s) can influence the natural world, then in some sense, god is also part of that natural world, or at least, god's actions are. And if that is the case, then god should be detectable.
Without that evidence, there is no reason to posit that god(s) did anything at all.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Evolution as a whole doesn't have squat to say about anything supernatural other than one extrapolates out of it.

Science simply doesn't concern itself with me. Sad, I know.

 

[Quiddity]

Science simply doesn't concern itself with me. Sad, I know.

Science doesn't. However, whether scientists operate this way is another story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One would appreciate, whether Earth is flat or no, at least Atheism position/no-position has never to my knowledge given any knowledge on it, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

Please pay attention. The reason that most Flerfers deny the globe is due to their religion. The same applies to evolution. The "God' of Flerfers can be refuted just as the "God" of evolution deniers. In other words when one says that evolution is not real one is essentially refuting one's own God. Many theists seem to have a problem understanding the concept of different versions of God.

 

[gnostic]

Evolving apes could be how God formed man from the dust of the ground.

No, that’s not evolving.

Turning dust into man (in Genesis, Bible), or turning clay into man (in Qur’an) - this isn’t evolving and it isn’t natural. No both of these scriptures are offering supernatural claims, which sounds more like “magic”.

Evolution involved parents passing genetic traits to offspring and to future generations, that involve small changes...but with accumulation of small changes, it might or might not change the population of species ever so slightly.

This whole dust-into-human or clay-into-human business, involved no passing of genetic traits, hence no genes and no RNA/DNA, therefore neither scriptures are talking about Evolution.

The scriptures are not talking about mutations or natural selection, but about impossible magic, hence the claims in both scriptures are nothing more than myths.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Because they work."

The bolded part isn't part of ANY scientific explanation of anything.
And the same goes for graviton fairies or any other unfalsifiable, undetectable entities.

" Because they work.", "It works for me" so, these are true/ or facts!

Is it a fruit of Atheism and or Science, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[Brian2]

It also "plods on" as if there are no graviton fairies regulating gravity.
Not because it asserts that such don't exist, but rather because science only takes into account that which can be shown to be real and / or has some kind of detectable manifestation.

Yes science can only accept and study what comes to it's notice through scientific methods.

Things without any kind of detectable manifestation, have no detectable impact on the workings of anything by definition.

Ideas have a detectable impact even though they have no detectable manifestation. Ideas are real but not amenable to scientific study. Similarly God and His words can be real and have detectable impact.

So why would science, for example, consider Poseidon when it comes to explaining what tides are and how it works? Or Thor when it comes to thunder? Or Jawhe when it comes to biology? Or graviton fairies when it comes to gravity?

I don't know. As long as we can agree that science in some areas is only the educated guesses of people without consideration of what Poseidon or Graviton have told us about those things.

Science will HAPPILY include any of those things, the day you can demonstrate these things are real and have detectable impact on these processes. Until that day, why on earth would science keep into account such things?

I agree, but people like yourself have forgotten exactly what science is and like to see it as the only source of what is true and what can be known about the universe and anything.

No. Not "given no god". Rather: given the detectable things with manifestation / impact.
Science doesn't keep into account ANYTHING without such manifestation / impact. Your god really isn't special in that regard. ANYTHING without manifestation / impact finds itself on the same category shelve.

Gods, fairies, extra-dimensional unicorns, undetectable dragons,.......

Why would science keep into account things that
1. can not be shown to be real
2. can not be shown to have any manifestation whatsoever
3. can not be shown to have any impact whatsoever
4. can not be shown to play any kind of role whatsoever

Sounds like you are kind of complaining that science is a rational method of finding answers to questions.

No I'm just pointing out that people have lost perspective of what science is.

 

[Brian2]

>>>Brian2 said: ↑
Maybe science has detected and measured what God did but even if science detects and measures what God did science still says it is detecting and measuring a natural force/phenomenon etc. You do know that don't you.<<<

You don't make any sense here.
Science doesn't make bare assertions. When science proposes natural force X did something, it actually provides a testable mechanism which actually explains, in testable and verifiable manner, what happened and how. And when science can not provide such a testable mechanism, then the position of science is that it is unknown.
When science provides such a mechanism, can science then exclude that some undetectable god had some undetectable role in that?
No. But that also goes for ANY undetectable entity or phenomenon. And these are infinite in number, only limited by human imagination.
Why would anyone bother to include undetectable entities manifesting in undetectable ways playing undetectable roles in anything?
Why would anyone even SUGGEST such a thing in the first place?

That's fine. It's only those things in the past which the Bible God has said that He did which I am concerned with.

 

[Brian2]

>>>Brian2 said: How do you know that all the explanations are fine?<<<

Because they work.

No, it is because that is the best educated naturalistic guess that we have at the moment.
Science for example has no idea what life and consciousness is and has not idea that any of the educated naturalistic guesses actually work or are true. But of course it all has to be naturalistic. That is the limitation of science and what it finds is not necessarily the truth.
Science has no idea about how a data accumulating and using system like our genes can develop without an intelligence behind the design, but the scientific answer is that atoms and molecules under the right conditions formed these genes which carry information which other atoms and molecules can read and use to shape a nose or ear etc.
Mutations are caused by natural random processes but that does not mean the whole system came about that way.

The bolded part isn't part of ANY scientific explanation of anything.
And the same goes for graviton fairies or any other unfalsifiable, undetectable entities.

OK then, "They are what they are, naturalistic educated guesses at what must have happened "
And no scientific explanation has this disclaimer attached either.

 

[Brian2]

How do I know scientific explanations work fine without god(s)?
Well, because none of them contain God claims. They simply aren't necessary, because the explanations make sense without inserting any god(s) into them.

No they don't all make sense without inserting God into them. They are assumed to be the answers. How do you know we evolved? Because we are here aren't we.
I have no problem with evolution but I see it as wrong in many ways.
The explanations might seem to make some sense given the scenarios science is presented with to put a mechanism to, but the answers that are worked out have not been tested and the scenario of development from atoms and molecules to life forms is not necessarily true.

 

[Brian2]

If god(s) can influence the natural world, then in some sense, god is also part of that natural world, or at least, god's actions are. And if that is the case, then god should be detectable.
Without that evidence, there is no reason to posit that god(s) did anything at all.

If something happened then it is caused by nature. That is all science can say. It may not be able to say just what part of nature, but the answer is always nature. Science never can and never will say God did it. It just is not science. This is a limitation science has. It is also a limitation in it's philosophy.
It is good that many of us realise this limitation and look elsewhere for truths also.

 

[Brian2]

No, that’s not evolving.

Turning dust into man (in Genesis, Bible), or turning clay into man (in Qur’an) - this isn’t evolving and it isn’t natural. No both of these scriptures are offering supernatural claims, which sounds more like “magic”.

Evolution involved parents passing genetic traits to offspring and to future generations, that involve small changes...but with accumulation of small changes, it might or might not change the population of species ever so slightly.

This whole dust-into-human or clay-into-human business, involved no passing of genetic traits, hence no genes and no RNA/DNA, therefore neither scriptures are talking about Evolution.

The scriptures are not talking about mutations or natural selection, but about impossible magic, hence the claims in both scriptures are nothing more than myths.

I would say that science tries to give answers to what is basically magic. How did the universe get here? what is life and consciousness? But when science guesses answers then it somehow is not seen as magic and it becomes possible. Not knowing how God did it, does not mean it is magic, it means that we just do not know the mechanism etc.
If apes evolved from the dust or clay and God took a dead ape and made some changes and breathed a spirit into it to animate it as the first human then that is a combination of evolution and God's direct involvement. It answers the question of why it looks as if we evolved and any other questions but yes it is magic if you want to call it that.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution and a Muslim's perspective

[7:12] وَ لَقَدۡ خَلَقۡنٰکُمۡ ثُمَّ صَوَّرۡنٰکُمۡ ثُمَّ قُلۡنَا لِلۡمَلٰٓئِکَۃِ اسۡجُدُوۡا لِاٰدَمَ ٭ۖ فَسَجَدُوۡۤا اِلَّاۤ اِبۡلِیۡسَ ؕ لَمۡ یَکُنۡ مِّنَ السّٰجِدِیۡنَ ﴿۱۲﴾
And We did create you and then We gave you shape; then said We to the angels, ‘Submit to Adam;’ and they all submitted but Iblis did not; he would not be of those who submit.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 7: Al-A`raf

There were humans, I truthfully understand from the above verse of Quran, before Adam. Right, please?

Sorry, but neither angels, nor jinns (eg Iblis), are humans, paarsurrey.

And from my perspective, these angels and jinns don’t exist in reality, except in stories or in people’s imaginary beliefs in their existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

" Because they work.", "It works for me" so, these are true/ or facts!

No. Not "just for me".

They work objectively.

When you calibrate the internal atomic clocks of GPS satelites to account for the relativistic effects that are caused by orbitting the planet at 40k km/h, then the GPS can accurately pinpoint your position with an error marging of 1 to 3 meters.

If you don't calbirate the clocks to account for the relativistic effects, then the error margin grows to several miles and the system becomes unusable.

This is so because the theory of relativity works.

This is not just an opinion.

When you build a GPS, it won't work if you don't accept the theory of relativity and account for what it says.
It will if you do.

Science. It works.

Is it a fruit of Atheism and or Science, please? Right, please?

I have no idea what you are asking.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes science can only accept and study what comes to it's notice through scientific methods.

Or otherwise said: that which can be shown to be actually real.

Ideas have a detectable impact even though they have no detectable manifestation. Ideas are real but not amenable to scientific study. Similarly God and His words can be real and have detectable impact.

Ideas have material underpinnings in the form of neurons firing in a material brain.
Ideas don't exist independently of material brains. And they certainly don't have the capacity to "do stuff".
The contents of ideas exist only as abstract models inside people's heads.

If you are saying that gods are analogous to such abstract concepts that only exist inside people's heads, then I'm inclined to agree with you.

I don't know

Then maybe stop complaining?

As long as we can agree that science in some areas is only the educated guesses of people without consideration of what Poseidon or Graviton have told us about those things.

Your continued insistence on trying to raise up your god-claim, only by trying to push science down to a similar level of make-belief, is not a good way to make your god-claim sound more convincing.

I agree, but people like yourself have forgotten exactly what science is

I most certainly have not. It is the study of the world through verifiable evidence, in an extreme nutshell.

and like to see it as the only source of what is true and what can be known about the universe and anything.

If you have a better, or equally good, method of inquiry, you are very free to share it and demonstrate its success.

If the "alternative" to scientific inquiry concerning the natural sciences, would be a method of inquiry that is not based on verifiable evidence and testable prediction though... then I don't really see how it could ever produce better results, or results even remotely equal to what science does.

No I'm just pointing out that people have lost perspective of what science is.

Sounds like you are one of them.