The Quran says: "And [mention] when your Lord said to the angels, 'Truly, I will create a man from sounding clay. So when I have completed him, and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down and prostrate to him.' And the angels prostrated, one and all. Save for Satan, who was too proud to, and disbelieved. God said to him, 'O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating to what I have created? Are you arrogant, or too exalted?' He said,'I am better than he; You created me from fire and created him from clay'" (Qur'an 38:71-76). Darwin says: "I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide" (The Origin of Species, 454-55). So Darwin supports level of complexity of creation and is saying that we are all decendants of one prototype, which is clay or carbon if you compare with the Quranic verse. A prototype is an example that is utilized by a higher dimension to form creatures. Also the Quran mentions that: "We shall show them Our signs on the horizons and in themselves, until it is plain to them that it is the Truth" (Qur'an 41:53). Supporting science, since man's only tool to study his origin stems from observing himself and the horizen and studying it to find the truth.
This Harun Yahya has put forth ideas against the possibility of Darwinism and Islam to be compatable , I however believe a Muslim should be of Truth . And Truth is not something that is so easily known , and as you have said according to Qu'ran the gaining of knowledge is something that is intended to be so . Evolution is obvious , if not beyond man certainly within man .
Oh my. Islam supporting science. Right. That must be why those 20% of the worlds population only produces 1% of the worlds scientists. Makes sense. :bugeye:
What makes even less sense is why anyone would want to support science which has killed millions with the creation of bombs, missles, gases, etc.
Stupid claim. Science doesn't make weapons. Humans do. Orwill wright claimed that aeroplanes would make wars impossible. Instead the lords in Europe started WWI.
Just remember, technology is always a double-edged sword. Swing left it can kill and swing right it can save. Just like you wouldn't like people saying why anyone would want to support religion which has killed millions in the name of god.
Oh my. Islam supporting science. Right. That must be why those 20% of the worlds population only produces 1% of the worlds scientists. They should make a redirecting system for retards like you DJ who keep repeating points that have been shitted all over a million times before . Just because peoples have no time to point it out to you 24-7 does not mean you are eventually right . You know nothing about Islam I suggest you rather go post at threads that do concern you . Get your Islamophobic ass out of here fatso .
Flores, It is interesting that 80% of the composition of clay is Silicon, Aluminum, and iron oxides, the rest is water. I’m not quite sure why you quote Darwin since although his original work was one of the most important science breakthroughs in the history of mankind it has since been adapted and extended far beyond that basic early document. And even though Darwin had a degree in theology and was a Christian he did eventually state that he was an unbeliever. So I don’t see a link between Islam and science, and in fact your post, when analyzed more closely, seems to show that Islam is ignorant of science. Unless of course it is prophesying that man will eventually evolve into robosapiens, as I have been trying to tell everyone, since silicon still plays a major role in electronics.
Science has never created a single weapon. Science is discovery, the acquisition of knowledge. The application of that knowledge is left to engineers and inventors, who are incidentally sometimes also scientists. Knowledge of any kind may be abused. But even you might be thankful as it is quite likely that you would not be alive today were it not for science. ~Raithere
That's completely untrue. I can't think of anyway that atomic research has saved me. This argument is as arrogant as claiming that all religion is, is knowledge. Modern science is funded by the goverment and special intrest groups. They are the ones who influence the direction of science, so it's not all about knowledge.
Originally posted by okinrus That's completely untrue. I can't think of anyway that atomic research has saved me. This argument is as arrogant as claiming that all religion is, is knowledge. Modern science is funded by the goverment and special intrest groups. They are the ones who influence the direction of science, so it's not all about knowledge. Ever had an x-ray? CAT scan? Radiography/Trace materials analysis? Laser treatment of the eyes? All these are thanks to atomic science. Perhaps you havent had them yet, but you likely will have. And many other have had, and will have them. Modern science is not exclusively funded by, or thanks to gov't. The theory of relativeity wheich more or less founded modern atomic theory and astronomy, was done by Einstein, a simple paper pusher in a Swiss patent bureau. The geodesic domes used in rada facilities were developed by Buckmister Fuller, who was a lonely and poor researcher. The microsprocessor was developed by Intel, a, at the time of discovery, small electronics company. The ethernetwork was developed at XEROX PARC dev centre. etc. As to your claim that "its not all about knowledge". What are you trying to say?
Research into specific areas are dependant upon who pays the bill. Take AID's research. There is almost no research to actually get a cure. All they want to do is suck off the life of them slowely to get the most money. If coorperations actually put more money into the research, then we'd probably have a cure. So what we have now is a field that is not done for knowledge, but is done for money. The first atomic bomb wouldn't have even been built without the US spending millions of dollars. There will be of course another world war and another Hitler, and they will not be hesistant to use weapons of mass destruction.
You said science, not atomic research in particular (although DJ covered a few possibilities there as well). But honestly, examining that part of my argument, it is just as disingenuous to credit science with the good and not the bad as is the reverse. Science is, quite simply, about acquiring knowledge. What is done with it, good or bad, is the result of technology (the application of that knowledge). And the good far outweighs the bad, IMO. Granted we have improved methods of killing but we are also able to sustain a far greater population than ever before. Those that live are (generally speaking) healthier, have to work less, and live longer. All the great works of art and religion owe their existence to science for without the science of agriculture mankind would have never had the spare time to create such works. Subsistence living is very time consuming (unless you live in a tropical region). Without the science of architecture you can kiss the Sistine Chapel, the Duomo, and Notre Dame goodbye as well. That science is influenced by politics is true but then can you show me some area of human effort that is not (including religion)? I thought not. So before you disdainfully dismiss science I suggest you think about how much you would enjoy sleeping on the dirt and grubbing for food in the wild. ~Raithere
Sorry, but I know people who have and are reasearching AIDS and this comment is an affront to them. You have no clue what you are talking about. Actually it is quite likely that the Germans or the Russians could have developed the atomic bomb so it would exist regardless of U.S. interests. Apparently you are also psychic? ~Raithere
What are you disagreeing with me about? Science has a mind of its own which has to be studied. This mind is made up of the commulative groups of scientist, goverments, etc. Are we supposed to say that religion is only the collective body of writings of religion? There was two world wars in 100 years. What makes you think that there won't be in the next 1000? I don't think so. I'm sure they've had to make due with lack of funds while the military was building planes. I was not specifically refering to researchers, but to those who finance it.
How about the extremely common smoke detector, it has saved thousands. An isotope of americium is used to detect smoke molecules. A direct offshoot of the american atomic energy (bomb) effort. Don't believe my? Check the label on your detector.
Your blanket statement asking why anyone would support science since it has created bombs, etc. I’m not sure I understand your point or your analogies here. I wasn’t making a prediction. Although I find the chances that there will be an all out nuclear war rather slim, everyone understands the outcome of that. Now we’re talking about economics and government. I too would prefer that we spend more money upon medical research than weapons development. But I don’t see that this has anything to do with science. ~Raithere
