text:
Muslim creationism is back in the news, this time in Egypt
Muslim creationism is back in the news. There's been a spate of articles in the U.S. and British press recently about the spread of this scripture-based challenge to Darwinian evolution among Muslims, mostly in the Middle East but also in Europe. The fact that some Muslims have embraced creationism, a trademark belief of some conservative American Protestants, is not new. Reuters first wrote about it in 2006 — "Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey" — and this blog has run several posts on the issue, including an interview with Islam's most prominent creationist, Harun Yahya. What's new is that these ideas seem to be spreading and academics who defend evolution are holding conferences to discuss the phenomenon.
(Photo: Portrait of Charles Darwin, 12 Feb 2009/Gordon Jack)
There are too many recent articles about Islamic creationism out there now to discuss each one separately, so I'll have to just link to them in the … New York Times … Washington Post … Boston Globe … Slate … Guardian … National … Beliefnet … … Many of these articles highlight the role of Harun Yahya, the once secretive Istanbul preacher and publisher who has gone on a PR offensive in recent years and turned very media-friendly (as Steve Paulson describes in that Slate article). But as Michael Reiss, a London education professor and Anglican priest told the Guardian, "what the Turks believe today is what the Germans and British believe tomorrow. It is because of the mass movement of people between countries. These things can no longer be thought of as occurring in other countries."
(Photo: Harun Yahya, 21 May 2008/Osman Orsal)
Over the weekend, the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Alexandria, Egypt hosted a conference on "Darwin's Living Legacy: An International Conference on Evolution and Society" with the British Council. The simple fact of holding a conference on Darwin in the heart of the Middle East, where his theory of evolution is widely rejected, is already noteworthy. According to the Guardian's Riazat Butt, Nidhal Guessoum, professor of physics and astronomy at the American University of Sharjah, told the conference that only three Muslim or Muslim-majority countries out of a possible 22 taught evolution. Another participant, astronomer Salman Hameed, who is professor of integrated science & humanities from Hampshire College in Massachusetts, wrote on his informative science-and-religion blog Irtiqa: "It is incredible that this conference is taking place in Egypt. I don't know what will be the reaction here. Simply by its location, it may remove some of the stigma regarding evolution in the Muslim world, or it may end up generating a backlash. Frankly, I have no idea about the reaction."
In an update on Sunday, Hameed wrote: "There have been some anti-evolutionary comments made in the sessions that dealt with religion and evolution – but overall, the reception seems to have been quite positive – both in Egyptian newspapers and among the local participants."
(Photo: Salman Hameed/Irtiqa)
As a example of what they're up against, another participant was Zaghloul El-Naggar, a leading proponent of the theory that the Koran foresaw scientific theories and discoveries, including the Big Bang and a possible cure for AIDS. He was quoted prominently in a recent Al-Jazeera report on the discovery of the 4.4 million year old skeleton known as Ardipithicus or "Ardi." The report claimed that the find disproved Darwinian evolution — the opposite of what scientists said about the spectacular discovery of the most complete early hominid specimen we have. The report only appeared in Al-Jazeera's Arabic-language television channel, which is very popular in the Middle East, and not in its English-language broadcast. "The presence of El-Naggar totally polarized the debate and evoked an equally polarizing reaction from the audience," wrote Hameed, who promised further posts from the conference ending today.
Last month, Hameed's Hampshire College hosted a conference on Darwin and Evolution in the Muslim World. Webcasts of presentations there can be found on the conference website.
What do you think? Is the spread of creationism among Muslims a matter for concern? Is it the same as the battle between creationism and science in Christianity?
Here's the video of the Al-Jazeera report, with subtitles in English added by critics of its presentation:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Why are Darwinist so afraid of other points of view? Darwin's theory is just that, a theory, and it needs a leap of faith to believe that we have descended from apes. So when we are presenting one view (i.e. that we somehow evolved), why not let other theories same space?
Darwinists are not afraid of anything. It is science versus myth. The islamists should come up with a better theory if they can, otherwise save the world your uncivilized reactions. the west made mistakes ceturies ago but they 'evolved' in their way of thinking and science became independant of the church, now muslims are lagging behind because they think the west owe's them an explanation, well civilized people do not owe bearded camal riders anything, its a choice they make. put some hypothesis try to prove it in a scientific ethical manner, if it proves true congratulations you have solved the riddle of evolution.
my previous comment was removed (moderated), so I'll try to make it less offensive. What is the goal of this conference? is it to tell an assembly of scientists and islamists that they can meet in the middle?who is the islamic authority that attended the conference? If this islamic authority figure conceded does that mean that evolution and all other contraversial issues will be taught in the muslim world from now on?
Mr Adnan Oktar has destroyed the evolution theory, i read his atlas of creation very good book. greats from germany
A year ago i received the great book-Atlas Of Creation. I used to believe that there was sth like evolution Because I have never thought about it entirely. But when I think about the complexity of the creations I figured out the evolution idea cant be true. Evolutionists has been digging the ground for a century. So far they havent even found a single proof- a transitional form-. all the fossils have been found are the proof the perfect creation of Allah. People should stop insisting bout it. And accept the truth.
@Harry … lets' go beyond our prejudices :-). For Darwinism to be considered "science" it needs to stand to the test of proper scientific proof. The current explanation of the origin of life is no better than the myth that you attribute to the creation. Yes, I can see how some characteristics of the life forms may have changed over time due to the environment, but there is no clear proof of the whole sale changes in the life form. Even if we accept that, there is no proof that the complexity that a single cell contains is a result of random interaction of molecules. So it comes down to which explanation are you going to put your *faith* in.
I agree with Hany's 8:07 comment. In this situation the evolutionists aren't afraid of opposing points of view, they're afraid of suicide bombers appearing in college lecture halls. They afraid of the adherents of the so-called religion of peace.
Political correctness gone mad. All points of view are NOT equal and giving equal time (and creedence) to primitive superstition does not bode well for the future of civilization. Being ignorant and proud of it, denying reality because of faith- these are not the hallmarks of an intelligent species. You may choose to believe whatever fairy tale you wish; just don't impose it on me or anyone else capable of rational thought.
I really don't care too much what religious people think about Darwinism, let alone muslims. Once their minds are made up there's no use trying to confusing them with the facts!The real problem is religious fanaticism. "These" people are never to be trusted regardless of their religion. After all, how many people have been killed in the name of God as opposed to being killed in the name of Darwin?The answer speaks for itself.
Jimmy,I don't think you understand the scientific meaning of the word theory, this may help. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dic tionary/entry/theoryDarwin's theory is a proven thing and works. After well over a century of other scientists trying to prove it wrong, it still holds as valid. The other "theories" that you refer to really don't match the definition and exist not as a way of understanding anything but for pushing an agenda, which is why the supporters of the proven theory attack it. Bad science is when you have an already preordained conclusion and perform research for the basis of trying to show that your conclusion is true. It makes the whole of the research essentially worthless. So let me ask you this: Why are you afraid of accepting the fact that evolution is a proven and relevent theory?
This makes little sense. If the Muslims say this old skeleton disproves Darwin's theory, but this creature was a human ancestor, that obviously means they are saying we are descended from a human-like creature of a different species than our own, which in fact does prove Darwin's theory. Their argument is so flimsy it is almost like an attempt at humor.
That the Muslims embrace creationism is hardly a surprise. That they may be opening up to evolution as another view of how we all got here is, a bit. But it is a healthy sign that maybe they'll start opening up to other ideas than those espoused by the fanatic, fringe imams, and teaching their children, more on a par with the rest of the world, by which I do NOT mean only the west but all the rest of the world, in which education is seen as important to progress and prosperity. Not all the Muslim-dominant nations are so closed to real education, but enough are, and that's just sad for them all!
Between the Darwinists, the Neo-Darwinists and the Not-Neo-Darwinists Anymore undercutting each other, it is only a matter of time before the classic concept of minerals-to-man evolution goes the way of the Dodo all on its own. That approach to things is moot. Real scientists will continue to sort out exactly how DNA, mutation, copy-errors and even epigenetics work to change lifeforms from generation to generation, and exactly how far they have been changed or can be changed via these routes. This, while the hardcore, old-school, Darwinian ideologues fade into obscurity, relics of a simpler time. Creationists of various sorts and ID proponents will gain ground, probably even mysticism of various other types will, as well. There is nothing the man-to-minerals evolutionist can do. He is irrelevant, and only held on to the science so hard because it fed his atheism anyway. The question is what brand of Creationist will he become when his intellectual barriers to it crumble beneath actual scientific thought . . . or will his pride cause him to fail to make the leap at all.
Jimmy, take out a dictionary, and check out the SEVERAL meanings of the word 'theory'. Better yet, go to your local university, and ask scientists what they understand by a "theory". In the mean time, let me just say that gravity is also called a "theory", but I hope you understand that there is no debate whether things fall or not.Evolution is a scientific theory, which does mean it is open to debate. However, there is no reason to doubt the fundamental ideas of that theory. In fact, it is obvious evolution has to happen: all that evolution says is that if something exists today, it is because it had the right qualities for it to have survived yesterday. Also, evolution has been observed countless times in laboratories, as well as in the spread of human viruses. Denying it is ignorant. If you don't understand evolution, read about it!God is not an alternative to evolution. Religion does not provide us with a theory. All religious fairy-tales are just that–stories with zero evidence. They have nothing to say to science, and that is why all scientists should (and do) ignore them.Religion is only a hindrance to progress, and everybody will be better off once religion disappears completely–hopefully it will some time soon.
Just a note morons. NO-ONE has destroyed the evolution FACT.(i say fact because you people seem unable to grasp that the word "theory" in science has a complete different meaning to the word "theory" that you low IQ common folk use).Talk to a geneticist. That's the best proof of all for you that we now KNOW evolution is a fact and DOES occur. Looking at DNA we have basically put the nail in the coffin to those nay-sayers of evolution. but they STILL go on and on and on beacuse they are clearly too stupid to understand the proof.We had plenty of evidence before, but genetics has really just finalised this.From the fact people STILL doubt evolution (morons, i know) we can assertain that some people are just NEVER going to believe. Not because it isnt convoncing and TRUE, but because it goes against what they have grown up believing and they are too stubborn to think that they are wrong about that.There is nothing we can do about it. Lets just stop helping them with medical science, since a lot of its discoveries, principles and treatments are developed from an understanding of evolutionary science. After all. "evolution isnt real"….fine. believe that then get the HELL out of our hospitals you idiots.
Be careful when using the "just a theory" argument on evolution. "Gravity" is also "just a theory", but gravity doesn't go against religious views, doesn't rub people's back in the wrong way. The reason why it's concerning for scientists is the fact that important parts of biology are built on evolution, and the attitude of "because God made it so" will prevent scientific advancement.
Mr Adnan Oktar's ideas are garbage, backed up with a pile of crap. If you actually believe anything this idiot says you are clearly uneducated and most likely bordering on severe mental illness.
The Evolution Theory is evolving into a dogmatic religion with followers are blindly defending it without any tolerance. It is ironic how the followers of Darwin are becoming so fundamentalist in defending their "Religion". The existing of God or A Supreme Being doesn't prevent scientific advancement. It is only in our minds. Unfortunately, this is what we inherited from the Dark Ages of Europe when the Catholic Church rules with fire and steel to prevent any scientific advancement fearing that science will threaten their position. Sadly enough, the western world today sees every religion as the religion of that church.
@ jimmy khan"The current explanation of the origin of life is no better than the myth that you attribute to the creation."this is a common mistake that non-evolustionists make. evolution is NOT the theory of "origin of life". it is the theory of how life evolved. and it is better than the myth of your creation. just look at what MAN has accomplished in the world. i do not see the hand of god. do some reading."Yes, I can see how some characteristics of the life forms may have changed over time due to the environment, but there is no clear proof of the whole sale changes in the life form."again, the fossil record speaks for itself. they have also just discovered a species of butterfly that is evolving as they watch it into 2 seperate species. there is proof, you just don't understand it or refuse to accept it."Even if we accept that, there is no proof that the complexity that a single cell contains is a result of random interaction of molecules."again, it comes down to another common mistake. it is not random in the common parleyance of the word. it is random in the sense that which adaptation/mutation is going to be successful in a paticular environment. again, do some reading, take some classes."So it comes down to which explanation are you going to put your *faith* in."i'm going to put my faith in science. it's proven to be very effective in my book.the difference between my science and your religion, is that my science is self-correcting. your religion is not. that is where exrtemisim comes from.
Again we have the evolution-bashers try and say since we haven't proved abiogenesis (the creation of living material from nonliving), then evolution (the change of genetic material over time) is wrong.Calvin: unfortunately, the "theory of gravity" does rub people the wrong way. Cf. Inteligunt Falling Thery:www.theonion.com/content/node/3951 2
First of all I'd like to point out that no matter what religion you believe in…………….we're all going to hell. Why? Because every religon says that "if you don't believe in what we do, your going to hell. So no matter what, we're all going to hell. How about just one person, a religious person, any religion, give's proof, documentable proof, that their "higher being" (Crist, Budda, Krishna, Mohammed, etc.) stopped by today for a cup of (tea, beer, Tequila, holy water, etc.) and will show us the photos. In other words, no religon can be anything more than a leap of faith (or an intense brain washing than started when a person was 2 years old). Face it everybody, you have no "proof" that any of your religous beliefs are fact. You have a book, written by men hundreds of years after the fact. Hell, you can't even tell a joke and expect it to be verbatim 3 or 4 levels down. The bible was written 500 years after Jesus was here. The Koran was writtn 300 years later. Do you really want to base your life on "hearsay" of hundreds of years old, translated a hundred time. I don't care what religon you are, but your "belief" that it is absolutely correct is an error. Join in on the brain washing or find your own path, but don't continue killing people because of your "beliefs". Take a good look, then be your own man (or woman) but don't let someone elses belief guide yours. Tha is just plain stoopid.
Please forgive my ignorance on this subject. But if humans were truly brought about by creationism, does that mean that we sort of Big Banged into existence?
First of all , most people dont know the difference between a Scientific theory and just the word theory….theres a whole lotta difference,like Calvin said, if people have a problem with evolution theory(i dont get why every1s using Darwinist's and Darwins theory) then people should have problems with the theory of gravity and atomic theory and 100's of other theories….let me tell a gist about what a scientific theory is…1st of all , people see evidence , then they ask why this evidence is here and what it represents…then they develop a hypothesis (an idea) of whats happening and test the hypothesis to see if it fits with evidence seen, if it does, then we improve upon the hypothesis with other hypothesis and see if it fits the evidence , if it doesnt , then that hypothesis is thrown and another is thought upon….this goes on and on till we can define what actually is happening with the said evidence , and this is how a scientific theory is made…so what scientific theory is a set of words that defines how a said process is taking place and explains how it is done, why it is done etc….in another words, evolution is a fact and the evolution theory just explains how evolution works , just like gravity is a fact and how the theory of gravity explains how gravity works….for those people who says that evolution doesnt have any proof , are just either 1)ignorant 2) lying to themselves 3)adament to not believe in evolution so that they turn a blind eye to the proof of evolution because accepting evolution would mean thyr own beliefs would take a beatingthere are innumerable proof for evolution, and just coz of this proof, if there wasnt proof, then there wont be an evolution theory….and to clear things up, everyone is entitled to theyr own beliefs , but i dont respect people who are purposefully dishonest and try to disprove evolution with lies , saying there is no proof and all that,
"So far they havent even found a single proof- a transitional form" Countless transitional forms have been found. Another myth of creationists.
Reply to JamesNovember 17th, 20092:19 am GMT"After all, how many people have been killed in the name of God as opposed to being killed in the name of Darwin?"James have you ever taken a close look at Hitler and how evolution played into his ideas of the "master race"?
"So far they havent even found a single proof- a transitional form-. all the fossils have been found are the proof the perfect creation of Allah."- Vanessa.There are countless transitional forms. Try doing some research. Creationist arguments are all based on ignorance.
As an architect I can assure you that complexity is not a sign of the divine hand. Complexity is easy. What is hard, and generaly considered a sign of the divine by designers, is a simple concept that works to solve every situation that comes up. To be able to set up a system that doesn't need "divine intervention" to keep it going is the truest proof of divinity.
Nothing to worry about, just some muslim fundamentalists taking notes from christian fundamentalists.Who cares what fundamentalists think honestly? As long as they keep to themselves and don't start strapping bombs to their chests it all gravy. They believe a story made up a few thousand years ago about some dude in the sky telling everyone how it is they got enough problems already.Oh yea and if God is so perfect, and we are made in his image and all that jazz, why do we have a tailbone? So perfect but we got a tail bone and no tail……
Darwin's theory actually reinforces the proof for God's existence. so does Einstein's description of light. the religious right simply demonstrates their narrow view and broad paranoia be they "Christian" or "Muslim". the Imams and Evangelicals are the exact same people with no other resource but to kill you if you disagree with their self serving pronouncements. i don't have a birth certificate either…….
The difference between science and religion is this:The Scientist finds a thousand thousand pieces of evidence, and still he searches for further proof.The Religious demand belief of something that not only has not one piece of evidence, but a thousand thousand disproofs.Even not picking a side is picking a side.
A theory is a set of concepts supported by data sufficient to confirm to the majority of scientists who are conversant with the material to be considered expert in it.Evolution is such a theory. It was pretty well proven on first publication and all arguments to the contrary have a very large public of acceptance to overcome. Especially is this true of the ravings of one who was self-declared a mental defective who heard voices in his mind. Today we put these people in institutions and give them drugs to keep them quiet. We do not kill people in their name.
Name an equation from the theory of evolution. Tell me a URL where I can buy a set of transitional fossils. Describe what could be found to disprove evolution. Why did Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1972 after decades of "evolution is proved"? Explain why the top scientists are using very guarded words; while letting the media and general population continue to think everything is alright. Trace a media story back to the actual scientific journal paper and see if the scientist author gave the same "debate is over" message. You won't hear the top brains using such guaranteed "I'm sure" language as the evolution believers on the internet. Here is the unwrapping of the logic of the name callers: Science deals only with the material. Anything not in the material realm is not science. If you don't stick with science you are stupid. If the truth happens to be outside the material realm, please join me in believing the untruth.
[…] View post: FaithWorld » Blog Archive » Muslim creationism is back in the news … […]
I'm not going to argue the evolution vs creationism debate, but I do have a comment: Scientific theory will only be hindered by spewing hatred and harsh words. If don't agree with their point of view, great. But don't create all kinds of drama around yourself by getting on your high horse. Everyone who has an opinion about something will be wrong at some point in their lifetime.
Jimmy,The very first thing you need to accept if you want to discuss the origin of species with any "Darwinist" as you call us is accept that the origin of species (or rather any of the world's natural phenomena) are not a matter of opinion or point of view. You can't start a scientific discussion saying "I believe that…". No, you don't believe, you either have evidence pointing in a direction or you don't.Otherwise conversations just get silly. I'll show you what I mean:I believe the internet is not powered by computers, bits and bytes and electrons, but by magic. In fact, I believe Jimmy Khan is not a real person but God himself (who created the internet) having a discussion with us.
Hey Karl Thoennes,You better see the religion (Islam) and then say, if it is a religion of peace or not.. I read and I know, it is..Hitler, killed thousands of people, do you think christianity teaches him that but he said, I am doing this for God.. So, better check the essence of a religion on your own before pointing a finger to the religion itself. some terrorist saying, that we are killing innocent are JERKs and they actually don't know their own peaceful religion. The Holy Book, Koran said, 'Killing of a person is a killing of humanity'. Do you still say, its just a so-called religion of peace. You better check it out on your own.. Thanks.
In an earlier comment, James writes "After all, how many people have been killed in the name of God as opposed to being killed in the name of Darwin?"Unfortunately, Darwin's ideas also led to a major intellectual eugenics movement in the early part of the 20th century which contributed both to forced sterilization policies in the United States and to Nazi justifications for concentration camps.Both the concept of a god or gods and the concept of evolution are subject to many philosophical interpretations, some benevolent and others malevolent.(Please note, This refers only to the philosophies/ or political significances associated with evolution, not to its viability for predicting the conditions under which a virus will mutate or for explaining how we are physiologically related to other primates. I do not mean to suggest that its historical relation to eugenics somehow disproves biological models of evolution.)
For those who are under the misimpression that we do not see the process of evolution–I am afraid you have been misinformed.Evolution is visible, at the expected rates, and in the expected ways, wherever it is looked for. We don't see organisms evolving at thousands of times their natural speed for the same, very practical reasons that a person cannot have a kid of his own when he is 5 minutes old.Look, it is simple fact that genetic mutations can produce changes in the characteristics of an organism. And it is simple fact that, given their genetic differences, different individuals are not equally well equipped to face life's challenges. That's called selection." When the same selective forces work on a population for many generations, certain genetic variations will be favored–healthy individuals will have lots of healthy offspring, and the healthiest will be the ones with the useful genetic variant. If you understand that this process happens, then you understand how evolution works.Of course there is also an element of "dumb luck." A population can be cut down to a small number of individual by a chance event. (Think of a volcano wiping out most of the mice on an island, for example. The mice die if they're caught in the lava, regardless of what genes they might have.) An event like a volcano gives an artificial boost to the genes in the few mice that survive by accident–the mice that were not caught in the lava. Their genes will be the new "normal" genes for that species of island mice.If you want to see the hand of God in random events, like which mice survive a volcano, that doesn't change the concept of evolution. If you want to see the had of God in the mutations that change our genes in our reproductive cells, or in the selection that tends to spare invidivuals with certains traits, plenty of biologists would say that you are welcome to do so. (Other biologists, as well as quite a few Chemists, Physicists and statisticians would disagree, but that's a separate argument.)In short, it's simple ignorance to question whether or not evolution happens–it does happen, and we see it happen all around us. It's just as ignorant to question whether evolution has left clear traces in the genetic record and the fossil record and the developmental record. There are literally billions of separate bits of evidence in the genetic record, and hundreds of thousands in the fossil record. The Muslim world may be divided on the issue, but it may be useful to point out that after a history of ridiculing Darwin, the Catholic church now have become Darwinists–their official position is that evolution is the only scientifically rigorous, evidence-based, logical explanation for life as we know it.If you prefer to believe that God takes great delight in leading us into error by creating several billion different bits of evidence for something that never happened, at the same time that he created the world, you can believe that. But it's not a logical argument. (I refer here to the billions of bits of information that make up the patterns of "silent" genetic differences and the patterns of modified gene regulation, which have no functional explanation beyond "having descended from a common ancestor.")By the same argument, God could have created all of us yesterday, along with all the books and buildings, and all of our memories of past events. I'm betting that most Christians, most Muslims, and most theists of any sort would not recognize or admire or worship a "God of deceit."Regardless, even if you do believe everything was created in a day, or seven days, or some other brief period, you owe it to yourself and to your God to try to appreciate the exquisite patterns set out in our DNA, as well as in the fossil record. Those patterns confirm, again and again, the "cousin-like" nature of different species. If all of that information represents little details of a one-time miracle, rather than shared descent, then God must really have wanted to make a point. I know creationists who argue that God knew that when we had the technology to destroy the world, we'd also have the technology to see and appreciate the coded "message" that God left in the genes and genomes of all the living beings in the world. And the message was, "God say to recognize all of us as as family."That's not a "scientific" conclusion (because it incorporates miracles) but it is a way of thinking that can help creationists aproach and appreciate the richness of biological information around us, instead of blocking out that information on the mistaken assumption that learning about it must run counter to faith.
I wonder how many of the proponents of creationism on this comment forum here have the same i.p. address.
All I gotta say in the end is that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark ok guys.http://www.answersingenesis.org/art icles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-arkB TW to all you not Christians who also believe in creationism, we believe very similar things but you are all ignorant cause I am right ok? WE CHRISTIANS ARE TEH GWETEST.
A religion denying evolution happens has proven right away that the religion is wrong on one count.Why should any one take anything the religion says seriously after that?I guess this proves it. God does not inspire the imams, the preachers, or any others who do not recognize the obvious truth of evolution.I don't know if there is a God or not, but one thing I do know….these religions are getting no divine knowledge.
Seriously, has no one here taken any sort of science class? Gravity and evolution are FACTS. I mean like scientifically, they are classified as facts. They are an observable reality. The theory of evolution and the theory of gravity describe methods through which these facts come to be. Evolution is a certifiable truth. The only thing about it up for debate is how evolution, well, evolves. This is what makes the whole concept of arguing over the existence of evolution so hilarious to me.
These theologians…clerics.. of whatever faths.. Take note :Let us assume there is a creator… you must have also faith on the same creator : god, or allah of certain characteristics..To Christian, your god ( i.e. your creator, you call LORD ) must have come go this world 2009 years ago without biological father…To Muslim, your god ( allah, or whatever you call him ) must be the same creator who gave you all the messages through Mohd….To Jewish faith… your god ( i.e. your creator whose name is so holy you cannot even call him…but as Adonai.. ) gave you your great ancestral father Abraham with covenant of rainbow..Damn it ! why you have to argue, discuss about, or even attack Darwin when this man just tried to explain how all the species come about…He did not even give this nature a mystical name…His book is named " Orign of Species ".. He did not say " Origin of Man " !!Can't you see ? how can you say the buffalo evolved from the cattle that gives your milk… polar bear evolved from brown bear in tropical jungle… Evidences aplenty to show they share the same ancestors — that is what evolution of Darwin is trying to say !If you have faith on a creator with characteristics,… with a story given to you, told by someone ( Jesus, Mohd. Moses, etc ).. re-told endless times by clerics, theologians..as YOUR Creator…. SO BE IT !! Don't start to argue or attack !!
It is very typical of the Darwinist to try to abuse those who try to challenge their belief system. The posts here prove that. I understand what the theory is but most Darwinist take this theory as some kind of fact. If the theory has ample proof, then why are we still looking for the "missing link"?Recently I talked to a physics doctorate student at a leading university in US. He is the one who said his professors would laugh at him if he brought evidence like those of Darwin to prove his hypothesis.In any case, let us assume that life forms do get better and better with time. Does anyone know of any life form that has achieved the state of immortality? The basic instinct of each life form is to survive. One would think that after these billions of years of "evolution" some form of life might have developed a genetic form that would not die.
It saddens me to see so many ad hominem attacks coming from people who purport themselves to be advocates of rational thought. There is no reason that religion and science should clash, and there have been periods in the history of both Christianity and Islam when science and religion lived side-by-side. When one makes an absolute claim on Truth or Fact, it polarizes the issue and blinds us to the reality that science and religion exist for fundamentally different reasons. Science can no more tell us how to deal with suffering than religion can tell us how our bodies work. This rabid anti-truth creationism is not only bad for science, it is bad for religion.
It is very important for us to understand where/what we came from so we can understand our on going evolution. And for that there should be a differentiation between something we believe and something we know.Scientists are always ready to debate in a constructive manner which anyone from a religious school of thought will never do. The only time they explain their views is when they are making propaganda videos/news for their own channels.I still believe in freedom of speech for everyone although it scares me to death knowing what kind of narrow minded people walk this planet. We are here and this happened indecently/accidentally no matter how badly you want this to be for a divine purpose. Or maybe i just don't get it.
I suppose Islam/Christianity has a valid explanation for Dinosaurs then too? Or do they just say fossils aren't millions of years old? Even better my in-laws argue that dinosaurs never existed.Physical proof coupled with scientific theory explains evolution quite nicely in my books thanks.
I live in Egypt, and I feel excited that this kind of conference has been held in Alexandria. The vast majority of the people I meet believe that evolution is a fallible myth created by the decadent "West" or if they smart enough they'd say "okay, maybe it did happen but not for humans". It pisses the hell out of me! I hope that our societies begin to evolve in my lifetime. Corruption and authoritarianism are key obstacles.I also want to mention that there wasn't a lot of coverage for this conference and although I follow news, I haven't heard about it until it was done!
Don't you know MG? God has placed fossils in soil of the earth as a test of our faith!It's absolutely ridiculous right? But it's actually what some people believes.
I am well (university) educated born and raised in London UK. Despite being a Muslim, i was raised in largely a secular family, or at least one which does not practice all aspects of the faith in the traditional manner. My father bought us "Joy of Knowledge" Encyclopedia as children where I read about Evolutionary Theory and later studied as part of double science GCSE in which I scored a double A grade. Popular beleif would hold that anyone with a faith is ignorant in matters of science, wheras I have found it is more likely the opposite. I read and accepted Islam on merit, not because it was forced upon me. I know many White, British educated professionals and academics who have converted to Islam on merit, and others who have at least admitted that beleive without any doubt 75% or more of everthing they have read in the Quran.Just look at the level of stress you see on the faces of the proponents of this theory and their intolerance toward faith, and hence how they will work tirelessly to attempt to prove on scientific grounds the Theory of Evolution. A theory is what it is.More often than not, and I have even experienced this with members of my own family, these prople are extremely intolerant of any faith, moreseo than the degree to which any faithful person is intolerant of an Atheist.Just remember one of the major tenets of this theory;Chance (random) mutations giving rise to competitive advantage, improved mating success etc (haha) so much so to cause huge variation of the species even if it is argused that this is gradual.Evolutionary theorists often say "Evolution creates the illusion of intelligent design" This is because somewhere deep down, they are suspicious of their own convictions, and upon examining the many complex features of all organisms, are in awe of the sophistication, which they cannot attribute to chance mutations.What about the missing links? Ask the Palientologists for evidence of evolution, and they will state categorically that it does not exist. Ask for even a handfull of fossils or the like showing a clear progession between single cell organsims, and say even a cat, and they will not be able to show you any.Evolutionary theorists THEORY is just that. A THEORY dont accept it as fact until you have done your own thorough research. Muslims beleive in man's free will to make his own decisions.One last thought; Could not the similarity or anthropological connections in living organisms suggest that they have common creator , just as they may suggest a common ancestry?
All religions in the world, since the pharos and early days of human beings on earth, were based on controlling the masses, controlling people and what their thoughts.I believe that religion should let go of the people's minds and thoughts, and let them search for what makes them happy and what makes sense to them as individuals.Now, if religion is correct about what they say, they should not be afraid on their existence since God would be leading humans to salvation.Just give people their freedom of thoughts, and lets wait and see what will happen. Instead of being living in fear, lets live in freedom.Now, regarding Darwin's evolution theory, it all makes sense. everything points out the random/logic stages of evolution. We are living in evolution in our daily life, but the evolution that changed humans from their past for to their present form took ages to happen. Lets just see what will happen after ages to come.Thank you.!!!
"I understand what the theory is but most Darwinist take this theory as some kind of fact."Evolution, Physics, Chemistry and Gravity are all theories. The evidence for these theories are facts. Evolution is the theory, the evidence for evolution are the facts."If the theory has ample proof, then why are we still looking for the "missing link"?"Scientists are no longer looking for missing links because most of them have already been found. Both for evolution in general, and human evolution in specific.Any time religion gave a list of requirements for what they would accept as a 'missing link', this fossil would be found within the next couple of years. And each time religion changed the requirements to something else, that fossil would be found too.Now, we are at the point where religion no longer has specific criteria for what they would accept as a 'missing link' fossil. Because they know that what they ask for today will be discovered tomorrow."In any case, let us assume that life forms do get better and better with time. Does anyone know of any life form that has achieved the state of immortality?"Cancer cells, some forms of viruses, Hydras, The jellyfish known as Turritopsis Nutricula.All biological entities which have evolved to the point where they do not die from a normal biological aging process like other life forms.
"I know many White, British educated professionals and academics who have converted to Islam on merit, and others who have at least admitted that beleive without any doubt 75% or more of everthing they have read in the Quran."——Just because you believe something, or an entire nation believes something, doesn't make it any truer.And if those people only believe 75% of the Quran is true, then there is no reason to believe any of it. Because by their admission, the book is not infallible.——-"Just remember one of the major tenets of this theory;Chance (random) mutations giving rise to competitive advantage, improved mating success etc (haha) so much so to cause huge variation of the species even if it is argused that this is gradual."——————-For a person who claims to be university educated, you seem to have little understanding on evolution.Evolution is mostly about natural selection and survival of the fittest. Chance mutations are only a small part of evolution.If you think that random mutation is the main part of evolution, you don't understand the very theory you are attacking.————"Just look at the level of stress you see on the faces of the proponents of this theory and their intolerance toward faith, and hence how they will work tirelessly to attempt to prove on scientific grounds the Theory of Evolution. A theory is what it is."————Why would the 'stress' or 'working tirelessly' of a scientist have any relevance as to whether they are correct or not? Why do you think it is proof they are wrong?Perhaps you are imagining stress which does not exist?Gravity is a theory too. It is not mentioned in the Koran. Do you believe in gravity? Do you think your belief in gravity is relevant to whether gravity exists?———-"What about the missing links? Ask the Palientologists for evidence of evolution, and they will state categorically that it does not exist. Ask for even a handfull of fossils or the like showing a clear progession between single cell organsims, and say even a cat, and they will not be able to show you any."———-You are either misinformed or blatantly lying.Scientists have found most of the missing links in evolution. Many different fossil forms have been found, and now form a branching 'tree' showing common links between species.You have very little understanding of just how many fossils have been found in the last hundred years.———–"One last thought; Could not the similarity or anthropological connections in living organisms suggest that they have common creator , just as they may suggest a common ancestry?"———–No.They definitely show a relationship of common ancestry. But there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that a deity was responsible for the creation of life, or that a deity even exists.Evolution is based on a logical conclusion on fossil and genetic evidence.Religion is based on an assumption, with no proof or evidence at all.
I wish that this forum would just censor all the silly creationist arguments which have already been debunked. But for the sake of conversation, we will list them all now.Creationists, for the sake of debate please do not use the following:1. Arguments from ignorance.Just because you can't explain something, isn't proof that goddidit (or allahpeacebeonhimdidit).2. Circular reasoningThe bible was written by man. So the bible cannot be proof of God.3. Complexity argumentComplexity is not proof that a god was required. So don't be silly and think it means something.4. Ad Hominem argumentsJust because you think evolution supporters are stressed, angry, passionate, confused or unhappy has no relevance on whether evolution is correct.More likely, you are simply attacking the person so you don't need to deal with what they say.5. There is No missing linkScientists have discovered a rich patchwork of fossil forms which clearly show common ancestry. Most missing links have already been discovered.The only real issue is that every time religion declares the qualities a missing link must show, a fossil is found which has these qualities. So religion changes their requirements, only to have another fossil found.This is why religion supporters now ask for nonsense such as a croco-duck or cat-dog. Because they know that each time they list real requirements, it is found and they need to ask for something different.6. Random chance.Creationists who think evolution is about nothing but random chance have no idea what they are talking about.Mutation has its place in evolution. But natural selection and genetics are much more important, and have little to do with chance.7. Evolution can't explain how the universe.This is because evolution is about biology, not space-time physics.8. I believe….What you believe is not relevant to what is true or not.9. Negative proof argument.The onus is on you to prove a deity DOES exist, and that evolution ISN'T correct.You can argue against the evidence for evolution if you want. But until you can provide evidence your god exists, you are wasting your time.10. Evolution is a theory.So is gravity, physics, chemistry, tectonics, light, atoms, nuclear reactions and probability.A theory is the highest level of scientific thought. It is a conclusive rule, which explains observations (facts) about the universe in which we live. It allows testable predictions of future events and can be used to explain past events.If you think that 'evolution is only a theory' is something smart to say to an evolutionist, you are simply proving that you have little idea about what science even involves.
It is not so true that so called Darwinists do not listen to arguements or that their minds are already made up. If you show any Darwinist firm evidence of intelligent design (underpinned by a supernatual force) then they will convert in droves.
Islam has no conflict with Science. The reality is that scientific truths need to be proven. And faith, by definition, obviously does not. Science is gradually proving what Islam has said all along. Islam encourages education and the pursuit of knowledge–the first words of the angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were "read/recite" (this is a deeper subject than this forum allows).Islam declares many things that have not been proven by science to be true, yet. But that does not make them untrue. Science is gradually proving Islamic declarations to be true. Divine truth exists across all time, no-time and beyond (Allah knows best). Scientific truth is evolving as humans "evolve" in knowledge. I don't have a problem with Darwin's Evolution theory because it is just that, a theory. As it stands right now, it, in its arrested state of development, has been proven to be wrong already. In their zeal to discredit creationism, evolutionists appear to have stopped thinking. Evolution does work, but not in the way the anti-religion folks argue. As climate, land, atmosphere etc. change, so do the creatures that depend on them. This process sometimes takes longer than is possible to study. As our measuring instruments get better, we uncover new data and the "theories" change, as they well should.The declarations of the Holy Qur'an haven't changed since it was revealed to us. It's there in its entirely, unabridged and untampered with, for all to investigate. But please remember, there are many many things contained in the Holy Qur'an that cannot be explained with our current level of scientific knowledge. Only time will give us that knowledge.Islam is for all times and all peoples, and that is why it is such a good fit with people, regardless of identity, location, language, color, etc. Allah exhorts us to think and encourages us to seek knowledge because He says that the more we think and seek knowledge, the more we will "see" Him. Allah wants us to be scientific in our pursuit of truth. That is crystal clear in the Holy Qur'an. It's really quite simple. Evolutionists (anti-religionists, actually) are arguing with time-delimited constrained data, but they stopped thinking at a certain point and did not continue their exploration process. Perhaps they fear what the final discovery may be. Perhaps not. But I suspect some of them know the truth.As for the Bible, the existing versions are all man-made and riddled with errors, so naturally, evolutionists pick it apart. And rightly so. I urge Christians to use the Holy Qur'an as their source for arguing for creationism and against evolution theory, if such an argument is to be made at all.If you want a debate between Darwin's evolution theory and religion, it is more legitimate to pit it against Islam, which is divinely inspired. Go for it, evolution vs. Allah.
Theory of evolution of God i.e. various gods , chirstian, Jewesh and Islamis amongst others.
Selim HassanYour argument is based on the idea that the Koran is divine inspired. The Koran is just a book written by man. It is not evidence that a god exists, or that he had a messager.Your entire argument is based on an assumption you have not even proven. So your argument is weak.The Koran is simply not relevent to scientists. What it says or doesn't say has nothing to do with what scientists discover.The only real issue is that people are willing to deny science when it defeats their faith. And that is no different to denying reality.
DARWIN was a Christian and always believed in God. Then he studied everything and his ISLAM was the reason he sugested his theorys. So there is no use Christians claiming him exclusively
The Tennessee river rat has been observed by biologists for over a century. Within this time it has evolved to grow webbed feet. Biological evolution happens all the time, all around us. If humans mated enough to have as many iterations as Tennessee river rats, we too would see a more dramatic and observable evolution for humans. The more iterations in a short period of time means the changes happen faster and are more easily observed.
Science looks at "theories" as springboards for further exploration. Religion looks at "theories" as absolute truths to be defended from blasphemous challenges. Scientists would love to smash theories and change our understanding. Religion simply hates any attempt to change any theory.Almost all mainstream religions lionize faith. Their stories are full of people of unshakeable faith who in the face of impossible odds resort to the power of faith to sail across. Daniel and the lions comes to mind. Thus any truth that runs counter to prevailing version of religiously accepted truth, is but a challenge to the follower's faith. Thus he whose faith is stronger will ignore all these scientific "illusions" and stick to the path his god has specified.
To Jimmy Khan: you said '..The current explanation of the origin of life is no better than the myth that you attribute to the creation.'Please do not misunderstand me when I wrote down 'myth' I was referring to islam, qura'an, mohammed…etc I was not referring to the 'creation'.In my mind there is no contradiction between the belief in God and and any scientific discovery or even scientific attempts. I have prejudices as you mentioned against islam.
I think this comment board gives you an eye opening look at how similar hardcore muslims and hardcore christians are. It's odd though these are the people who are most in favor of high scale killing of each other.The quickest way to get war hungry christians and jihadist muslims to unite, bring up peaceful atheists.
to Michael Ham: when you say 'hardcore Christians' who are you referring to exactly?? I am not aware of real christians in favour of killing anybody.In fact the Doctrine of Christianity is about 'loving one another'. If you are referring to historical figures or ignorant figures that's another story all together.
There are holes in every theory. Those holes are not "evidence" of anything except the fact that questions remain. That doesn't mean you just fill in the blanks using whatever story feels good to you. If there's a guy in the sky prove it with scientific experiments that can be replicated again and again. If you can't do that, you're just trying to bring back the Middle-ages and to me that's scary because I don't want to get burnt at the stake. Thanks.
OF coarse all theorys paths and infinate ways are Limited by small and puny man If GOD wants to do somthing then he obviously can. Maybe god created evolution as one of a series of Hello HELLO HELLO and has written things in Languages other than Human. Probably endless derivatives of transaction moving color words that canot be drawn with enough Color in TYPE faced words by humans. MAYbe after deriving all derivatives and differentiated all things and matters and insureing the Assurances of all arbertaged derivatives them by Yawning fom the otherside of the BIG BANG and all other places particularly when Scienists never mind economists and money lending derivatives of stup Id ity claim they may have discovered something to do With the invisible hand of slavery AND that VALUE should be derived from the market when Aristotle said that the market was not only insane but that the pretence that money and money derivatives improved things in a helpfull way was a tiresome thoery MAYBE the conceptual matters of human Languages either Emaculate or any other gendres also or otherwise are in a large way involved and that What if or since or so all people are equal and it is Languages that are not and That all the infinite color word moving picture languages between fill in the so called void of knowledge that some singers sing, WHAT if human languges themselves do not translate but only falsely apear to be equal when infact as a Language exists as an operating brain language its features are limited by thinking construction availiable to the language What if Writen language should have actual color words and that the ENGLISH words I am typing here look really horible because everything looks worse in black and white.OH no that may mean that LORD SIMON was correct when he said that he learnt crap at high school and that he needed KODACROME to see the bright pictures. Maybe Religions have never been the Problem and all the while ITS HUMAN created LANGUGE thats causing the problem because as MASTER KONG otherwise known as Confucious and his best friends BUDDA and JESUS and MOSES and MOHAMAD say and ALL other Religions. STOP blaming Religion.
Hany,You know who I mean, who's most in favor of the Iraq and Afghani wars? Evangelicals and other hardcore christians, the last thing they want is peace with their neighbor.
To start with, let me say that I have studied Qur'an and I am a great lover of science. I do not see any contradiction in Qur'an with any branch of science. In fact, I believe the science complements what has been revealed in Qur'an 1400 years ago.I do understand that people who do not have faith need some sort of explanation for how things came into existence. For example, if I said that I had left my book and a pencil on the floor of my bedroom. On my return after some period, I find my book on the bed, open and with the pencil on top pointing to the line I had read till. I would be puzzled wondering how this could have taken place without someone having been there. If someone was to give an explanation that "perhaps an earthquake had taken place and my book and the pencil had jumped on the bed and by random chance the book opened and the pencil dropped on it …", we would be laughing at the guy. Yet, Darwin's explanation of how life came into existence is somehow accepted even though it is similar to the earthquake story!All we will get from Darwinist in return is name calling. They will not offer any valid arguments except to say that there are concrete proofs to prove this theory when none exist. Some Russian scientist at one point tried to synthesize amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) by simulating the effect of lightening on some gases. Darwinist got excited because this some how explained how the proteins (cell component) were formed. They forgot about other aspects that would need to be present to make RNA and DNA structures that are present in the cell.However, the story of human evolution found some great fans – in communists and fascists regimes. This provided a way for the likes of Hitler and Stalin to mass murder the "not so perfect forms of human race" in order further the natural selection and the survival of the fittest concepts. Thank goodness for the great faiths that promote some meaningful explanation and sanity into our existence, our human race continues to survive.
To Jimmy Khan:You wrote "I do not see any contradiction in Qur'an with any branch of science. In fact, I believe the science complements what has been revealed in Qur'an 1400 years ago"How do you explain the 2 versus Quran-23:14 and Quran 96: 2 which claim that 'man' was created from clotted blood??This is just one example.
Jimmy,What a shockingly hypocritial post. You name 2 names murderers, in which one was a catholic oddly enough and you somehow find a way to twist that into blaming darwin and the theory of evolution.Should we go through the lists of murderers and dictators that killed in the name of God? Would you enjoy that?
@Hany >> How do you explain the 2 versus Quran-23:14 and Quran 96: 2 which claim that 'man' was created from clotted blood? <<If you know anything about the embryology you will be amazed at the accuracy of the description of the stages the fetus goes through in the womb. Imagine this was written 1400 years ago when there were no instruments to gain this knowledge. The Arabic word in Qur'an is "Alaq" which means clotted blood as well as something that clings. This is accurate description of the fertilized embryo when it gets lodged in the womb. The next stage is described as "leach-like" object. We know what leach looks like and its similarity to the early fetal stages.
Actually, Jimmy Khan, funnily enough, Darwin's theory of evolution does not explain how inanimate objects come to life. in fact, it never even speculated or even attempts to explain. instead it explains, rather accurately, in fact of how and why we see the creatures we see today, which is natural selection.So what you are actually saying is completely and utterly unrelated. you might as well lament Newton's law of gravity for not explaining quantum mechanics.furthermore, I am absolutely amused at you suggesting that the 'Darwinist' answer questions by name calling. This of course, is despite the fact that by simply referring to a textbook, evolutionary biology professor or even a website on evolution, you should find ample evidence on evolution. in fact, this is particularly amusing as it is often the creationists who resort to name calling, primarily after all their points were effectively debunked and disproved.And your points on Hitler and Stalin? what about them? do I need to mention the crusades? the inquisition? the anti Jewish pogroms that were found just about anywhere (especially in Europe) Need I mentioned that religion and religious-related warfare is STILL a problem? (and I am not only talking about Muslims here. Christians are to blame also. See Bosnia, or Cyprus, or East Timor, or parts of Indonesia. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that the amount of people killed throughout history by or because of Christianity rivals if not exceed that those killed by those madmen.
@EchoSierraAlphaThank you for correcting my understanding of Darwin's theory and how it does not address the origin of life. I appreciate your comments. Although that is a bigger part of the mystery as compared to the random mutation and natural selection part. I do accept that some changes are possible as observed by Darwin. For example, he noticed some birds had developed bigger beaks because the female birds preferred male birds with bigger beaks. This is very much believable. However, what I am having concern with are the similarities you see in very much unrelated species. For example, the scientists have recently found that when ants are in danger, they emit a chemical that warns other ants to save themselves. Lo and behold, they found that spiders also exhibit the same behavior with exactly the same chemical! What are the odds of this happening in a random fashion? Spiders and ants are as different from each other as a giraffe and a beaver. From creation point of view, the common Creator is able to achieve that.
Creationist Lie #1:"Evolution was the reason for killers such as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot".Natural selection is the concept that a creature with biological advantages will be more likely to survive and pass on their genes.Evolution is the concept that natural selection and mutation, over time, will improve and develop new branches of species from common ancestors.Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did not base their actions on evolution. Rather their actions were based on social control, discrimination and the destruction of political scapegoats.Hitler was an avowed Christian, who did not believe in the idea that life evolved from common ancestors. In fact, he was a strict creationist. His views on 'inferior' races was simply based on racism and political convenience.Stalin actually supported Lamarckism, a discredited biological theory. There is little evidence that either evolution was responsible for his repression or the millions he killed. Rather, he was simply a man who wanted to cement his power.Pol Pot was a strict communist who rejected the ideas of wealth or capitalism. His killing fields were simply a manner in which he wiped out all political dissent and education. His tactics had nothing to do with natural selection or evolution, and were rather the actions of a paranoid regime seeking to exterminate all chance of rebellion.It is amusing how many outright lies are made by creationist websites, seeking to link evolution with the serial killers of history. Quite often, there will be no real references backing this up.In fact, these people in history were simply madmen who sought to have complete control over government, people and society itself. They were willing to oppress or punish anyone who threatened their power, and would never consider that they could be wrong about something.As a result, their crimes have much more in common with religion then evolution. Religion, like them, base their actions on social control and infallability.
"I do understand that people who do not have faith need some sort of explanation for how things came into existence. For example, if I said that I had left my book and a pencil on the floor of my bedroom. On my return after some period, I find my book on the bed, open and with the pencil on top pointing to the line I had read till. I would be puzzled wondering how this could have taken place without someone having been there. If someone was to give an explanation that "perhaps an earthquake had taken place and my book and the pencil had jumped on the bed and by random chance the book opened and the pencil dropped on it …", we would be laughing at the guy. Yet, Darwin's explanation of how life came into existence is somehow accepted even though it is similar to the earthquake story!"——-Your book isn't alive. So evolution has little to do with it. Much like evolution has little to do with chance. So your analogy is flawed from the start.But let us try out your thought experiment anyway:-You put your book on the ground.-You walk away out of the room.-You come back a few hours later.-The book is open on your desk, with a pencil on the page you just read.Now logically there are four possibilities for what has happened:1) There was an earthquake, and by random chance the book ended up on the table with a pencil on the page you were reading.2) Another life form entered the room and moved the book and pencil before you came back.3) God came into your room and moved the book and pencil.4) You actually left the book and pencil like that in the first place, and because you believed it has moved you are simply deluded or have a very bad memory.So the question is, which one of the above possibilities do you think is least likely?The answer: 3There is no physical or scientific evidence that a deity exists. So it is the least likely explanation for how the book moved, even less likely then an earthquake.
"Lo and behold, they found that spiders also exhibit the same behavior with exactly the same chemical! What are the odds of this happening in a random fashion? Spiders and ants are as different from each other as a giraffe and a beaver. From creation point of view, the common Creator is able to achieve that."Yes, but consider this: scent and sound is the primary ways of warning something, so the chances of developing it is actually very high. also, I am curious: could you elaborate, are you saying ALL ants and ALL spiders share this common trait? if so, this could have been inherited from a very early ancestor, which is possible, since we do not have much in the way of fossil records regarding insects. primarily due to the fact that they leave no fossils, that being said, some are actually preserved, so we may find a common ancestor yet. This is actually more likely because they both have exoskeletons, as well as several common traits, although it really has to be a very, very early ancestor.If, however, only two species developed independently, it could be a case of mutually beneficial evolution: if an ant detect a threat, it probably is a threat to the spider too. therefore, since most spiders and ants do not have the brainpower to learn much, it would be likely that this will be biologically hardwired.Also note, this could be advantageous to the spider because, although it can kill five or ten ants, it cannot kill 100. likewise, a single ant cannot take on a spider and live. if one detects the other and releases the same scent as the other, both will retreat, and as such the spider will not get swarmed and eaten, while the individual ant will not be eaten. because of the large number of species of spiders (numbers in the thousands) I would not be surprised that ONE of them developed this trait. (the number of species, both present and past, as well as the limited types of chemicals producible by insects really increases the chances of this one)of course this is all speculation, and all this can be summarized in 3 words: I don't know. In fact, there is no-one that knows, in all likelihood, but that's the beauty of science, we are always learning; always changing theories to fit in with the evidence. Yes, I'll admit that there are gaps to be filled, but so far, no evidence disproves evolution, and as long as that continues, evolution will persist.
To understand the evolutionism in muslim perspective, it is worth to read following artics:Intellectual Bankruptcy!http://shodalap.com/2009/11/1 5/sign-of-intellectual-bankruptcy/Ida ruins Darwin's party!http://shodalap.com/2009/10/30/ida -ruins-darwin%e2%80%99s-party/
Jimmy KahnWhich species of ant or spider are you referring to?Regardless, if it is true it is not surprising.When two very unrelated species develop similar mechanisms to survive, this is doesn't disprove evolution or natural selection. Rather, it reinforces these concepts.The ability to develop this mechanism even in partially unrelated species is evidence of the common genetic traits between both and hence common ancestry.The development of similar mechanisms in different species is also evidence that certain traits are successful in an environment, and hence more likely to arise through natural selection.Spiders and Insects are both subsets of Arthropod. So they are definitely related to one another. So similarities are not surprising.Cheetas and Leopards have spots and they are both Felinia. Zebras and Tigers have stripes and they are both Mammalia. Mammals and Reptiles have backbones and they are both Animalia.If a giraffe possessed the same chemical defence as the ant, then that would be more interesting. Because a giraffe is mammal and hence more unrelated to the ant (insect) then the spider (arachnid) is.
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009 /11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-th e-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3 /#commentsEdward wrote (November 17th, 2009, 9:52 am GMT): "I am well (university) educated born and raised in London UK. Despite being a Muslim, i was raised in largely a secular family, or at least one which does not practice all aspects of the faith in the traditional manner. My father bought us "Joy of Knowledge" Encyclopedia as children where I read about Evolutionary Theory and later studied as part of double science GCSE in which I scored a double A grade. Popular beleif [sic] would hold that anyone with a faith is ignorant in matters of science, wheras [sic] I have found it is more likely the opposite."What you have written in these comment reveals that you are QUITE ignorant of science, even in its basic tenets.Edward wrote: "Just look at the level of stress you see on the faces of the proponents of this theory and their intolerance toward faith, and hence how they will work tirelessly to attempt to prove on scientific grounds the Theory of Evolution. A theory is what it is."Scientists… proponents… do NOT work tirelessly to 'prove' evolution, or anything else in science. Why? Because scientists do not 'prove' things. Science does not 'prove' things… and only the scientifically ignorant THINK that science claims to 'prove' things. Scientific theories DO NOT GET proven… EVER. Proof is for mathematicians, logicians, coin collectors, and distillers of alcoholic beverages… NOT for scientists.In science, 'proof' is applicable only in the negative sense. Scientists DO NOT try to prove that theories are true, or correct… scientists try to prove that theories are WRONG (look up 'null hypothesis'). FAILING to prove that a theory is wrong simply builds confidence that they are on the right track… nothing more. Being WRONG provides them with valuable information, too… it tells them that they have to tweak their theory… or abandon it.The funny thing is that tens of thousands of scientists have been trying to prove that the theory of evolution is false for almost 150 years… and nobody has succeeded. Why do you suppose THAT is? Because it's NOT false, perhaps?Edward wrote: "More often than not, and I have even experienced this with members of my own family, these prople [sic] are extremely intolerant of any faith, moreseo [sic] than the degree to which any faithful person is intolerant of an Atheist."I think that you are mistaken about this… but it is an understandable mistake, so there's no need to feel special about having made it. I will explain. Intelligent, well educated, sane, rational people have little use for gullibility, self-deception, self-delusion, irrationality, willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy, and toxic, drooling stupidity… whether individually, collectively, or in various combinations. Many such intelligent, well educated, sane, rational people perceive it to be their ethical duty and personal moral responsibility to confront ANY of those insults to the human intellect, human dignity, the human condition… and even human existence… whenever, wherever and however they encounter them. It just so happens (coincidentally, of course) that religion… particularly the Abrahamic death-cults of desert monotheism (judaism, christianity, islam)… wraps up most or all of those dubious 'qualities' into one neat and tidy package (with a bow on top), where they can be confronted all at once.Confronting religion, then… serendipitously (as a happy incident)… becomes a simple matter of efficiency. Intelligent, well educated, sane, rational, critically thinking people happen to LIKE efficiency.So… taking issue with religion (what you refer to as 'being intolerant of faith') is a 'sane and rational' thing, rather than an 'atheist' thing. You are just blinded by the strange, eerie, remarkable coincidence that most intelligent, well educated, sane, rational people ALSO happen to be atheists… and THAT is the source of your mistake.Edward wrote: "Just remember one of the major tenets of this theory; Chance (random) mutations giving rise to competitive advantage, improved mating success etc (haha) so much so to cause huge variation of the species even if it is argused [sic] that this is gradual."Actually, that is not a 'major tenet of the theory'… rather, that is what we refer to by the scientific term: HOGWASH. It is a 'cartoon version' of the theory… a straw-man.Consider… most critter populations produce far more offspring than can be supported by local resources, and most of the offspring will die before they get to procreate. So… which ones DO get to procreate? Well… the ones who were most successful in the business of surviving long enough to do it… and STATISTICALLY, those would be the ones that possessed a SLIGHT competitive advantage. That's what SOME mutations provide… a SLIGHT competitive advantage. You seem to think that something dramatic is going on… which informs me that you are operating under the misconception that creatures/organisms 'evolve'. Guess what?… they DO NOT 'evolve'. I will say that again, just so you can be sure that I did not make some sort of bone-headed mistake… creatures/organisms DO NOT 'evolve'. It is the GENE POOL… the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of creatures/organisms… that 'evolves'.Edward wrote: "Evolutionary theorists often say "Evolution creates the illusion of intelligent design" This is because somewhere deep down, they are suspicious of their own convictions, and upon examining the many complex features of all organisms, are in awe of the sophistication, which they cannot attribute to chance mutations."I do not recall ever having heard of 'evolutionary theorists'… and I do not think they exist. I have heard some biologists say that "evolution creates the illusion of design"… I have not heard them say "evolution creates the illusion of INTELLIGENT design." Perhaps that is just a quibble, since it is difficult to conceive of 'design' where there is NOT some sort of 'intelligence' involved… but I am a stickler for precise language, and 'intelligent design' is such a loaded phrase that I cringe when I see it used in such a way that it seems to be 'begging the question'. The rest of your comment is just dishonest, unsubstantiated blather and crap.Edward wrote: "What about the missing links? Ask the Palientologists [sic] for evidence of evolution, and they will state categorically that it does not exist."That is what we call a LIE… whether one that you have made up all by yourself, or one that you have heard and are repeating out of sheer ignorance… I cannot tell. A little bit of both, I suspect. Anyway… a few minutes of research on the internet will provide mountains of information about the fossil evidence for evolution. So… the fact that such evidence DOES exist, and it is astonishingly easy to find, and you DENY it, informs us that…a) you DO know that the evidence exists, and for some reason you have decided to LIE about it; OR…b) you have not done any checking, and are just making this false crap up; OR…c) you HAVE checked, but you have done your checking at RELIGIOUS sources, rather than genuine scientific resources. You shouldn't do that, though… because THEY lie.So, there you have it… you are either ignorant, or lying… wether deliberately, or because you have been bamboozled and don't know any better… which brings us back to ignorant, again.Edward wrote: "Ask for even a handfull [sic] of fossils or the like showing a clear progession [sic] between single cell organsims [sic], and say even a cat, and they will not be able to show you any."This comment informs us that you do not know anything about the fossil record.Edward wrote: "Evolutionary theorists THEORY is just that. A THEORY dont [sic] accept it as fact until you have done your own thorough research."(Snort) it is an observed FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms (the GENE POOL) changes, over time. We have a word that means "changes, over time"… that word is: 'evolves'. So… that's the FACT of biological evolution… the genetic makeup of populations of organisms (the GENE POOL) changes, over time. Nobody made that up.We call it a FACT because that is what we see… in the lab… in nature… in the genome… and in all the time we have been looking (around 150 years), we have seen absolutely NOTHING that contradicts or casts any doubt whatsoever upon that FACT.In science, a 'theory' occupies a MUCH higher level of importance than mere facts… and theories don't MAKE UP facts… theories EXPLAIN facts.With that understanding in place, it now becomes possible to perceive the 'Theory of Evolution' in its proper context… it EXPLAINS the observed FACT of 'biological evolution'… it tells us HOW the genetic makeup of populations of organisms (the GENE POOL) changes, over time (evolves).So… it is the GENE POOL that evolves… NOT DNA… NOT creatures… NOT ANY kind of organism. The GENE POOL… the genetic makeup of populations of organisms.Edward wrote: "Muslims beleive [sic] in man's free will to make his own decisions."Yeah? Well… I think that it's pretty sad that the 'decision' that is made, mostly, is to be willfully ignorant.Edward wrote: "One last thought; Could not the similarity or anthropological connections in living organisms suggest that they have common creator , just as they may suggest a common ancestry?"No.
Please forgive my ignorance, but how does the creationism theory work? Where the first male and female humans big banged into existence? For procreation of the species both male and female had to come into existence at exactly the same time. I do not support either theory, but creationism seems contrary to the rest of the universe of which we are a part. Planets, suns, galaxies and universes evolved slowly from the primordial soup.
What if both theories are wrong? Currently there are only two basic philosophies, either evolution or creationism. But what if there were other possibilities? As a species we are still confined to our own small planet, but yet we think we understand the universe we can only stare at from afar. I wouldn't get to enamored with either theory. I don't think we know enough to understand all the possibilities yet.
bill in arizona wrote: "What if both theories are wrong? Currently there are only two basic philosophies, either evolution or creationism. But what if there were other possibilities? As a species we are still confined to our own small planet, but yet we think we understand the universe we can only stare at from afar. I wouldn't get to enamored with either theory. I don't think we know enough to understand all the possibilities yet."Bill… creationism is NOT a 'theory'. Theories EXPLAIN facts… creationism MAKES UP (false) 'facts'. You make the point that there are 'other possibilities'… and science acknowledges that. That is why theories change when new facts are discovered. Creationism DOES NOT change, though. It remains the same… the world/universe was poofed into existence by an invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy, for the express purpose of serving as an environment for a race of beings (us) that it subsequently fabricated from a dust bunny and a rib for the express purpose of having them, their progeny and their descendants spend their lives believing in it, loving it, praising it, and kissing its holy arse. Ultimately, some few of those beings… apparently 'the most stupid and gullible'… will be rewarded with eternal life. The unfortunate remainder get to spend the rest of eternity in unimaginable torture and torment. Sweet.Your statement that "Currently there are only two basic philosophies, either evolution or creationism" is bogus… a 'false dichotomy' established by professional LFJs™ (Liars For Jesus) and their Islamic counterparts (Liars For Allah?), who would have us believe that wherever science has not succeeded in explaining something… god did it. If there is a mistake in science… then science is wrong, and 'god did it'. In other words, 'god did it' is the default position, when in fact (as you said) there are many other possibilities. For example, if one scientist out of of tens of thousands concocts a fraudulent fossil, then ALL of evolution is false because ALL fossils are fraudulent… which proves that 'god did it'.
Bill, creationism is not a theory. Comparing it to evolution makes no sense.As many have said before, evolution does happen: we see it happening. The theory of evolution is a way to explain what we see. Given the huge amount of evidence that we have that is compatible with this theory–and the lack of any evidence incompatible with it–it's very hard to believe the theory of evolution is simply "wrong".There is a fine point here, which is often foreign to non-scientists. Just because a theory isn't absolutely correct, doesn't mean we should disregard it. Even calling it "wrong" might be too much to do. As an example, Newton's theory of mechanics has been proven wrong by Einstein's relativity. It is true that the very foundations of Newtonian mechanics have proven to be wrong: F does not equal m*a. Yet, saying that classical mechanics is wrong is clearly an exaggeration, since almost everything we encounter in everyday life–cars, bridges, waves, the Moon etc.–obey the Newtonian laws to a very good approximation. Airplanes are designed based on the flawed laws of Newtonian mechanics, yet I hope none of you are going to avoid flying because they're not using relativity in their designs!The point is that even if the theory of evolution as we know it today proves to be wrong, it is almost certain that whatever the correct theory is, it will have evolution as a very good approximation.
The difference between cultures are shocking.In the Western nations, evolution is the dominant theory for the development of life. The scientific community is united in supporting the theory. The dishonest arguments of creationism and ID have been ridiculed and dismissed by most educated people, scientific communities and the courts.But in the Islamic nations, people believe that evolution is a lie. They are told in schools that evolution has already been forever discredited by evidence and that the theory has no scientific worth. They are told that darwin's theories have become nothing more then a mention in the history books. And the people believe it. After all, the immams say it, so it must be true.The difference? Education levels. When the general population is church educated, if they are educated at all, then they are much easier to fool.The arguments of the creationist sites are based on lies, half-truths, omissions and blatent dishonesty. Anyone with even a basic understanding of logic or science can easily dismiss their words.But this is something we take for granted in the western world. Many people are not as fortunate.Unfortunately, dishonesty is the name of the game for creationists. As far as a creationist is concerned it doesn't matter whether their argument is honest, accurate or true. All that matters is that the argument is believed. And the uneducated are their victims.A rule which more or less forms the cornerstone of religion. So it is no wonder creationists would extend this same policy to debate and science, and not even feel a pang of remorse in doing so.
Jim Jones' argument is typical modus operandi for the evolutionist – label those who do not agree with the extrapolation based on Darwin's theory as "uneducated" and "dishonest". He should know that many of those who support his side of the argument have done things like putting a human being from Africa in zoo with chimpanzees and claimed that this Congolese person was the missing link!Yes, we can see how environmental factors can affect some changes in the life forms as was observed by Darwin. What we have issue with is using it to conclude that a certain form of species can completely change into a new form. If this had been true then we would be seeing many examples of the transitional creatures in form of fossils. There aren't any. The examples we have are either forgeries (talk about honesty) or have been dismissed as anything significant.So it really boils down to faith – Darwin's theory provides some sort of explanation for the atheists to believe in their ideology. The big question here is if atheists' belief system is taught in schools why not mention other beliefs? I have no problem with atheists believing in whatever they believe in, why is it that they have problem when I mention my belief – that Adam was the first human being, created by God, in his (Adam's) image? Just like I do not try to force my belief system on others, why should atheists impose their belief system on me?The bottom line is that atheists had made significant gains against many belief systems (including Christianity), however, it is having a hell of a time countering the arguments from Muslims. This evolution/creation debate is not about the science, it is about the faith.
Guys just let Jimmy Kahn be, he's the standard finger-in-the-ear creationist.No there isn't one link, as there is no one link with pretty much any animal.So what even is the evolutionist denier's beliefs? That man and all these other bipedal/hominid creatures that coincidentally are similar to chimps to humans were all here simultaneously? Or were these creatures created, then man was created?Did God want to create dinosaurs first even though the Bible is entirely man centered?Or are those dinosaur skeletons errors in science?Why has man changed so much since God supposedly created us? Why are we so much taller? Is that not natural selection?It's just amazing that those of us who believe in basic science are willing and ready to give specifics on what we think yet creationists only position is to attack ours. They can't give specifics on anything, nor do they even try to. Why? Because the Bible has zero scientific relevance and can't give you specifics on anything factual.
There is no reason that both ideas need to be against each other. After all, if one believes that there is a creator, then it really doesn't matter how the creator chooses to create?If we have discovered that evolution is the vehicle God has chosen for the creation of life then so be it. Science helps us to uncover the processes by which the various creations are made manifest in the world.It's not one verses the other and it never has been. One can be spiritual and a scientist.
Also, the story of creation is not meant literally. When God created Adam, it means that Adam was the first "human animal" to realize that he had a mind which gave him superiority over the other animals in the world.Adam is the first true human being because he is the first human to recognize his mind. God speaks to man by way of the mind. And inspires by way of the heart. The more God manifests in man, the more perfect will be his mind and his creations in the world. Altruism is the highest quality attainable by man in this world. It is the outward behavioral manifestation of the spirit of God in man.Creation by way of evolution is the process by which man eventually became physically mature enough to recognize the mind within. And now it is time for the mind and heart to mature. The heart must grow in love until that love is pure. Then and only then will the mind follow suit and use it's abilities of logic and reason to manifest the pure desire contained in the spiritually mature heart of man.This spiritual evolution results in the creation of a true human being.
Micheal, I can understand your confusion since you seem to quite familiar with the Bible. However, what I am talking about here is Qur'an – there is no mention of the relative time frame of the creation of earth and the life forms on it; the discovery of fossilized remains of dinosaurs and other pre-historic beings is very much compatible our belief.Qur'an has many scientific claims that no one has been able to prove wrong. We accept that science has limitation to explain any super-natural phenomena. Atheists do not accept this limitation of science.
Jimmy.I wouldn't point fingers at evolution and scientists if you want to accuse people of dishonesty.Just go to the discovery institute, or any of their sister sites. Look at any of their arguments and assertions.Rest assured that every single argument creationists make on their websites are based on either:-Intentional and dishonest representations,-Deliberate MISrepresentations and/or quote mining,-Arguments based on circular or faulty logic,-Or all of the above.Let us provide a prime example of creationist 'honesty'.A creationist site claimed that an Allosaurus bone had been sent to a lab, with a misleading label on it. The scientist radiometric dated the bone and found the age of the fragment was 10,000 years old. Not millions of years old as was expected.So the creationist sites rant at how this proves that either Young Earth Theory is correct, or that radiometric dating is flawed. And all the little drones who view the information cheerfully pass it on to other sites.But the creationists fail to mention an important fact to the sheep in their flock. The scientist, not knowing what the bone was, was instructed to give the bone radio-carbon dating.The creationists also failed to mention that carbon dating is only accurate for things less then 60,000 years old. Any older fossils will give unusual and incorrect results.So the question was not "is radiocarbon dating accurate, or is young earth correct?" as the creationist claimed.Rather the question in this case was "Is the creationist being intentionally dishonest, or just being an imbecile?"Now this isn't isolated. Not by a long shot. All creationist arguments follow the same issue:-Evolution caused the holocaust.-Evolution is random chance.-No transitional fossils have ever been found.-There is still a missing link.-Complexity is proof of design.And the pattern? Dishonesty, misquotation, bad logic or all three combined.Now an educated person would easily be able to pick these things up in creationist arguments and recognise them for what they are and represent. And so an educated person would not be convinced by these arguments, whether they are Christian or not.Hence, it must be concluded that these arguments are aimed at the uneducated, or those who simply accept what they are told at face value and don't bother to verify the information they recieve.It must also be concluded that creationists are willing to engage in deceit and dishonesty in order to fool people into believing evolution is flawed. And feel morally justified in doing so.That isn't my bias or an insult. It is simply a conclusion based on the evidence which creationists themselves present.
"Qur'an has many scientific claims that no one has been able to prove wrong. We accept that science has limitation to explain any super-natural phenomena. Atheists do not accept this limitation of science."This is known as an "argument from ignorance" or "argument from negative proof". And it is an error of logic.If the Quran has scientific claims, then the onus is on the religious person to prove these claims are true. Not for science to prove it false.The Quran is just a book written by man. And there is no evidence that its claims are true. But you believe that it is true until proven untrue, even when there is no evidence that it is true.So what good is evidence to you? We could show you all the evidence in the entire universe. But it will not change your view. Because you believe things with no evidence, which means no amount of evidence in the real world is worth anything.Science takes the evidence which exists and reaches a conclusion. It operates on positive evidence.You say the Quran makes scientific claims which science cannot disprove. You are incorrect.The Quran does not make scientific claims. It makes supernatural claims without evidence.There is no reason for science to disprove the Quran. If the Quran has not been proven true, there is nothing to disprove.
Jimmy Khan, "evolutionists"–which is a stupid name given to those who understand that evolution is a fact–dismiss non-arguments as what they are: worth nothing. I agree this might feel offensive for those who make the arguments, in case they are not smart or educated enough themselves to understand the arguments are wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that "evolutions" are right. Unlike other subjects, where one can really talk about "everybody" being right, or giving credit to each point of view, this cannot hold for science. Scientifically speaking, a position is either right, or wrong, or we do not know yet. We do not know yet how the Universe came into being; we do know for sure that living beings evolve; and we know for certain that different species of animals and plants appeared progressively, and were NOT "created" simultaneously from nothing by some all-powerful god.The claim that evolution happens, but does not change living beings "too much" is ignorant on several levels. Firstly, distinctions between species are arbitrary human divisions. Many different races of dogs would be called different species if we had encountered them in the wild. Which brings us to the next interesting point, that dogs used to "be" wolves. Like a number of other animals, dogs were specifically selected (genetically engineered, if you will) by people to suit our purposes. Same happened to cows or (domestic) sheep, as well as to any number of species of plants.If you think microevolution (small changes within the species) is possible, it is illogical to not understand that macroevolution (changes from one species to another) is inevitable. Richard Dawkins (from which I "borrowed" the domestic animals example, too) asks us to imagine our entire female genealogy. Think of your mother, you mother's mother, your mother's mother's mother, etc. Your mom probably looks a lot like you. Your grandma will look similar to you. But differences surely exist, and as you go back the generations, it is not surprising that your ancestors will start looking less and less like you. It is hard for human beings to imagine periods of time longer than a few decades, but please try to imagine what would happen over 1000 generations; 10 000 generations; 100 000 generations. Your ancestors would slowly, very slowly, become shorter… it's not a monotonic decrease in size, you grandma might have been taller than your mom. But if you average over dozens of generations, and look back tens of thousands of years, you'll see a sure trend of people growing shorter, more hairy, their arms would be longer compared to their trunks… The fossils that you ignorantly seem to believe don't exist are just snapshots of the process I'm describing. And they look exactly like what I'm describing: a species that is progressively turning into another one. Small changes add up to big ones. That's also how mountains were formed, by the continuous collision of tectonic plates, and then shaping by winds, waters etc. You can't notice these changes during a lifetime, but do you doubt they exist? Do you believe your god also created all the mountains and rivers and sea and lakes exactly the way we see them now?Intelligent people do not "believe in" the theory of evolution. We don't pray to it, we don't worship it, we don't believe it on blind faith. We UNDERSTAND that it is a fact, because we have seen convincing evidence and heard convincing arguments from those of us (evolutionary biologists) whose jobs are to understand these topics as well as possible. I'm not a biologist, and I don't claim I understand evolution perfectly. But I understand it enough to see that it's a fact. You base your non-belief "in" evolution on lies that have been fed to you and you were too gullible to resist them. Please understand that evolution is NOT random chance, that the fossils and the missing links HAVE been found, and that no sane, intelligent person, and no biologist with any respect from his/her peers, doubt that the main tenets of the theory of evolution are correct. This should make you realize that you should come down from your high horses, and start asking questions until you eliminate your confusions. Until you do that, any scientist, and any intelligent human, will dismiss your arguments without saying more than "you're being ignorant".The reason for which atheists haven't had much success with Muslims is because there is a lot more fundamentalism in the Muslim world than in the rest of the world. This might be related to the fact that Islam is a few hundred years younger than its main competitor–Christianity. Indeed, a few hundred years ago, Christianity was very fundamentalist itself, with crusades and the Inquisition, burning people at the stake, and persecuting scientists. Surely the fact that the government has an official religious affiliation in many Muslim countries, affects the freedom that people have to doubt that religion.Another factor is that Islam is fundamentally a more violent religion, based on the older and more savage teachings that are apparent in Christianity's own "Old Testament" (or the Jewish Torah). In short, if you're stoning people to death in Somalia for having sex–i.e., doing what their creator designed them to do–and women risk to get killed if they go to school, or if they don't wear full-body 'armors', it's not surprising you guys can't see the light. As Jim Jones pointed out, if your education is designed with the main focus on propagating the lies from an outdated religious book, how can we expect you to be impartial, and accept the scientific evidence laid before you?
@Anon >>You say the Quran makes scientific claims which science cannot disprove. You are incorrect.The Quran does not make scientific claims. It makes supernatural claims without evidence.<<No, you are incorrect. Qur'an does make scientific claims in the field of embryology, cosmology, just to name the few. ALL such assertions have been confirmed by the leading scientist to be 100% in conformity with science. The supernatural claims can not be proven since we do not have the capability to do so.@Tibi, first of all, let me say that your Islamophobia is showing through. Secondly, you state "that the fossils and the missing links HAVE been found", please point me to the website that has documented evidence of a creature that is half way between an ape and a human. Per your logic, it has taken a very long time for this transition to take place. One would think that there would be ample evidence of this in the million or so samples of fossils that have been collected within last century. I need evidence to put my faith in this theory. I do not blindly accept any claim.As far as Qur'an is concerned, I go by the human psychology – an important part of science, to reach my conclusion that this book is not written by any human being. The consistency, the emphasis, etc. are not consistent with the why we humans operate and think. This is the reason Muslims consider the Qur'an as the miracle itself.
Jimmy Kahn.You said "please point me to the website that has documented evidence of a creature that is half way between an ape and a human."The following site shows information on the discovery of transitional fossils.Hopefully you will find it interesting, and it will remove a lot of the confusion that creationism creates through its dishonest assertions.http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=Qfoje7jVJpU&feature=PlayList&p=258CAE2 F4546AA95&index=8
Why I do not accept the theory of "molecule to man evolution."1. All scientifically verifiable examples of "evolution" are simply variations within kinds – not trasformations from one species to another.2. I have yet to see a plausable theory on how male and female came to be.3. The first life form that miraculously had all of the "pieces" fall into place, would have certainly been non-reproductive and all alone. Hmmmm.4. Every few years I read an article in a scientific journal or the National Geographic that says basically "everything we though we knew about FILL IN BLANK was wrong." Just recently I read an article of this kind that stated that recent discoveries have proven that humans and apes are in fact NOT related, as previously thought. According to the latest and greatest theories based on these new findings, humans did not evolve from apes, but rather both have a common ancestor way farther down the line. Basically, every time they find evidence that PROVES their theory is wrong, they just change their theory. That's fine. But do not get mad at me, or call me "ignorant" if I say your theory does not add up. It is odd that if I reject your theory I am "ignorant" and "narrow minded"… but when you prove your theory wrong (as you always do) you do not offer an oppology. You just changge your theory and continue to call me names.5. By definition, the theory of molecule to man evolution is not "science." True science is supposed to objective. Evolution starts with presupposition of "anything but creation." No matter where the evidence leads you, you refuse to allow it to lead you to creation.6. It defies logic to suggest that an Oak Tree, a whale, a house fly, a human, and poison ivey all evolved from the same "common ancestor."7. The heavens and the earth declare the Glory of God – the fact that there is a creation suggests that there is a creator.
To AnonYour copied link has nothing special. Nothing but the worthless repetitions foisted as evidence for long by evolutionists. All that is done so far by evolutionists are enthusiastic descriptions of similarities found in the fossil records….followed by a predefined assumption of coming one into being from another by gradual change….. which (assumption)necessarily makes the whole saga a blind faith…neutral thinking on all the materials that are posed as evidences neither proves nor disproves evolution theory…….scientific theory is not something that starts with…"Once upon a time…" "May be…."…"gradual change from one species to another (which is fundamental tenet of this faith)is too slow to observe in our life time….".Digging out some parts of past animals with similar structure and showing it converting in some hand made animations……is never a scientific way to prove a theory….in fact, evolution is not a scientific theory at all…for some people it as a political theory…….this is an ideal political theory to dominate others labeling them as sub-human…..for others who accept this as truth (influenced by the media onslaught favoring politicians who intentionally used it)….its simply a blind faith which.. without any evidence.. they believe in.
To Jimmy Khan:You wrote:"Qur'an does make scientific claims in the field of embryology, cosmology, just to name the few. ALL such assertions have been confirmed by the leading scientist to be 100% in conformity with science."Here is the way how we do research and talk facts in XXI century.Please provide us with quote from your holy book. (aka reference)Next provide quote from 'leading scientist' following by the name of 'leading scientist'. (aka reference)While providing references you may found useful to read them for yourself and compare language, style and the way how facts are conveyed.You may also find that the some worlds/expressions changes they meaning over time.Most likely, by time you finish your reading you will find that you have to BELIEVE that written dreams from Qur'an stand up to scientific research.By today standards research should provide enough facts to be accepted without BELIEVES.
I have to admit, There is no prove that creationism is wrong.One always can say: The World was created just X yrs ago the way that it looks exactly that it was born out of Big BANG 14,500,000 yrs ago including space micro wave radiation, red shift and dinosaur fossils.But even if the World was created by G-d. It was created with holy books that look like they mar by many humans unadmitted contributions.Here is the actual reference: isbn: 0977860698″The Qur'an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread."It is not really about Quran. The same applies to Bible, Torah etc.
Jimmy, first of all, it's not a phobia against Islam in particular–I despise all religions pretty much equally. But if you want to talk about Islam in particular, I think the fact that it is the only mainstream religion that not only condones but recommends stoning to death, is indicative enough that it is a barbaric belief that should be abolished as soon as possible. That said, as I mentioned before, other religions (like Christianity or Judaism) have been this violent before, they're just passed this phase.Secondly, if you want some information about transitional fossils (misleadingly called "missing links"), you don't have to go further than the Wiki pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit ional_fossilIt has references to scientific sources, if you're inclined to read them. More information about evolution can be found for example on YouTube on CDK007's channel,http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk0 07?blend=1&ob=4…check the 'Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism' section. You can also read some of the popular books written on the subject; Richard Dawkins is one of the most well-known authors of such books. I am directing you to other places because I am not a biologist myself, so I prefer to let people more knowledgeable than me talk about this.I want to emphasize that I am pointing out these sites and popular science books to you because they are easily accessible. Of course I would be making a better argument by pointing you to scientific papers directly, but I am not familiar with them (and since you're likely not a biologist either, you might have a hard time reading them anyway). Nevertheless, the links that I gave you do reference some journals, and you can take it from there.All biologists I've met (and I've met quite a few) accept evolution as a fact. If you disagree with them, you need to give some reasons for your disagreement. Biologists say they've found plenty of transitional fossils… are you saying they're lying? Being deluded? Are they bad at their jobs? What's your authority to say that? A large minority of them (maybe 30%) are religious, so at least a third of biologists would have an added incentive to disprove evolution; yet, they don't–maybe it's because they can't?For transitional fossils between monkeys and humans, you can also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae. What do you think is wrong with all of those fossils? Are they all fake?
I just love how people are so good at denying reality so they can believe what they want to believe.Why is reality so hard for humans to handle? Is it because it's too emotionally distressing? Probably. So, enter religion. Now you can believe whatever feels good, but isn't proven as real. Nice!
Well, Straight Talk, I will put it to you straight.That link was just to point out the stupidity and dishonesty in creationist arguments.Evolution is not simply digging up dinosaurs and lining them up so they fit.Evolution is based on transitional fossils, radiological dating, biology, redundant organs, genetics, bacteria, breeding, animal domestication and documented natural selection among countless other pieces of evidence supporting evolution.The neutral approach is to take all that evidence and reach the logical conclusion which best explains the observations of the natural world. That conclusion is called a scientific theory. That theory is called evolution.If you are going to reach a different conclusion, you can't just pick holes in evolution based on blatent lies, quote mining or misunderstandings of the theory. You need to come up with other conclusive actual evidence of your own.Religion has failed to provide any scientific or positive evidence that a deity exists. It has failed to meet the onus of proof, it cannot make predictions, cannot be tested and hence creationism is not a competing theory in any sense of the word. It doesn't explain anything, because it doesn't rely on evidence. So its conclusions are baseless.But if you believe in the existance of a deity, even though they have no evidence that a deity exists, you have proven that you are not objective in any sense of the word.Because if a person is not only going to believe in a deity based on no evidence, but also discount any evidence which contradicts their belief, then evidence and facts means nothing to then. So no amount of scientific evidence can be expected to change their mind.You could show them every transitional fossil discovered, every scientific fact in the universe. But it will not matter. Because they will insist that you disprove the deity that they have already failed to prove in the first place. Which is both ilogical and unscientific.You can do it if you like. People can have faith in something bigger then them.But if it isn't based on evidence, don't expect people to lie to you and say it is logical behavior.
I just came across a book "Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Amazing New Insights from Qur'an…" It quotes extensively from Qur'an to prove in an extremely amazing and convincing idiom that biological evolution isn't at all at variance with the Qur'an. It is available online at HarperCollins' website Authonomy: http://www.authonomy.com/ViewBook.aspx?b ookid=11309
Whether right or wrong… 'Religion has failed to provide any scientific or positive evidence that a deity exists' …at best, can be an 'excuse' to accept the faith on "today's living beings have come into existence automatically from its previous versions through gradual evolution"… but can never be a logic on rational ground. In fact, the basis of my post was not what the creationists or some religions have given for their own theory rather my question was, are the information provided by the evolutionists in support of their own theory really 'conclusive actual evidence' for the evolution theory itself?One can find a lot of similarities between an old model calculator and a key board of computer. In their outlooks, characteristics, structures even in molecular level there are lots of similarities. Besides, one can find out the time difference between the first appearances of these particular items in this world. After observing these similarities and time difference, if someone concludes that the calculator gradually evolved of its own in course of time into a keyboard that conclusion doesn't necessarily mean 'a scientific theory'. At best it can be a fairly tale to be included in the nursery rhyme. This observation does not proof this scientific theory conclusively in any way as there is another possibility… that is with all that differences and similarities both calculator and key board would have been manufactured separately with intellectual intent and design.The differences between calculator/keyboard example with all that fossils, dating of fossils, so called vestibule organs etc etc. are the time and place. One is on the earth and other one has been found under the earth and which is dated back to hundreds of years. This difference makes some people to believe in such fairly tale under the cover of scientific disguise. After finding all that 'transitional fossils, radiological dating, biology, (so called) redundant organs, genetics, bacteria, breeding, animal domestication and documented natural selection' if someone believes the beings have come into existence with one evolving from other and if it is claimed as 'scientific theory' then on the same ground creationism is a scientific theory as well. Because creationists equally could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species. Fossils and homologies would just as much, if not more, support this 'theory' of a creator.If creationists oppose the evolution theory to protect their deity than reversely, the evolutionists are used to fire off the evolution theory to oppose the said deity….. not as it (the theory) of being a scientific one. If someone aims to disregard and reject one idea, no matters whether does it have any evidence or not s/he will propagate opposite one and will hunt after evidences to prove his or her predefined conclusion. Absence of evidence can never be enough to change his/her mind.
Evolution -> genetics -> modern medicineCreationsists should stay out of hospitals
Religion is like say my imaginary friend is better that your imaginary friend. The work of Darwin and many other people in the fileds of science work on facts.All religions work from a text which are thoughts and views of the writer at the time. These thoughts are then told to the masses and a view point or "religion" is born….not on facts. No religion known to man can prove anything but science can. Im sure if they find some life on another planets people will turn to religion to prove a view point which they cannot. science and the understanding of life and how we progress should be the new religion
Exibit,, Fish in sea,( of GOD ) Birds in air,( of God ) Stars in Firmament,( of God ) WORD,( of God ) Apearance of Thinking, ( of GOD ) Fishers of Man chuckle of JESUS. Conceptional matters tehe
I appear to think therefore i accuse then JUDGE like an idiot Would,,,, i think some one said that or was it I appear to be human or Not to BE that is the Answer,
Straight Talk, your point is moot for a very simple reason. There are some fundamental differences between your keyboard example and the evolution of species. First of all, keyboards don't have a copying mechanism like all living organisms. Instead, they are all created in factories. Also, the amount of "mutations" that occur when the factory builds keyboards is very small, and "mutated" keyboards are always thrown out. Moreover, there is no crossing over during reproduction because, well, there is NO reproduction (sexual or otherwise). So most of the basics ingredients of evolution aren't there.Secondly, in the case of keyboards we know for a fact that a creator existed: it is us. We can see people, we have records of people having lived on Earth for thousands of years now, and we have records of people designing and building keyboards. This, combined with the obvious lack of mutation in keyboards, is what makes the idea of typewriters evolving into computer keyboards sound ridiculous.Evolution is very different in many ways. First of all, organisms aren't seen to be created by anybody or anything, but rather they themselves reproduce, sexually or asexually. During this reproduction, mutations happen, as can be seen nowadays either by analyzing the genetic code directly, or by the increased resistance to drugs of bacteria, viruses etc. Crossing over of genes has been observed scientifically since the time of Mendel (1850s), and is the reason for which we have grapes selected for their flavor, dogs selected for their looks, and fruit flies selected for whatever reasons scientists have. Detailed computer simulations show that it is reasonable for complex organs such as the eye to naturally develop through evolution in long enough periods of time–compatible with the periods of time observed for such evolution in the fossil record. Observe moreover that nowadays, living organisms need no creator; rather, they copy themselves, from parents into offspring. There is also absolutely no evidence that a creator ever existed–we've never met such a creator, have no records of one, fossil or otherwise. These are some of the reasons for which your analogy is completely flawed, and why scientists accept evolution as a fact.By the way, what was your point? That all biologists are just stupid and ignore obvious evidence against their theory? Isn't that a bit arrogant of you?…
[…] focusing on him as the only face that is shaping the response to evolution in the Muslim world (FaithWorld has a nice collection of articles on Islamic creationism from the last couple of months and notice how many are devoted simply to Harun Yahya). Oktar loves […]
Believing evolution does not negate the existence of the creator for those that know of the creator. No one tells a king how to rule. And no one tells God how to give, and or, develop life.If evolution is the vehicle of creation so what? To the one who understands that they are created beings evolution can either be true or not and it doesn't matter. To those who deny the existence of a creator evolution is fiercely important. If it is proven wrong then they must acknowledge other possibilities. If it is proven correct. The spiritual person can accept it. And it does not remove God from the equation.
Benny, it's true that the fact of evolution does not invalidate the idea of a god, although it definitely dismisses the most literal interpretations of a number of "holy" texts.You are however wrong about the importance of evolution for atheists. First of all, there is so much evidence for evolution, that it is clearly true in some approximation, even if it turns out to not be absolutely right. But even if it did turn out to be completely wrong, that would just prompt scientists to find a better theory. There is no reason for alarm for atheists if one particular alternative to god would be proven false.It might be a catastrophe for a Christian to learn there is no God, but for a scientist to learn that a theory is false is just part of the job. If the theory is a well-established one, then the discovery of its falsehood is full of excitement and prospects for a lot of fruitful future work.
Tibi,What did you mean by mutation of keyboard in factory? I am afraid, did you mean if that… "mutated keyboards are not always thrown out"… then over the time typewriter manufacturing machine will once start to produce computer keyboard!!????!!!!!! Yes, you are right…..the theory of evolution is that absurd indeed.How did we come to know that computer keyboard needs a creator? Is it only because that "We can see people, we have records of people having lived on Earth for thousands of years now, and we have records of people designing and building keyboards."???? Well, like many other people, I never went to any keyboard manufacturing factory and never saw people are producing keyboard in a factory…..what do you suggest for me? Should I belief that keyboards are evolutes by themselves? Or should I belief, though of having no records, that the keyboards are manufactured by people???? Neither manufactured nor reproduced by themselves, rather I would like to belief that keyboards are found in the computer accessories shops. Sounds silly??? That is the theory some people like to believe in, in the name of scientific one as they propose… "organisms aren't seen to be created by anybody or anything, but rather they themselves reproduce, sexually or asexually."… Or… "living organisms need no creator; rather, they copy themselves, from parents into offspring. There is also absolutely no evidence that a creator ever existed–we've never met such a creator, have no records of one, fossil or otherwise."You can go to a pharmaceutical products manufacturing factory and will see how tableting machine is producing tablets automatically without the touch of human hands. In front of that tablet machine you can only see machine producing tablets, you will not find designer of the tablet, you need not to meet the manufacturer, you will find no fossils of manufacturer either. What your scientific study tells you then? Are the tablets produced by themselves? Machine produces tablets without requiring a manufacturer? Or Manufacturer set the machine to produce tablets automatically?All these examples including that one of straight-talk are flawed if you discuss on the basis of philosophy. But if you consider evolution as science these are very much relevant. Whenever we are talking about evolution we have to keep in mind, this is not the objective study of a topic of biology rather it's a discussion related to matters which we see around, their behaviors. What is the difference between a living being and a running machine on the basis of science? Why some matters/substances (as you call them 'living beings') started to evolutes from one stage to another but others can not? You can't differentiate some particular matters from others to favor your logic. Of course we have made divisions, like physics, chemistry, biology etc in the study of science. But these are not contradictory to each other, as long as you are working on scientific basis, they can not be. When you incorporate any philosophical idea into scientific study than it becomes problematic for one division of science to face another. This is the case with evolution theory. A philosophical dogma has long been well discussed in scientific style.
Evolution doesn't need to remove god from the equation.Last time I checked, religion has yet to prove that god is part of the equation to begin with.
Vista, the theory of evolution does not claim to apply to everything. Rocks do not evolve. Metal knives don't evolve. Keyboards also don't. The things that evolve are large groups of systems that are able to copy themselves, where the copying mechanism is susceptible to some level of error, and where the systems compete for limited resources, and die if they cannot collect enough for themselves. Does any of these requirements apply to keyboards? They do apply to bacteria, plants, animals etc. Evolution explains how bacteria evolved into the rich life we see on Earth today.We see animals mating and multiplying–maybe you yourself never witnessed that, but it has been observed by many people, starting from all mothers in the world (including yours). For keyboards, such copying has never been observed. Not by a single person. Can you notice the difference now?Also, scientists aren't stupid. If they saw a machine manufacturing medicine, they would analyze the machine and check who made it. They have done this for nature. They saw living beings create other living beings. They asked who created the parents. They got the answer: their parents. Scientists followed this trail millions of years back in time, and never found a different answer than just "parents". This is why the theory of evolution has not been invalidated. There never has been any indication that an external entity was involved. It must, then, be that living beings "figured it" all out by themselves. Scientists provided a framework within which this does happen very naturally; it is called evolution. Again, if you have any trouble understanding that evolution happens, please realize that it is being observed in the lab every single day by thousands of biologists. Denying it is like denying that computers exist. The only questions that are still open are about the details of how evolution works, not whether it happens or not.Another difference between keyboards and organisms is one of probability of mutations. Carbon-based compounds are observed to be likely to interact with other such compounds, and also are easily decomposed if subjected e.g. to temperatures a little higher than room temperature. Such reactions are immensely less likely to occur for plastics and silicon, which are some of the main materials that make up your keyboard. That's why you should recycle, not just throw stuff in the trash: it will (almost) never decompose on its own! This is also why life is not made of plastic or metal or other stable compounds. Alcohol for example visibly reacts with fatty acids, but put a keyboard next to a computer, and wait until one of them changes shape!If you want to talk about evolution, you need to satisfy the basic requirements for evolution to happen. You need to have a large number of systems each of which is capable of copying itself. The copying process must have some probability of error. Next, these systems must compete for limited resources, and must be allowed to die if they can't collect enough resources. Then you need to wait for a long time. Such simulations have been done on a computer, and the results do indeed show evolution. You can find some examples on CDK007s channel on YouTubehttp://www.youtube.com/user/cdk00 7?blend=1&ob=4An older computer framework written to allow a bunch of small programs to compete for resources is Tierra,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier ra_%28computer_simulation%29you can try to look into that.Please learn about evolution before criticizing it. All of your "complaints" were strictly related to your not understanding the theory, not to actual flaws in it!
[…] will continue to reject this understanding of life. And this is actually happening. The Muslim world at large is experiencing an upsurge of creationism. It is already the case that the majority of US citizens also reject the scientific account of […]
Despite years of effort on the part of the scientific community, creationism will not go away not because the evidence for God and creationism is based on flawed thinking, but because the views on abiogenesis, the evidence for evolution from one species to another, and for spontaneous, random existence without the requirement for the external hand of God has now been roundly demolished. God is real. And evolution is science's greatest 'mistake'.
Google me on the subject, if you doubt it. I've written extensively on the matter and you are welcome to challenge any particular.
But there was a good reason for this 'mistake', and only now are we able to reveal why this 'mistake' was inevitable. I've called it 'the attempted murder of God', a title that quite provocatively suggests a deliberate project to underwrite the current confusion in the debate. Hence, 'mistake' is in inverted commas, since there is no real mistake, and everything we ever thought we knew about the subject was always going to be questioned, because we were never presented with the whole picture.
Until now.
That picture has changed in 2010… The paradigm has shifted once again… And the 'hidden' science' we are all surely entitled to know can now be revealed.
Best Regards,
[…] http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009 /11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-th e-news-this-time-in-e… […]
[…] http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009 /11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-th e-news-this-time-in-e… This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Kabil'de halk ABD'ye kar?? ayakland? […]