Muslim revisits the Intelligent Design argument!

[Jose Fly]

What makes this noteworthy is that several years ago I saw another preacher, in a panel discussion, explaining why Muslims should embrace Christian Creationism, which later was to become Intelligent Design. Perhaps Muslim intellectuals are feeling a bit of buyer's remorse over the dismal failure of Intelligent Design to catch on.

Or it could be that there's just as much diversity of viewpoints in Islam as most other religions.

 

[YmirGF]

Or it could be that there's just as much diversity of viewpoints in Islam as most other religions.

Well, they have been buffing up the "Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an" twaddle for years, so anything is possible. My educated guess says that Muslims have gotten onto the ID bandwagon, hence the fellow felt a need to counter that trend and made a video about it hoping to convince fellow Muslims of the error of their ways.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, they have been buffing up the "Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an" twaddle for years, so anything is possible.

I've seen the same from Christians, Hindus, and even some Buddhists. The whole "how could they have known X" line of argument seems to be pretty common in religion.

My educated guess says that Muslims have gotten onto the ID bandwagon, hence the fellow felt a need to counter that trend and made a video about it hoping to convince fellow Muslims of the error of their ways.

You're probably right. Perhaps ID creationism is becoming increasingly popular among Muslims, which prompted the video. The sad thing is, one of his main messages is that Muslims must reject common ancestry no matter what, which puts them in the same camp as fundamentalist Christians. Of course, like their Christian counterparts, those Muslims will continue to reflexively reject much of science while claiming to not be anti-science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

He then says we believe in scientific conclusions because of "testimony from scientists". While that may be true for the general public in a very superficial way, the reality is that no one has to rely on mere testimony. There's a reason scientific papers have entire sections for methods, results, and discussion.....it's so anyone who's truly interested can see for themselves how the data was collected, how it was analyzed, and how the conclusions stem from those results. So the reason the general public largely relies on "testimony from scientists" isn't because scientists are telling everyone "X is true because we say so", it's because by making their work so transparent for the last century+, the the scientific community has earned a bit of trust among the public. Therefore, a more accurate way to describe the situation is scientists telling the public "We've concluded that the data supports X. Anyone who's interested can read more about how that's so by reading our paper." The fact that most of the public chooses not to read the paper is not a knock on scientists or their work.

With the emergence of the interwebs it has become easier and easier for the general public to access the data. Photos of fossils are online. Genome sequences can be accessed through several public databases.

In my experience, creationists are absolutely terrified of something as simple as a Google search. They tell us that there are no transitional fossils. Do you think they ever typed in "transitional fossil" into a Google search? Probably not. At this point, there is no excuse for their ignorance.

Regarding the above, he correctly notes that because science operates according to methodological naturalism, gods by definition cannot be part of the scientific method, which means ID creationism cannot be science.

This isn't entirely true. Science requires testable and falsifiable hypotheses. The problem is that ID supporters are not able to produce testable and falsifiable hypotheses as it relates to ID. There isn't a rule in the scientific method that says gods have to be excluded.

He then states that human/chimp common ancestry is directly opposed to Islam, and since ID creationism is silent on that issue, Muslims should not support ID creationism. Not being a Muslim, I really have no thoughts on that other than my sadness at seeing yet another religious group declare that if reality conflicts with their religious beliefs, they will always reject reality no matter what.

He then notes how Islam states that everything was created by God, whereas ID creationism says that some things were created by God. He also notes that ID creationism doesn't specify who or what the "designer" is, which is a problem for Muslims as well as scientists.

He finishes by noting that just because Muslims reject common ancestry, that doesn't mean they have to come up with a replacement.

Overall, I think he does make a good case for why Muslims should not advocate for ID creationism. I took his gripes about scientism to be more a subconscious reflection of his angst over the world's increasing shift towards secularism, of which science is indeed a factor.

It is one thing to argue that we shouldn't look to science to answer all questions. It is very different thing to say that science shouldn't be used to answer any questions, which appears to be the Muslim position.

 

[Jose Fly]

With the emergence of the interwebs it has become easier and easier for the general public to access the data. Photos of fossils are online. Genome sequences can be accessed through several public databases.

In my experience, creationists are absolutely terrified of something as simple as a Google search. They tell us that there are no transitional fossils. Do you think they ever typed in "transitional fossil" into a Google search? Probably not. At this point, there is no excuse for their ignorance.

Reminds me of when a Christian creationist once told me that even if he was holding a fossil in his own hands, if the Word of God told him it couldn't exist, then he would have no choice but to conclude that it didn't really exist and Satan was playing some sort of trick on him.

Most creationists operate from the mindset of "transitional fossils can't exist" rather than "transitional fossils don't exist".

This isn't entirely true. Science requires testable and falsifiable hypotheses. The problem is that ID supporters are not able to produce testable and falsifiable hypotheses as it relates to ID. There isn't a rule in the scientific method that says gods have to be excluded.

We're saying the same thing. The reason I said that gods can't be part of science "by definition" is that gods are defined as being able to do absolutely anything, which is why they are not at all testable.

It is one thing to argue that we shouldn't look to science to answer all questions. It is very different thing to say that science shouldn't be used to answer any questions, which appears to be the Muslim position.

Hmmm......I didn't get that from the video in the OP.

 

[sayak83]

This was very interesting to me, because the guy in the video (a Muslim named Subboor) says that Muslims should not support the Intelligent Design argument and gives his reasons why. He's incredibly well read!

I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts (from both camps)!

I am only interested if you are willing to discuss the topic yourself. Don't care about random videos.

 

[Jesster]

I am only interested if you are willing to discuss the topic yourself. Don't care about random videos.

Same here. That's what I'm usually waiting for with him.

 

[gnostic]

This was very interesting to me, because the guy in the video (a Muslim named Subboor) says that Muslims should not support the Intelligent Design argument and gives his reasons why. He's incredibly well read!

I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts (from both camps)!

The only reasons needed to reject ID is that it was never a testable and falsifiable hypothesis.

You cannot test, observe, detect, measure or quantify the Designer, anymore than you can test, observe, detect, measure or quantify Allah, Yahweh, God or the Creator.

There are no evidences to support the Designer.

All the ID adherents have been able to supply is faulty reasonings and wishful thinking and whole lots of propaganda, and none of these are evidences.

There are no science in Intelligent Design just as there are no science in any religious creationism.

 

[exchemist]

My review....

He starts off by saying that the problem is scientism, i.e. the belief that science is the only source of knowledge for all subjects. While I agree that sort of thing can be a problem, he does not say exactly who is guilty of it, let alone show where they are engaging in it.

He then says we believe in scientific conclusions because of "testimony from scientists". While that may be true for the general public in a very superficial way, the reality is that no one has to rely on mere testimony. There's a reason scientific papers have entire sections for methods, results, and discussion.....it's so anyone who's truly interested can see for themselves how the data was collected, how it was analyzed, and how the conclusions stem from those results. So the reason the general public largely relies on "testimony from scientists" isn't because scientists are telling everyone "X is true because we say so", it's because by making their work so transparent for the last century+, the the scientific community has earned a bit of trust among the public. Therefore, a more accurate way to describe the situation is scientists telling the public "We've concluded that the data supports X. Anyone who's interested can read more about how that's so by reading our paper." The fact that most of the public chooses not to read the paper is not a knock on scientists or their work.

He then states that "intelligent design" is an attempt to make a scientific case for the existence of God, and that's a result of the "world of scientism" in which we live. Other than the straw man regarding scientism, he is correct. ID creationism is indeed a legal/political attempt to make a scientific case for God.

Regarding the above, he correctly notes that because science operates according to methodological naturalism, gods by definition cannot be part of the scientific method, which means ID creationism cannot be science.

He then argues that ID creationism actually buys into scientism because it assumes that theists need to make a scientific case for God. I think that's a valid point.

He also notes that even if ID creationism successfully made a case for God, because scientific theories are always provisional, the hypothetical case for God could always be overturned. Again, I think that's a valid point.

He then states that human/chimp common ancestry is directly opposed to Islam, and since ID creationism is silent on that issue, Muslims should not support ID creationism. Not being a Muslim, I really have no thoughts on that other than my sadness at seeing yet another religious group declare that if reality conflicts with their religious beliefs, they will always reject reality no matter what.

He then notes how Islam states that everything was created by God, whereas ID creationism says that some things were created by God. He also notes that ID creationism doesn't specify who or what the "designer" is, which is a problem for Muslims as well as scientists.

He finishes by noting that just because Muslims reject common ancestry, that doesn't mean they have to come up with a replacement.

Overall, I think he does make a good case for why Muslims should not advocate for ID creationism. I took his gripes about scientism to be more a subconscious reflection of his angst over the world's increasing shift towards secularism, of which science is indeed a factor.

Thanks for the clear analysis and spot-on with the philosophical reason why ID cannot be science, and its legal/political origin and motive.

Also interesting that the speaker seems to have some insight into why it is an error to base religious faith on science or pseudoscientific arguments (e.g. ID).

I read somewhere that Cardinal Newman made a similar point at the end of the c.19th, pointing out that the Christian who bases his faith on the "God of the Gaps" is doomed to lose it, if and when those gaps get progressively filled in! (We have seen this happen in recent years to various stalwarts of ID: first the "inexplicable" evolution of the eye, then when this puzzle was solved they moved on to the bacterial flagellum, which has been solved in turn. Now they are trying to jump back to abiogenesis itself, in the hope that science will not so easily overtake them there, pinning their hopes on chirality in biomolecules......but for which possible mechanisms are now being uncovered.....)

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for the clear analysis and spot-on with the philosophical reason why ID cannot be science, and its legal/political origin and motive.

Thanks!

Also interesting that the speaker seems to have some insight into why it is an error to base religious faith on science or pseudoscientific arguments (e.g. ID).

Yeah, I've often wondered why some folks feel so compelled to try and make a scientific case for their religious beliefs. I see it as a tacit admission that, at least in the developed world, science is the primary authority for establishing reality.

I read somewhere that Cardinal Newman made a similar point at the end of the c.19th, pointing out that the Christian who bases his faith on the "God of the Gaps" is doomed to lose it, if and when those gaps get progressively filled in!

Yep. As evolutionary biologist Ken Miller put it in Finding Darwin's God, believers should "prefer the light of knowledge to the darkness of ignorance".

(We have seen this happen in recent years to various stalwarts of ID: first the "inexplicable" evolution of the eye, then when this puzzle was solved they moved on to the bacterial flagellum, which has been solved in turn. Now they are trying to jump back to abiogenesis itself, in the hope that science will not so easily overtake them there, pinning their hopes on chirality in biomolecules......but for which possible mechanisms are now being uncovered.....)

When I first jumped in to the evolution vs. creationism debates, creationists had all sorts of "gaps" they felt they could point to in a "Oh yeah, well what about THIS" sort of way. But just in the past 5 years or so I've noticed that creationists have retreated mostly to the origin of life and the universe. I actually see that as progress.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks!


Yeah, I've often wondered why some folks feel so compelled to try and make a scientific case for their religious beliefs. I see it as a tacit admission that, at least in the developed world, science is the primary authority for establishing reality.


Yep. As evolutionary biologist Ken Miller put it in Finding Darwin's God, believers should "prefer the light of knowledge to the darkness of ignorance".


When I first jumped in to the evolution vs. creationism debates, creationists had all sorts of "gaps" they felt they could point to in a "Oh yeah, well what about THIS" sort of way. But just in the past 5 years or so I've noticed that creationists have retreated mostly to the origin of life and the universe. I actually see that as progress.

Yes I agree. If the creationists retreat to abiogenesis that mean evolution at least is no longer being contested.

I just wish I could find the quotation from Newman. I think it may appear in Dawkins' God, by Alister McGrath, but I seem to have mislaid my copy.

And thanks for the link to Miller's talk. Very thoughtful: another thinking man's Catholic.

 

[tayla]

should not support the Intelligent Design argument and gives his reasons why.

Intelligent design should be rejected because it is impossible. Even if God were the extreme micromanager needed, it is not possible to calculate all the desired effects and to poke at the biological systems in the just the very specific manner needed to achieve the desired effects.

 

[gnostic]

Is this topic really a debate thread?

Mohsen hasn’t replied much in the topic he had created.

 

[ecco]

It is really sad that this is the level of discourse that we find. Nearly hopeless.

judging by the comments here in the thread, i can only agree Luis!

You post a video and say - here, watch it.

If you are too lazy to give a good reason to watch the video, why should anyone bother to watch it or take the time to make a meaningful comment?

 

[Audie]

I've seen the same from Christians, Hindus, and even some Buddhists. The whole "how could they have known X" line of argument seems to be pretty common in religion.


You're probably right. Perhaps ID creationism is becoming increasingly popular among Muslims, which prompted the video. The sad thing is, one of his main messages is that Muslims must reject common ancestry no matter what, which puts them in the same camp as fundamentalist Christians. Of course, like their Christian counterparts, those Muslims will continue to reflexively reject much of science while claiming to not be anti-science.

How could the builders of Angkor Wat have known about Stegosauarus, huh?

 

[Audie]

You post a video and say - here, watch it.

If you are too lazy to give a good reason to watch the video, why should anyone bother to watch it or take the time to make a meaningful comment?

The thing to do is to find a counter-video. Aim the two computers at
each other and let them duke it out, dueling videos! Full auto!
No humans needed!

 

[Jose Fly]

How could the builders of Angkor Wat have known about Stegosauarus, huh?

You stumped me with that one!

 

[Audie]

You stumped me with that one!

Chumps is so easy to stump.

 

[LuisDantas]

The thing to do is to find a counter-video. Aim the two computers at
each other and let them duke it out, dueling videos! Full auto!
No humans needed!

Still a waste, but at least it would not involve quite as much of valuable human time.

 

[Audie]

Still a waste, but at least it would not involve quite as much of valuable human time.

No intelligence required! Just set it up, leave it to run. Whatever you do, do not watch!