EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Response: Right. If you want to accept something that's true when it's not proven, that's your business. But a sensible person chooses the opposite.

How would you know what a sensible person might do?

 

[Fatihah]

Yeah, it's sad when ignorant fundamentalists like you allow such a great tradition of learning to be trampled back into ignorance. Don't you agree?

Response: Not as ignorant as a person who says something is true despite the fact that it hasn't been proven and even admits to it. On the contrary, that's not even ignorance, that's mentally disturbed.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Response: Right. If you want to accept something that's true when it's not proven, that's your business. But a sensible person chooses the opposite.

Please stop. The world's supply of irony is nearly exhausted.

 

[Autodidact]

[QUOTE Autodidact]As I told you earlier, evolution was actually discovered by early Muslim scholars, al-Jahiz and Ibn Miskawayh. Their work no doubt influenced Darwin.

The scientific method was pioneered by a Muslim scholar, Ibn al-Haytham. The same method you reject because it doesn't use proof.

Of course, science has advanced since then, while you have retreated further back into ignorance.(End quote)

Response: Neither of them believed in ToE or supported it. Nor can you prove otherwise. So that goes to show who the ignorant one is.

Well, the full theory wasn't taught until centuries after both have died. However his ideas influenced the development of the theory.

Ibn Miskawayh was one of the first to clearly describe the idea of evolution. Muhammad Hamidullah describes the evolutionary ideas found in Ibn Miskawayh's al-Fawz al-Asghar as follows:

"[These books] state that God first created matter and invested it with energy for development. Matter, therefore, adopted the form of vapour which assumed the shape of water in due time. The next stage of development was mineral life. Different kinds of stones developed in course of time. Their highest form being mirjan (coral). It is a stone which has in it branches like those of a tree. After mineral life evolves vegetation. The evolution of vegetation culminates with a tree which bears the qualities of an animal. This is the date-palm. It has male and female genders. It does not wither if all its branches are chopped but it dies when the head is cut off. The date-palm is therefore considered the highest among the trees and resembles the lowest among animals. Then is born the lowest of animals. It evolves into an ape. This is not the statement of Darwin. This is what Ibn Maskawayh states and this is precisely what is written in the Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa. The Muslim thinkers state that ape then evolved into a lower kind of a barbarian man. He then became a superior human being. Man becomes a saint, a prophet. He evolves into a higher stage and becomes an angel. The one higher to angels is indeed none but God. Everything begins from Him and everything returns to Him."[1]

​

Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar were available in European universities by the 19th century. This work is believed to have been studied by Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and it is thought to have had an influence on his inception of Darwinism.[1]

(wiki)

 

[Fatihah]

"All of our knowledge" would be such a gross exaggeration as to be an outright lie, but we know that wouldn't bother you.

At one time Islamic scholars made significant contributions to the world's knowledge. Of course, that was 1000 years ago. It's just really sad that people like you have thrown that tradition in the garbage.

Response: Likewise.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Not as ignorant as a person who says something is true despite the fact that it hasn't been proven and even admits to it. On the contrary, that's not even ignorance, that's mentally disturbed.

So, as I said, since nothing in science is proven, you believe that it would be mentally disturbed to accept anything we learn from science as true, right?

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Right. If you want to accept something that's true when it's not proven, that's your business. But a sensible person chooses the opposite.

So you believe that it's sensible to reject science. I see you're still using your Blackberry to do it, which of course is a result of that same scientific knowledge that you reject--because it's not proven.

 

[Fatihah]

It's fun talking to someone who has so little to say on a topic that they just keep repeating the same things over and over.

The proof is in the fact that many Muslims do accept evolution.

Response: And there are many non-muslims that don't, including scientists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Response: And there are many non-muslims that don't, including scientists.

Being a Muslim does not give you a monopoly on backwardness. It requires a real dedication.

 

[Fatihah]

Is it your view that the Muslim world leads the modern world in science?

Response: That doesn't answer the question.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: And there are many non-muslims that don't, including scientists.

Not many.

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[32]
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism in the case Edwards v. Aguillard[33] was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies.[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point.[20] The amicus curiae brief also clearly described why evolution was science, not religion, and why creationism is not science.
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[34][35][36][37] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[19] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences that provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.

[wiki]

Of course, why would you believe wiki, if you haven't asked the world's scientists yourself? They could be lying.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: That doesn't answer the question.

Neither does that.

 

[Fatihah]

How would you know what a sensible person might do?

Response: The same ways you know.

 

[Fatihah]

Please stop. The world's supply of irony is nearly exhausted.

Response: Than I advise you to not be ironic.

 

[Jose Fly]

Response: That doesn't answer the question.

It's pretty obvious that the Western world (specifically the U.S., although one could add the Japanese in there as well, and they are a very secular society) has been the world's leader in science for some time. This is demonstrated by our extensive space exploration program, plus the fact that just about all of our modern technologies (computers, cell phones, blackberries, HDTV's, etc.) were all invented either here or in Japan. Just about all the modern medical advancements have taken place in the West (vaccines for diseases, treatments, surgical advancements, organ transplants). Students come from all over the world to attend U.S. universities and study science. The most famous "celebrity scientists", e.g. Stephen Hawking, S.J. Gould, Richard Dawkins, Jacques Cousteau, Jane Goodall, Carl Sagan, etc. are all Westerners.

Now, how about answering my question? Is it your view that the Muslim world leads the modern world in science?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Response: Than I advise you to not be ironic.

I don't take advice from those who have no business giving it. Thanks anyway.

 

[Jose Fly]

One other means of measuring scientific output and contributions is by counting the number of papers published in the scientific journals. The U.S. has led in this category for a long time. Interestingly, China has recently moved into second place.

 

[Magic Man]

Response: And there are many non-muslims that don't, including scientists.

And? The fact that some Muslims believe in the Quran and accept evolution is proof that the two arecompatible, and that it's only your interpretation of the one that stops you from accepting the other. That was my whole point.

I'd love to see an example of a biologist who doesn't accept evolution. Otherwise, other scientists are a bit irrelevant. It would be similar to saying some musicians don't accept evolution.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Where's the proof for it?

Proof is for math formal logic and whiskey.

 

[Fatihah]

It's pretty obvious that the Western world (specifically the U.S., although one could add the Japanese in there as well, and they are a very secular society) has been the world's leader in science for some time. This is demonstrated by our extensive space exploration program, plus the fact that just about all of our modern technologies (computers, cell phones, blackberries, HDTV's, etc.) were all invented either here or in Japan. Just about all the modern medical advancements have taken place in the West (vaccines for diseases, treatments, surgical advancements, organ transplants). Students come from all over the world to attend U.S. universities and study science. The most famous "celebrity scientists", e.g. Stephen Hawking, S.J. Gould, Richard Dawkins, Jacques Cousteau, Jane Goodall, Carl Sagan, etc. are all Westerners.

Now, how about answering my question? Is it your view that the Muslim world leads the modern world in science?

Response: It depends on what you mean. If by leading, you mean who created the most inventions, then no. But if we're talking about a case of who knows more in science, you can't pick a side. There's nothing the muslim world doesn't know scientifically that the rest of the world does and vice versa.