Can religion fit into evolutionary theory?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

A little too close to home, hmm?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

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.

 

1) So?

2) That's not what they say.
and:

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.

 

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

 

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"...

 

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 ?

 

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.

 

A more clear answer might have been "Yes, only in the plural"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, 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.

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...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And yeah, Fuck Gowers!

 

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

 

"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/...kAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996016024

 

"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

 

Nice.

Good for him. Pretty good summary.