Can religion fit into evolutionary theory?

[Captain Kremmen]

Richard Dawkin compared religious and similar cultural beliefs to a virus.

I think this was polemic viewpoint.
He chose a Virus because he is opposed to religious thought.

But how about if we looked at religion as a way to increase viability of an intellectual being, what if you see it as an antibody or a medicine?

[OilIsMastery]

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/09/29/freeman_dyson/story.jpg

Do you think science and religion are at odds?

No. I think it's only a small fraction of people who think that. Perhaps they have louder voices than the others.

What do you think of what Richard Dawkins is doing.

I think Richard Dawkins is doing a lot of damage. I disagree very strongly with the way he's going about it. I don't deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He's convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists because they don't want to be atheists. I'm strongly against him on that question. It's simply not true what he's saying, and it's not only not true but also harmful. The fact is that many of my friends are much more religious than I am and are first-rate scientists. There's absolutely nothing that stops you from being both.

Dawkins calls religion as a virus.

I disagree totally. He has the arrogance to say that anyone who does not share his views is infected with a virus. No wonder he cannot coexist peacefully with them.
Link (http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/09/29/freeman_dyson/)

[w1z4rd]

Indoctrination is a hereditary infection.

I can imagine Dawkins is pissed off. I would also be if I had to deal with religious liars every day of my life.

[JDawg]

The reason Dawkins takes such a hard-line approach to religion is that his vocation is under attack by the religious. If Evangelicals weren't trying to get creationism taught in public schools, and Muslims weren't threatening to kill every European cartoonist, then people like Dawkins wouldn't have a reason to be on the offensive.

But how about if we looked at religion as a way to increase viability of an intellectual being, what if you see it as an antibody or a medicine?

I'm not even sure what that means. Religion and science don't mesh, dude. They aren't talking about the same thing. There is no need to interbreed them. Anyway, the only side that needs to start embracing the other is religion of science. The evangelicals in this country are trying to push science out of the classroom, and that needs to stop.

[Cris]

This is memetics. The concept that a popular idea can easily spread, i.e. the idea is contagious.

Memes have no necessary correlation with truth, and as such there could be good memes and bad memes, where bad here means an idea has become widespread and accepted as a truth but has no factual basis, e.g. religion.

The parallel with a virus is that it also spreads rapidly and is equally unwanted in the same way we should not want to be convinced that an unsupported idea has no factual basis.

I don't see a positive aspect to your suggestion, that somehow being convinced that something incredulous and unsupported might be beneficial.

[S.A.M.]

but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He's convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists because they don't want to be atheists.

Heh, Dawkins turning people away from science because of his stringent atheism. Thats what I call poetic justice.

[spidergoat]

Some religions are obviously incompatable with evolutionary theory, for instance those that advocate a literal interpretation of the Bible. There could be some religions that are compatable, but for the most part, religion is the opposite of investigating something using the scientific method. Mostly, you are just supposed to accept religious tenets on faith.

[John99]

Can religion fit into evolutionary theory?

Depends on how old they are and if they are willing to make revisions.

[Cris]

SAM,

"but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist."

Heh, Dawkins turning people away from science because of his stringent atheism. Thats what I call poetic justice.The problem here is that he has never said that. Can you find a document/book/video where he says that?

You are simply repeating an uninformed perspective as an atheist hater.

The issue though is that science is based on evidence and its takes a particular disciplined perspective to always question conclusions and the evidence that supports them.

Religions are based on an entirely different perspective - faith. This is the exact opposite of scientific discipline.

The principle objection to religions raised by atheists is the absence of evidence. That perspective is significantly closer to the scientific discipline than any religious viewpoint.

I don't think it is that one must be an atheist to be a scientist but that one cannot effectively use a faith based perspective and apply it to science.

[synthesizer-patel]

The principle objection to religions raised by atheists is the absence of evidence.

personally I would argue the oposite - my principal objection to religion and the existence of god is the fact that there is mountains of evidence tyhat supports the non existence of god and the fact that religion is an entirely human construct - take the fact that the Bible and the Quran exist simultaneously for example - what more evidence do you need?

[John99]

The problem is that nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

BILLY PRESTON lyrics - Nothing From Nothing


(Billy Preston and Bruce Fisher)

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me

I'm not tryin' to be your hero
'Cause that zero is too cold for me, Brrr
I'm not tryin' to be your highness
'Cause that minus is too low to see, yeah

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
And I'm not stuffin'
Believe you me
Don't you remember I told ya
I'm a soldier in the war on poverty, yeah
Yes, I am

[Instrumental Interlude]

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me

You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me
You gotta bring me somethin' girl
If you wanna be with me

[Cris]

synth....,

That isn't so much evidence for non-existence but a call to the credibility of the claims. At what point do people agree - enough is enough - these ideas are just plain silly?

But I do see your point.

[Cris]

John,

The problem is that nothing from nothing leaves nothing.Sorry, not sure what you mean here.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

What's all this asshattery!? The answer is yes. Thank you for playing.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I am the voice inside your head
and I control you
I am the lover in your bed
and I control you
I am the sex that you provide
and I control you
I am the hate you try to hide
and I control you
I take you where you want to go
I give you all you need to know
I drag you down I use you up
Mr. Self-destruct
I speak religion's message clear
and I control you
I am denial guilt and fear
and I control you
I am the prayers of the naive
and I control you
I am the lie that you believe
and I control you
I take you where you want to go
I give you all you need to know
I drag you down I use you up
Mr. Self-destruct
I am the needle in your vein
and I control you
I am the high you can't sustain
and I control you
I am the pusher I'm a whore
and I control you
I am the need you have for more
and I control you
I am the bullet in the gun
and I control you
I am the truth from which you run
and I control you
I am the silencing machine
and I control you
I am the end of all your dreams
and I control you
I take you where you want to go
I give you all you need to know
I drag you down I use you up
Mr. Self-destruct

so there

[Captain Kremmen]

But how about if we looked at religion as a way to increase viability of an intellectual being, what if you see it as an antibody or a medicine?

For example, religious laws regarding unclean foods and sexual behaviour may benefit the peoples who believe in them by making sure they do not get parasites and communicable diseases. Societies which had such beliefs would do better than those which hadn't.

[John99]

Chris,

Things had to start somehow or somewhere. To say that space and the universe always existed is not really an answer. On the other hand if we say that there is a God, whatever or whoever it may be, then there had to be a beginning for it. Well then where did this God come from?

Questions like this cannot be answered.

[wsionynw]

Chris,

Things had to start somehow or somewhere. To say that space and the universe always existed is not really an answer. On the other hand if we say that there is a God, whatever or whoever it may be, then there had to be a beginning for it. Well then where did this God come from?

Questions like this cannot be answered.

Nothing to do with evolution as the origin of species.

[Norsefire]

Don't Catholics accept evolution? Anyway, if I didn't know Dawkins was an atheist, I'd think he was religious with the extremism he displays.

[Ophiolite]

1. The fundamentalists are, indeed, a problem.
2. Many religions and many religious people do not have any difficulty with evolution in any shape or form. Nada. Zilch.
3.Science has a defined area of investigation. There are questions it does not ask.
4. Religion provides a social construct within which to express ones spiritual aspirations. Just because it does not work for you does not mean it does not work for others.
5. If religion and science are correctly applied then there is zero incompatibility between them.

[Norsefire]

Science can't answer all questions, though; for instance, it can't tell you whether a certain painting is beautiful, or whether someone is good or evil. That's the value of religion.

[spidergoat]

Religion can't tell you if a certain painting is beautiful, either.

[Norsefire]

Religion can't tell you if a certain painting is beautiful, either.

Yes, I know, I was mainly referring to the "good and evil" thing.

[Cris]

John,

Things had to start somehow or somewhere. Why?

If you think this through a little further you will realize it is impossible for there to have been a beginning.

If we agree that everything that occurs has a cause then if there was a time when there was nothing, then there would not have been anything to start the first event, and everything that follows could not occur and we could not be here.

To say that space and the universe always existed is not really an answer. On the other hand if we say that there is a God, whatever or whoever it may be, then there had to be a beginning for it. Well then where did this God come from?I think you are close to answering your own question.

Whatever way you cut this something MUST have an infinite nature. Something must be infinite since a beginning point is impossible. The reason a god is often proposed is to answer the question of where the universe came from but doesn’t answer the question of where the god came from. The god idea simply doesn’t answer the question of origins.

Now we also know from physics that nothing is ever created or destroyed, but that energy and matter are interchangeable. From this simple observation we have no basis to suggest the universe has not always existed and no reason to suggest a god was a cause of something that apparently doesn’t need to be caused.

[spidergoat]

What about your hero, Hitler?

[Norsefire]

What about your hero, Hitler?

My hero? Hardly. Why would the man who murdered my brothers be my hero?

Cris, before the universe there wasn't time and therefore chronoligical order isn't necessary. This justifies God being "eternal"

[Ophiolite]

Whatever way you cut this something MUST have an infinite nature. Something must be infinite since a beginning point is impossible. You are talking about this from the narrow and flawed perspective of a being which lives in a Universe which has a temporal dimension. That prohibits you from figuring out what is really going on.

[S.A.M.]

SAM,



The problem here is that he has never said that. Can you find a document/book/video where he says that?
.

Said what? That religious people suffer from a virus of the mind?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=G4C&q=dawkins%2Bvirus&btnG=Search

I don't particularly care for his polemic. You're welcome to it.

[Cris]

Norsefire,

Cris, before the universe there wasn't time and therefore chronoligical order isn't necessary. This justifies God being "eternal"Without time no events can occur and hence there could not have been a beginning.

Asserting there was a point where time did not exist has no bearing or justification for asserting an eternal god.

[Cris]

SAM,

Said what? That religious people suffer from a virus of the mind? No, go back and read my post correctly.

The quote was -

but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist.

This was the point of the debate. You are fully ready to believe he said that, but I doubt you can find a reference to him actually stating that sentiment.

[Cris]

Ophiolite,

You are talking about this from the narrow and flawed perspective of a being which lives in a Universe which has a temporal dimension. That prohibits you from figuring out what is really going on.Why is it narrow or flawed? What evidence can you show that time is a dimension and that it can be avoided?

Time appears to be a necessary property of existence. What example could you show where something could exist outside of time.

Simply asserting that it is possible without any meaningful basis is simply a waste of good white space on my screen.

Describe how something could exist or how events could occur without time, then I might give your idea some credibility.

[S.A.M.]

SAM,

No, go back and read my post correctly.

The quote was -



This was the point of the debate. You are fully ready to believe he said that, but I doubt you can find a reference to him actually stating that sentiment.

I know that thiests conceal their faith in Oxford. That many religious people are told outright that their beliefs will make upward mobility difficult if not impossible. Dawkins spouts enough vomit against theists and religion that this is most probably what he thinks, its consistent with his views on both theism and theists. I've heard him say no scientist is a true theist, whatever the fuck that is in his mind.

"real scientists are naturalists" :rolleyes:

And this is a guy who has met Francis Collins.

[Cris]

SAM,

I've heard him say no scientist is a true theist, ....

"real scientists are naturalists" Heard him? Or is that how you interpret what he says.

Can you find the quote?

[S.A.M.]

No, and I couldn't be bothered to. I've heard his bilious bullshit enough. But you can read his preface to The God Delusion, he carries on at some length about "real" scientists.

[iceaura]

Dawkins spouts enough vomit against theists and religion that this is most probably what he thinks, its consistent with his views on both theism and theists. I continue to be surprised that apparently no warning bells go off in your mind when you see yourself typing things like "this is most probably what he thinks" as a justification for a false assertion about what someone has said or written.

You have an odd and unsupported (to be charitable) view of what Dawkins has written, which is easy to explain and excuse because you have not read it. But your insistence in talking about, referring to, and making claims concerning, a specific matter of which you are not only obviously ignorant but self-admittedly biased, is strange.

Isn't there some other atheist reference or source or something, one you are actually familiar with and can say reasonable things about, that you can use?
I know that thiests conceal their faith in Oxford. That many religious people are told outright that their beliefs will make upward mobility difficult if not impossible. If you refer to your statement above - "This is most probably what he thinks" - and consider how common that kind argument has been and is among even well-educated, credentialed, and outwardly intelligent theists in many arenas, the suspicion that avowed theism incurs in rigorous intellectual circles may perhaps become less mysterious in origin.

As far as the OP - of course. It can be fitted, has been fitted, and there is no problem in general.

[S.A.M.]

Next you'll be telling me that Dawkins thinks religious scientists are true theists.

[iceaura]

Next you'll be telling me that Dawkins thinks religious scientists are true theists. You don't know much of anything about what Dawkins thinks. You don't even know what he's written, and you can't keep straight or remember what he says, so your information about what he thinks is obviously inadequate, to the point of leading you badly astray.

Why the fixation ? Is there no other reference for atheism you can use, one you know more about, can at least quote accurately ?

In particular, something that has more bearing on this thread would be nice. Presumably you agree that religion can fit into evolutionary theory. But clearly some forms of some religions don't. So what are the key differences between those that fit into evolutionary theory and those that do not ?

[S.A.M.]

You don't know much of anything about what Dawkins thinks. You don't even know what he's written, and you can't keep straight or remember what he says, so your information about what he thinks is obviously inadequate, to the point of leading you badly astray.

Oh so he now thinks religion and science are compatible? That thiests make excellent scientists? Thats good to know, I had no idea he had advanced so much from his paper on viruses of the mind. Or his announcement that being religious is akin to sucking dummies.

[azriel]

First of all anyone with the brains of a goldfish can see that religion is a crock.

What kind of God would condone Islamic terrorism or what God would condone pedophilia (catholicism) In the christian nations same sex marriage is condoned but the christian bible says that this is the most dispicable of sins.

The christian bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth and everything on the Earth in six days. Now a goldfish might buy into that but that would sure make God one busy guy. Science clearly refutes that delusion but then again the same christian bible says that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.

Again the goldfish is so literal that it can't comprehend that an eternal God is not bound by time so to God a day could be a thousand years or a million years or even fifteen minutes.

Don't worry about what God's doing or has done, there's nothing you can do about it anyway. Just worry about the things that you do and the choices you make and how God feels about that. Don't be a goldfish that thing on your shoulders is for more than your hairdresser to make a buck.

[iceaura]

Oh so he now thinks religion and science are compatible? That thiests make excellent scientists? Thats good to know, I had no idea he had advanced so much from his paper on viruses of the mind. Or his announcement that being religious is akin to sucking dummies. This is painful. You are talking to people who have read Dawkins, you know. Doesn't that make you at least kind of hesitate a little ?

You don't know much of anything about what Dawkins thinks. You don't even know what he's written, and you can't keep straight or remember what he says, so your information about what he thinks is obviously inadequate, to the point of leading you badly astray.

Why the fixation ? Is there no other reference for atheism you can use, one you know more about, can at least quote accurately ?

Meanwhile, about the OP, we have a real question here: what are the differences between religious sects that fit in with evolutionary theory, and those that do not ?

[Hapsburg]

Can religion fit into evolutionary theory?

Depends on how old they are and if they are willing to make revisions.
Precisely.
It's a case-by-case basis depending on the religion in question, and even the individual in question. I know a lot of Christians (in fact, most Christians do, statistically) who accept evolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory as factual. Hell, the Big Bang theory was thought up by a Catholic priest from Belgium. And Catholicism officially advocates teaching Evolution.

And, in my religion, Wicca, the myths are viewed as that: mythology. Fanciful stories giving hints to the gods' natures. Says nothing about denying science or opposing critical analysis of ideas. Quite the opposite; it's saying not to take religious statements at face value.

Religion can't tell you if a certain painting is beautiful, either.
Well, it could. Depends on if said religion has a clear standpoint on Aesthetics.

[Ophiolite]

Thank you Hapsburg for stating an objective fact and countering those who conflate religion with fundamentalists of any stripe.

[Ophiolite]

What evidence can you show that time is a dimension and that it can be avoided?
Time appears to be a necessary property of existence. What example could you show where something could exist outside of time.
Describe how something could exist or how events could occur without time, then I might give your idea some credibility.Relativity, both Special and General, identify time as a dimension. Since these theories represent the consensus in physics it is up to you to offer evidence that time is not a dimension. Calabi-Yau spaces do not possess a time dimension.

Time appears to be a necessary property of existence because we live in a Universe that has a time dimension. You are making my central point for me. Our perceptions are dictated by the Universe in which we live. We cannot - I certainly cannot - envisage something existing outside of time, because I have a 3.5 billion year history of evolving within a time dimension.

Events are time based so asking how an event can occur in a Universe with only spatial dimensions is meaningless.

[Yorda]

Whatever way you cut this something MUST have an infinite nature.

I agree that the universe has always existed, but that also means that living beings have always existed, and there is no absolute beginning to lifeforms. In an eternal universe, some lifeforms have evolved much further than we. 'Gods' could be highly evolved lifeforms that exist in ethereal realms who design physical lifeforms.

Time appears to be a necessary property of existence because we live in a Universe that has a time dimension. You are making my central point for me. Our perceptions are dictated by the Universe in which we live. We cannot - I certainly cannot - envisage something existing outside of time, because I have a 3.5 billion year history of evolving within a time dimension.

Time is just the constant change that we experience in the timeless present moment where everything eternally begins. It's a concept (or metaphor) to say that we "move" in time. You can call time a dimension but all that exists is now and everything including time begins here. The present moment is outside of time because it has no duration.

Since the universe didn't begin at some specific location in space (according to Big Bang), why would it begin at some specific point in time? Time and space are in many ways dependent on each other.

If scientists would accept the ether, they could explain the origins of the motions in the universe without some mystical Bang. Big Bang is based on the understanding of the force of gravity. If gravity rules the universe, planets need to get a "push" from somewhere, otherwise they would eternally be stuck at one point ('big bang'), but with magnetism and ether there is no need for a push.

also, if the BB theory is true, there's no reason why it would happen only at one point in nothingness, it should happen everywhere in this infinite nothingness. this way the theory starts to look very similar to the way planets are created in an eternal ocean of ether.

[Hapsburg]

Thank you Hapsburg for stating an objective fact and countering those who conflate religion with fundamentalists of any stripe.
O'course. No problem; I always try to be a voice of reason in these kinds of things. I have no problem with religious people (being one myself), or atheists and agnostics. I do have a problem with intolerant people.

[Ophiolite]

Ialso, if the BB theory is true, there's no reason why it would happen only at one point in nothingness, it should happen everywhere in this infinite nothingness.Which is what did happen, so you have told me you do not understand even the basics of BBT.

[Yorda]

Which is what did happen, so you have told me you do not understand even the basics of BBT.

Yes, the expansion happens at every point in space, but that's not what I was talking about.

[Ophiolite]

Then I have no idea what you are talking about or why you would appear to make a clear statement in post, then deny in the next.

[Yorda]

oh comon i was talking about nothing and you're talking about space, they're not the same!!

[Ophiolite]

I was talking about the initiation of space and time within nothing, commonly called the Big Bang.
You, on the other hand, don't appear to know what you are talking about.

[(Q)]

Relativity, both Special and General, identify time as a dimension. Since these theories represent the consensus in physics it is up to you to offer evidence that time is not a dimension.

Actually, it was Minkowski who included the dimension of time over Euclidean space. Minkowski spacetime is the basis for SR, which became a subset of General Relativity, whereupon Minkowski spacetime is curved.

[Ophiolite]

While what you say is true it does not invalidat my own remarks.

[(Q)]

While what you say is true it does not invalidat my own remarks.

Yes, it does. :)

[Ophiolite]

How so?

[(Q)]

How so?

You said:

Relativity, both Special and General, identify time as a dimension.

That is false. Minkowski identified time as a dimension.

Of course, you're free to substantiate your claim, like anyone else here. :D

[Ophiolite]

And as you note "Minkowski spacetime is the basis for SR, which became a subset of General Relativity,". So unless you are denying your own statements, time is identified as a dimension within Relativity theory. Of course, I am a simple geologist, so perhaps Einstein didn't perceive time as a dimension and treat it as such in his equation. I am stand quite ready to be told that, though it would run counter to what I have read in all those popular treatments of the subject.

If I am not mistaken - which would mean you are - it would seem it is because you appear to think "identified" = "was first identified".

Odd.

[(Q)]

time is identified as a dimension within Relativity theory.

If I am not mistaken

You were mistaken, but you also changed your claim, too. :D

[Ophiolite]

Please demonstrate, with relevant extracts how I have changed my tune.

[(Q)]

Please demonstrate, with relevant extracts how I have changed my tune.

Relativity, both Special and General, identify time as a dimension.

time is identified as a dimension within Relativity theory

See the difference? The second one can be somewhat considered correct because time is identified within Relativity theory, by Minkowski and HIS theory, NOT by relativity, as you claim in the first.

It may seem trivial to you, but it's rather important towards the understanding of relativity, and time. :)

[CheskiChips]

No
Not in its present state.

[S.A.M.]

Okay time for my two bits.

As far as I have read, there is no need for controversy about evolution in Islam.

For one thing, the Quran stresses the rational approach


[20:114] Do not be in haste with the Qur'an before its revelation to you is completed, but say, "O my Sustainer! Increase my knowledge."

"[22:46] Did they not roam the earth, then use their minds to understand, and use their ears to hear? Indeed, the real blindness is not the blindness of the eyes, but the blindness of the hearts inside the chests."

[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.


“And, indeed, We have set forth for mankind all manner of parables in this Qur’an that they may take heed.” (39:27-28)

So basically, we should not preemptively decide that an idea is fixed because of what we think the Quran says. It may be that we have insufficient knowledge to arrive at the logical conclusion. As the Quran also says, we should look up to those who study the different aspects of knowledge and arrive at conclusions based on consensus [ijma] among them.

One has only to look at the methods of Islamic scholars at the time of the Quranic revelations for inspiration. No modern day student of science would be embarassed at advocating or following their methods or reasoning.

[Tht1Gy!]

But how about if we looked at religion as a way to increase viability of an intellectual being, what if you see it as an antibody or a medicine?

Please elaborate. I.e. What does this mean?:confused:

I don't have any trouble fitting the two together. While I'm not an advocate of Intelligent Design from a Christian view, the concept does resonate with me: First there was the moment of creation, the big bang maybe(?). And maybe there was a general blueprint of sorts, maybe not. Then things evolved from there.

I don't think there is some old man sitting in heaven meddling in human affairs, worried if John Doe believes in and loves him. :bugeye:

There is a quote I heard from Jimmy Carter (a fundamentalist): "Science is God's way of revealing himself"
While there is much on the subject of God that I disagree with Mr Carter, I find the point of view very useful.

It would seem that Mr. Dawkins has an axe to grind. Another example of atheistic zealotry.
So much for the vaunted "Atheist rationalism" and "Atheist detachment", hmm?

[Tht1Gy!]

On open letter to Q and Ophiolite, et. al., Here's a lovely bit of satire that seems appropriate about now:

Emily Postnews, foremost authority on proper net behaviour, gives her advice on how to act on the net.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html

Q: I saw a long article that I wish to rebut carefully, what should I do?
A: Include the entire text with your article, particularly the signature, and include your comments closely packed between the lines. Be sure to post, and not mail, even though your article looks like a reply to the original. Everybody loves to read those long point-by-point debates, especially when they evolve into name-calling and lots of "Is too!" -- "Is not!" -- "Is too, twizot!" exchanges.
Be sure to compare the poster to Adolph Hitler in some way. That's a novel, underutilized rhetorical technique. In fact, the poster is probably worse than the Nazis.
Be sure to follow-up everything, and never let another person get in the last word on a net debate. Why, if people let other people have the last word, then discussions would actually stop! Remember, other net readers aren't nearly as clever as you, and if somebody posts something wrong, the readers can't possibly realize that on their own without your elucidations. If somebody gets insulting towards you in their net postings, the best response is to get right down to their level and fire a return salvo. When I read one net person make an insulting attack on another, I always immediately take it as gospel unless a rebuttal is posted. It never makes me think less of the insulter, so it's your duty to respond. Remember, a net flame battle takes at least two participants, so do your best to make sure you're one of them.
:D:D:D

[Ophiolite]

You don't have to read anything you don't want to.

[iceaura]

As far as I have read, there is no need for controversy about evolution in Islam. But there is a great deal of controversy about evolution among Muslims, nevertheless. Including several attempts to modify, curb, or even eliminate the teaching of evolutionary theory in local Muslim schools, in my area, justified by its conflict with the truth as found in the Quran.

These efforts were led by clerics and other Islamic intellectuals, who present themselves as very well read in the standard Islamic religious texts and very familiar with Islamic teachings.

If the real world were inhabited by only the most theologically and intellectually and scientifically sophisticated of believers in a given religion, the discussion might be a different one - but we are discussing real world religions.

And the topic is therefore changed from the OP: obviously, some religions can "fit into" evolutionary theory, and others can't. So the interesting question is whether there is a pattern visible, some feature of the non-fitting religions absent from the fitting ones.

[S.A.M.]

Its mostly because they have adopted several Christian stories as their own. You'll find that the creationist movement is most active in Turkey where people are closely associated with US evangelists.

[Tht1Gy!]

You don't have to read anything you don't want to.

A little too close to home, hmm?:rolleyes:

Besides, You don't have to read any thing you don't want to.

[Ophiolite]

A little too close to home, hmm?:rolleyes:
.Not at all. It was an amusing piece, but it rather calls into question what you think the purpose of fora such as these is.
I think they fulfill several purposes. Debunking insane ideas, as in the Oil Is Mastery threads is one such purpose.
Another is attempting to deflate pompous gits such as (Q). In both contexts the satirical piece actually serves as a very useful instruction set for the novice, a point amply demontrated by your own adoption of its basic ideas.

[iceaura]

Its mostly because they have adopted several Christian stories as their own. 1) So?

2) That's not what they say.
and: You'll find that the creationist movement is most active in Turkey where people are closely associated with US evangelists. The pro-hijab efforts are most common in regions like Turkey as well.

But hijabs are common in other Muslim regions, without controversy, as a religious tenet. Likewise creationist views. And so we see that the most modern and sophisticated readings of theological texts or communities of believers are not the only ones that need consideration here.

[S.A.M.]

Ah but you see, its Turkey that throws 18 year olds in prison for wearing a hijab.

[Tht1Gy!]

Not at all. It was an amusing piece, but it rather calls into question what you think the purpose of fora such as these is.
I think they fulfill several purposes. Debunking insane ideas, as in the Oil Is Mastery threads is one such purpose.
Another is attempting to deflate pompous gits such as (Q). In both contexts the satirical piece actually serves as a very useful instruction set for the novice, a point amply demonstrated by your own adoption of its basic ideas.

Point of clarification: 'fora'? Do you mean 'forum'

Haven't read any 'OisM' threads and from how folks talk about same, probably won't.
And, by all means go after "Q". I was only referring to how It was starting to sound like the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch; "No, it wasn't" "Yes, it was"...

[iceaura]

Ah but you see, its Turkey that throws 18 year olds in prison for wearing a hijab. Hence the controversy - not the hijab.

Controversy is not a reliable sign of the existence of opposition to evolutionary theory.

We seem to find creationism to be a tenet of Islam in many places where it is not controversial. So perhaps we can sharpen the question a little: we have here not just a difference between religions, but between sects and schools of one single religion, in whether or not a particular religion can fit itself into evolutionary theory.

Christianity would be another example of that. And we have some record of how Christianity went about fitting itself - at least some sects of itself - into evolutionary theory. How have the sects of Islam that accomplished the feat done it ?

Did it require, as with Christianity, some modifications that brought the religion a bit closer to other religions that have no such difficulty, or perhaps the common modes of thinking of the irreligious ?

[Ophiolite]

Point of clarification: 'fora'? Do you mean 'forum'
No. I meant fora, though I understand that Sir Ernest Gowers favoured forums as the plural. I think fora is a more elegant word, so Sir Ernest can **** himself.

No, it wasn't. It was a fight.

[Tht1Gy!]

No. I meant fora, though I understand that Sir Ernest Gowers favoured forums as the plural. I think fora is a more elegant word, so Sir Ernest can **** himself.


A more clear answer might have been "Yes, only in the plural":rolleyes:, or such since it should have been clear i was unfamiliar with the word. Never heard it before.

fora |ˈfôrə|
plural form of forum (sense 3).

3 ( pl. fora |ˈfôrə|) (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.

No, it wasn't. It was a fight.

Then I should have went with my first choice of grade school level of "is not"- "is too" "is not" "is too, no give backs" etc.
I was trying to give some dignity... :p

[Ophiolite]

A more clear answer might have been "Yes, only in the plural":rolleyes:, or such since it should have been clear i was unfamiliar with the word. Never heard it before. Here is the sequence of events.
1. Ophiolite thinks, 'oh bugger' have I misrmembered my Latin.
2. Better check on this - wikipedia or wikidictionary might be a good source.
3. Well fora is the plural of forum - so that's good
4. But this dude, Sir Ernest Gowers in a 1960s publication, seems to favour using ums over a.
5. Lets convey to this Thingmywith-numbers-in chap that I was using fora as a mixture of snootiness and a genuine affection for Latin by making a reference to Gowers.
6. Thingmy-with-numbers should twig to that - he seems fairly smart.
7. Of course not so smart that I haven't managed to lure him into exactly the kind of exchange he was commenting on satirically.:)

[Tht1Gy!]

Here is the sequence of events.
1. Ophiolite thinks, 'oh bugger' have I misrmembered my Latin.
2. Better check on this - wikipedia or wikidictionary might be a good source.
3. Well fora is the plural of forum - so that's good
4. But this dude, Sir Ernest Gowers in a 1960s publication, seems to favour using ums over a.
5. Lets convey to this Thingmywith-numbers-in chap that I was using fora as a mixture of snootiness and a genuine affection for Latin by making a reference to Gowers.
6. Thingmy-with-numbers should twig to that - he seems fairly smart.
7. Of course not so smart that I haven't managed to lure him into exactly the kind of exchange he was commenting on satirically.:)

It stands for 'that one guy' and I haven't been lured in to anything, I was just commenting on how as I have never heard of Gowers I found your answer evasive rather than clarifying, and the "is too" "is not" aspect of the exchange.
Oh, this isn't a market place. ;)
And yeah, Fuck Gowers!

[(Q)]

The Evolution Deceit

"Many people think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a proven fact. But the improving branches of science, contradictory to the common perception, has disproved. The only reason for Darwinism to be imposed to people with a worldwide propaganda is the ideological aspect of the theory. All secular ideologies or philosophies try to provide a basis for themselves relying on the theory evolution.
This book, clarifies the scientific collapse of the evolution theory in a detailed but simple to understand way. It displays the fraudulence and the distortion that the evolutionist scientists attempted without any hesitation. Then it analyzes the powers, which try to keep this theory alive and try to make people believe it. Anyone, who wants to learn about the origin of living things and consequently the humans has to read this book."

http://www.ummah.net/harunyahya/evol/evol.html

The Atlas of Creation

"The fossil record is perhaps the most important evidence that demolishes the theory of evolution's claims. Fossils reveal that life forms on Earth have never undergone even the slightest change and have never developed into one another. Examining the fossil record, we see that living things are exactly the same today as they were hundreds of millions of years agoin other words, that they never underwent evolution. Even during the most ancient periods, life forms emerged suddenly with all their complex structure with the perfect and superior features, just as do their counterparts today. This demonstrates one indisputable fact: Living things did not come into being through the imaginary processes of evolution. All the living things that have ever existed on Earth were created by God. This fact of creation is once again revealed in the traces left behind them by flawless living things. This book will provide you with not only such information as what fossils are and where and how they are found, but also a closer examination of a variety of fossil specimens, millions of years old, that are still able to declare, "We never underwent evolution; we were created." The fossils discussed and illustrated in this book are just a few examples of the hundreds of millions of specimens that prove the fact of creation. And even these few are enough to prove that the theory of evolution is a major hoax and deception in the history of science."

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Creation-1-Harun-Yahya/dp/B000U37CWQ

[(Q)]

"To begin: the most important fact to bear in mind is that Allah alone controls ALL affairs. Allah is Qadeer, the Absolute Controller, of every event that has taken place, is taking place, and will take place. Nothing happens outside His will.

Nothing happens before Allah wills, nor after He wills. Nothing happens more than He wills, nor less than He wills. Nothing happens in a different manner than He wills. A snowflake does not fall in the arctic except by the will of Allah; a grain of sand does not blow across the desert except by His permission. A molecular mutation in a genetic code does not occur except by His power and control.

Allah alone causes life, and Allah alone causes death. Every living thing in the universe has been given life by Allah, and He alone is sustaining every second of its life. If a species survives better than another in a particular environment, it is because Allah allowed it to live more days, and He willed for its progeny to continue.

If I think that Allah created the first seeds of life and then “stepped back” from His creation, I am deluded as to the reality of my Sustainer. As such, I will not be able to worship Him correctly, with the proper level of reverence, and I may even consider there to be powers that act outside of His will. To think that something other than Allah has inherent power and can function beyond His power is a form of shirk, associating partners with Allah – the only unforgivable sin."

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996016024

[(Q)]

"I am unqualified to undertake the task of checking whether there are plausible interpretations of the Qur’anic verses and Prophetic traditions that are consistent with the evolutionary account.

The Qur’anic language is rich with meanings and implications. In order to carry out the interpretive exercise properly, all the textual evidence must be gathered and analyzed objectively.

However, what is notable is that the theory (Evolution) has not provided any detailed account for the emergence of the complex organs, structures, and mechanisms observed in all living forms.

The root of this problem can be understood as follows. Assume that to have a structure fitted to the environment, the organism needs two changes. These two changes may be two point mutations or two modifications to two already existing structures that do different tasks and which will make them come together to perform a new function. Now the simultaneous occurrence of the two required changes, on the basis of Neo-Darwinism, has an extremely small probability.

The religious language has a clear-cut layer of meaning that is not open to interpretation.

Science is ever-changing. And the eternal truths of the Qur’an cannot be subjected to the science. Science may help us understand the Qur’an and may help us understand the ways of Allah operating in the universe.

Allah always describes the believers as “the people of sound intellect”. These are people who always ponder over the signs of Allah, and do not pay attention to science only when it appears to confirm their preexisting beliefs. In addition, twisting divine truth to suit the fallible science and making false assertions about Allah, such as that He does not leave signs in the universe that challenge us to think, reflect, and respond in faith, are detrimental to both science, turning it into a dogmatic endeavor rooted in metaphysical naturalism, and religion, rendering it an irrelevant source of knowledge about ourselves, our universe, and our Lord."

http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2006/05/article07.shtml

[S.A.M.]

Nice.

This article reflects solely the opinion of the author.

Good for him. Pretty good summary.

[S.A.M.]

Hence the controversy - not the hijab.

Controversy is not a reliable sign of the existence of opposition to evolutionary theory.

We seem to find creationism to be a tenet of Islam in many places where it is not controversial. So perhaps we can sharpen the question a little: we have here not just a difference between religions, but between sects and schools of one single religion, in whether or not a particular religion can fit itself into evolutionary theory.

And Turkey is the country where creationism is strongest.

Christianity would be another example of that. And we have some record of how Christianity went about fitting itself - at least some sects of itself - into evolutionary theory. How have the sects of Islam that accomplished the feat done it ?

Did it require, as with Christianity, some modifications that brought the religion a bit closer to other religions that have no such difficulty, or perhaps the common modes of thinking of the irreligious ?



No modifications in the Quran, if that is what you are asking. But many people are more aware of creationism due to the missionaries than they are to the fact that none of the Bible stories are replicated in the Quran.

Like this thread by Muslim.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56946

[iceaura]

And Turkey is the country where creationism is strongest. No evidence of that. It appears to be simply the country of greatest controversy - the Islamic country where creationism is weakest, possibly.
No modifications in the Quran, if that is what you are asking. Of course not. We are discussing actual religions as they exist in time and space.

So, about the questions at hand - - -

[Tht1Gy!]

Attention: I have doctored this quote for "goofy humor" purposes only. No disrespect is intended. Nor am I trying to make a point.

The Evolution Deceit

"Many people think the... ... humans has to read this book."

http://www.ummah.net/harunyahya/evol/evol.html

The Atlas of Creation

"The fossil record is perhaps... ... a major hoax and deception in the history of science."

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Creation-1-Harun-Yahya/dp/B000U37CWQ
Hey 'Q' Am I mixing you up with someone else, cuz I thought you were an atheist. You're Muslim? If so, that's cool. I got no problem with that. Just want to keep my facts straight.
(This is a real question. I not trying to trap you or anything)