Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

A New Islamic Perspective on Evolution... watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So... I'm aware of how accepted evolution has become in the scientific community (by theists too). Whilst it's called the 'Theory of Evolution', it's as much as a theory as is the 'Theory of Gravity'. Which is why many call it a fact.

    I watched a video by Dr Yasir Qadhi, who explains how Islam can accept the theory of evolution. I'll put it in the spoiler.

    If you're not bothered to watch it, as it's 30 minutes long, I'll just summarize the Islamic stance on evolution below (don't judge me if I got some or a lot of the science wrong ):

    1) Allah creates the world and the first cell's or the first living organisms.
    2) Evolution takes place and animals evolve from through the generations by natural selection.
    3) When it comes to the evolution of man (Homosapiens), you have apes (at one point) evolving throughout time and some of them are looking more and more like humans (humanoids etc).
    4) Finally we reach a point when the very next evolution should be the homo-sapiens. This is when Allah creates Adam and his wife Eve, without the need of them being born, hence, no evolution. Evolution in all other animals continue but man was created in one go, despite many similar organisms looking like it.

    I know a lot of guys will think Islam (and of course other religions) can/are just bending the rules and trying to keep modern science in line with the religious beliefs; in this case evolution. But, as long as there's no contradiction (so far), it's still logical and it basically works.

    Any (logical, argumentative and critical) thoughts?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Bump...
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    So God had to prepare his creation, he wasn't powerful enough to make them from scratch?

    I guess you could argue God just created stuff because he can.

    Sounds like the guy is just trying to make everything fit imho.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Who cares what religious people think of evolution. It happens whether anyone believes in it or not.

    If your religion is incompatible with facts, your religion is wrong.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    4) Finally we reach a point when the very next evolution should be the homo-sapiens. This is when Allah creates Adam and his wife Eve, without the need of them being born, hence, no evolution. Evolution in all other animals continue but man was created in one go, despite many similar organisms looking like it.
    This is demonstrably false as the evolution of humans has as much evidence supporting it as of any other species. To accept evolution on its scientific basis only to reject the same method to suit your superstitious, unfounded and antiscientific claims defeats the whole point.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I know a lot of guys will think Islam (and of course other religions) can/are just bending the rules and trying to keep modern science in line with the religious beliefs; in this case evolution.
    That's patently obvious.

    But, as long as there's no contradiction (so far),
    There is.

    it's still logical
    It's not.

    and it basically works.
    It doesn't.

    (Original post by Ascend)
    This is demonstrably false as the evolution of humans has as much evidence supporting it as of any other species. To accept evolution on its scientific basis only to reject the same method to suit your superstitious, unfounded and antiscientific claims defeats the whole point.
    This.

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    So... I'm aware of how accepted evolution has become in the scientific community (by theists too). Whilst it's called the 'Theory of Evolution', it's as much as a theory as is the 'Theory of Gravity'. Which is why many call it a fact.

    I watched a video by Dr Yasir Qadhi, who explains how Islam can accept the theory of evolution. I'll put it in the spoiler.

    If you're not bothered to watch it, as it's 30 minutes long, I'll just summarize the Islamic stance on evolution below (don't judge me if I got some or a lot of the science wrong ):

    1) Allah creates the world and the first cell's or the first living organisms.
    2) Evolution takes place and animals evolve from through the generations by natural selection.
    3) When it comes to the evolution of man (Homosapiens), you have apes (at one point) evolving throughout time and some of them are looking more and more like humans (humanoids etc).
    4) Finally we reach a point when the very next evolution should be the homo-sapiens. This is when Allah creates Adam and his wife Eve, without the need of them being born, hence, no evolution. Evolution in all other animals continue but man was created in one go, despite many similar organisms looking like it.

    I know a lot of guys will think Islam (and of course other religions) can/are just bending the rules and trying to keep modern science in line with the religious beliefs; in this case evolution. But, as long as there's no contradiction (so far), it's still logical and it basically works.

    Any (logical, argumentative and critical) thoughts?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Don't have time to go through the whole video right now but if your summary is accurate major issue still remain.

    1 it requires a God who would set up a universe in which scientific inquiry would come to a conclusion opposing gods scripture. An example would be the fused chromosome in humans. One of the most powerful peices of evidence for human common ancestry
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
    Does that suggest God is out right deceitful. Because to reject the conclusion requires one to reject science, or place science below scripture. In which case what difference is there between the new interpretation and the old interpretation beyond just how many times they reject the scientific conclusion. Either way you are rejecting a scientific conclusion based on scripture. So why not just say that and go all the way and say it doesn't matter.

    2 It introduces an important question of how to define what a human is. If God created humans when no humans existed then how similar were humans to the then current like human species. One gene mutation wouldn't be enough to separate Adam and Eve from the "non humans" as humanity would already exist.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    That makes no sense. It's just a theist attempt to twist around make it look like their texts are combactible with science.

    First of all, evolution doesn't happen on "steps" but is a continuous process. It is impossible to determine a state where "homo sapiens would be next step".

    Secondly, if we assume there were those near-humans before human was created on one go, wouldn't they still have evolved into Homo sapiens as well? Did they just disappear?

    Thirdly, evolution obiviously still happens on humans too as you would have two humans i.e very limited gene pool and nowadays we have variety there is. Where did variety come from? Are mutations alone enough to explain this? Time between this's creation event and current moment would need to be less than 3,2 million years, as there is a pre-homo sapiens fossil of that age. We also must consider that total amount of mutations per time on whole gene pool of species which of course affects the total amount of new kind of favorable alleles per time was very low right after creation event as there was not much genetic material where mutations could have occurred.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascend)
    This is demonstrably false as the evolution of humans has as much evidence supporting it as of any other species. To accept evolution on its scientific basis only to reject the same method to suit your superstitious, unfounded and antiscientific claims defeats the whole point.
    But how can you prove it is false? A human could be created to look like it had evolved like other species. I'm not saying this proves the existence of God. I'm saying this is a method or explanation in which the argument of disprovingGod through the theory of evolution can be countered.

    (Original post by garfeeled)
    Don't have time to go through the whole video right now but if your summary is accurate major issue still remain.

    1 it requires a God who would set up a universe in which scientific inquiry would come to a conclusion opposing gods scripture. An example would be the fused chromosome in humans. One of the most powerful peices of evidence for human common ancestry
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
    Does that suggest God is out right deceitful. Because to reject the conclusion requires one to reject science, or place science below scripture. In which case what difference is there between the new interpretation and the old interpretation beyond just how many times they reject the scientific conclusion. Either way you are rejecting a scientific conclusion based on scripture. So why not just say that and go all the way and say it doesn't matter.

    2 It introduces an important question of how to define what a human is. If God created humans when no humans existed then how similar were humans to the then current like human species. One gene mutation wouldn't be enough to separate Adam and Eve from the "non humans" as humanity would already exist.
    1. No because [insert "life is a test argument"]. Also, when you say reject the science of this, it means to believe in the miracle of the creation of man. A miracle can be seen as an inconsistency which goes against laws and boundaries in a cosmos of consistencies, which are the laws of physics. In this case, the rest of life following evolution is the consistency. So, if a miracle is an irregularity, which only happens rarely (otherwise it won't be a miracle), can still mean a person believes in the laws science. When I drop a ball, I still value science enough to be 99.99...% sure it falls to the ground. Hence, we can still value science as (pretty) much as an atheist.
    2. What do scientists describe what humans are? They themselves must have come to a conclusion of there being a "first" homo sapiens which have a genetic arrangement identical to us. This first homosapien was Adam. The organism before him in the chain would have a slightly different mutation to not be recognised as our species.

    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    That makes no sense. It's just a theist attempt to twist around make it look like their texts are combactible with science.

    First of all, evolution doesn't happen on "steps" but is a continuous process. It is impossible to determine a state where "homo sapiens would be next step".

    Secondly, if we assume there were those near-humans before human was created on one go, wouldn't they still have evolved into Homo sapiens as well? Did they just disappear?

    Thirdly, evolution obiviously still happens on humans too as you would have two humans i.e very limited gene pool and nowadays we have variety there is. Where did variety come from? Are mutations alone enough to explain this? Time between this's creation event and current moment would need to be less than 3,2 million years, as there is a pre-homo sapiens fossil of that age. We also must consider that total amount of mutations per time on whole gene pool of species which of course affects the total amount of new kind of favorable alleles per time was very low right after creation event as there was not much genetic material where mutations could have occurred.
    It may be impossible to determine "where" homo sapiens came in but I'm sure it's possible to determine that there is such as state. I don't think the "where" really matters.

    I get your second point. If you follow through this theist argument, it may be that those creatures died out to be replaced by the new generation, the homo sapiens. Which would make sense.

    Third point. There's no way to determine that humans evolved through mutations at around the same time. The probability for mutations to happen to create one human is small, but for several to have the same outcome must be really small in chance. But if a only a handful actually did, I don't think it would effect the stats you just provided. Also, you're going on the basis that these humans had a lifetime and number of children similar to ours (give or take). Whereas, Adam and his children are believed to have lived for around a thousand years, meaning enough children and grandchildren and so on can born at one time to increase the chances of mutations.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Who cares what religious people think of evolution. It happens whether anyone believes in it or not.

    If your religion is incompatible with facts, your religion is wrong.
    (Original post by Mjcal1)
    So God had to prepare his creation, he wasn't powerful enough to make them from scratch?

    I guess you could argue God just created stuff because he can.

    Sounds like the guy is just trying to make everything fit imho.
    (Original post by Alpha Lamb Meme)
    That's patently obvious.


    There is.


    It's not.


    It doesn't.


    This.

    These were too hard to argue against.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm Muslim
    here's our standpoint:

    http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/mag...s/92_tusi.html

    - Nasr Al-Din Al-Tusi

    Shia scholar - proposed theory of evolution 600 years before Darwin did, wrote 2 of the main 4 books of Shia Islam
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_..._and_evolution
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    I'm Muslim
    here's our standpoint:

    http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/mag...s/92_tusi.html

    - Nasr Al-Din Al-Tusi

    Shia scholar - proposed theory of evolution 600 years before Darwin did, wrote 2 of the main 4 books of Shia Islam
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_..._and_evolution
    I don't see how he could believe that humans evolved/adapted from humans but at the same time God's creation of Adam from earth. Unless he abandoned one of these.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    But how can you prove it is false? A human could be created to look like it had evolved like other species.
    In exactly the same way you can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (subhanahu wa tagliatelle) doesn't hold the worlds and everything in them with gazillions of his invisible noodley appendages and only makes it look like the mysterious "force" we call "gravity".

    These were too hard to argue against.
    Ah well you gave it your best.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alpha Lamb Meme)
    In exactly the same way you can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (subhanahu wa tagliatelle) doesn't hold the worlds and everything in them with gazillions of his invisible noodley appendages and only makes it look like the mysterious "force" we call "gravity".


    Ah well you gave it your best.
    Lol you cannot compare these two: The vacuum outside will suck the noodles dry!

    Many theist philosophers, scientists and mathematician have subjectively deduced the fact that there is a logos (i.e. God).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I don't see how he could believe that humans evolved/adapted from humans but at the same time God's creation of Adam from earth. Unless he abandoned one of these.
    Well I mean you could believe evolution took the path it took with guidance from God i.e. it's not random. Like maybe the conditions were made exactly so that specific mutation would occur
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    Well I mean you could believe evolution took the path it took with guidance from God i.e. it's not random. Like maybe the conditions were made exactly so that specific mutation would occur
    No I can't accept that for the origin of humans. Pretty sure this would go against the Qur'an.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    I'm Muslim
    here's our standpoint:

    http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/mag...s/92_tusi.html

    - Nasr Al-Din Al-Tusi

    Shia scholar - proposed theory of evolution 600 years before Darwin did, wrote 2 of the main 4 books of Shia Islam
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_..._and_evolution
    Yes that is your standpoint

    This guy came up with a theory and then tried to fit the facts to that theory. That is exactly what Muslims always do, and this explains why the religion doesn't produce great scientists.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    But how can you prove it is false? A human could be created to look like it had evolved like other species. I'm not saying this proves the existence of God. I'm saying this is a method or explanation in which the argument of disprovingGod through the theory of evolution can be countered.


    1. No because [insert "life is a test argument"]. Also, when you say reject the science of this, it means to believe in the miracle of the creation of man. A miracle can be seen as an inconsistency which goes against laws and boundaries in a cosmos of consistencies, which are the laws of physics. In this case, the rest of life following evolution is the consistency. So, if a miracle is an irregularity, which only happens rarely (otherwise it won't be a miracle), can still mean a person believes in the laws science. When I drop a ball, I still value science enough to be 99.99...% sure it falls to the ground. Hence, we can still value science as (pretty) much as an atheist.
    2. What do scientists describe what humans are? They themselves must have come to a conclusion of there being a "first" homo sapiens which have a genetic arrangement identical to us. This first homosapien was Adam. The organism before him in the chain would have a slightly different mutation to not be recognised as our species.



    It may be impossible to determine "where" homo sapiens came in but I'm sure it's possible to determine that there is such as state. I don't think the "where" really matters.

    I get your second point. If you follow through this theist argument, it may be that those creatures died out to be replaced by the new generation, the homo sapiens. Which would make sense.

    Third point. There's no way to determine that humans evolved through mutations at around the same time. The probability for mutations to happen to create one human is small, but for several to have the same outcome must be really small in chance. But if a only a handful actually did, I don't think it would effect the stats you just provided. Also, you're going on the basis that these humans had a lifetime and number of children similar to ours (give or take). Whereas, Adam and his children are believed to have lived for around a thousand years, meaning enough children and grandchildren and so on can born at one time to increase the chances of mutations.
    That is just a long winded argument from ignorance, "I don't know where humans came from so they must be made by god".

    You can use this argument to explain anything without proof. e.g. My milk disappeared from the fridge, it must be the fairy living at the bottom of my garden.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You can use this argument to explain anything without proof. e.g. My milk disappeared from the fridge, it must be the fairy living at the bottom of my garden.
    Or "My shoes are missing, Mossad must have stole them."
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    No I can't accept that for the origin of humans. Pretty sure this would go against the Qur'an.
    So you rather believe old book written by people who lived simple lives thousands of years ago than thousands of scientific papers written by people who have dedicated years of their lives to study this issue? Good to know.

    Good thing that natural processes happen regardless of did you believe in them or not. And I take the risk of ending up in Jahannam, Hell, whatever you want to call it before you mention that. Just as I take the risk of being blasted to head by thunderbolt because I disrespect Zeus.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 21, 2016
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.