Seven Reasons it's easier to Believe in God than to Accept Evolution

[Sabour]

There are Muslims who accept evolution, so it's not an "either-or" thing.

Weird

There is a contradiction. And I am always certain they did it without examining or having the evidence. I think it was the pressure of getting along with main stream.

It is only a guess here.

 

[Viker]

Weird

There is a contradiction. And I am always certain they did it without examining or having the evidence. I think it was the pressure of getting along with main stream.

It is only a guess here.

I'm positive that it would be from those Muslims being educated and informed enough. Especially informed enough to realize evolution doesn't contradict any known religious allegory.

 

[Sabour]

I'm positive that it would be from those Muslims being educated and informed enough. Especially informed enough to realize evolution doesn't contradict any known religious allegory.

As far as I know the only evidence that was provided was that of adaptation and not for a cahnge of species. So am not sure what evidence they have dealt with.

Besides I dont think you are in a position to tell if the evolution concept contradicts with Islam.

 

[Bunyip]

As far as I know the only evidence that was provided was that of adaptation and not for a cahnge of species. So am not sure what evidence they have dealt with.

Besides I dont think you are in a position to tell if the evolution concept contradicts with Islam.

Change species was first observed more than a century ago.

 

[LuisDantas]

Weird

There is a contradiction. And I am always certain they did it without examining or having the evidence. I think it was the pressure of getting along with main stream.

It is only a guess here.

I'm afraid that if they did, it was when they adhered to Islam.

 

[LuisDantas]

Isn't there others? I haven't searched, am only asking?

Probably. The author of Sherlock Holmes is known to have planted one in order to discredit Evolution, if I recall correctly.

A lot of things happen in over a century, and there is no shortage of people with a passion or need to challenge or discredit the Theory of Evolution. I suppose there may well have been some dishonest scientists as well.

All of that is however entirely incidental. It is no longer possible to have serious doubts about whether Evolution is a fact. It hasn't been possible for a long time.

To the extent that anti-Evolutionism survives at all, it is only because the science and the evidence aren't really very accessible and well-known.

 

[LuisDantas]

As far as I know the only evidence that was provided was that of adaptation and not for a cahnge of species. So am not sure what evidence they have dealt with.

Speciation, of course, is nothing more than continued adaptation along several generations. While lifeforms may appear to be fairly stable and constant in casual observation, such is not the case.

Besides I dont think you are in a position to tell if the evolution concept contradicts with Islam.

That is an interesting point to address. The Quran is so figurative in so many parts. I can't very well imagine that it says something like "human origin is definitely not explainable by science" or "lifeforms do not go through speciation". I wonder why so many Muslims feel such a duty to be anti-evolutionist.

 

[Ouroboros]

I agree with that regard, however this is not for the whole verses of Quraan. Some things are explicitly stated and clear in meaning and some time the Quraan explains it self clearly.

55:14 He created man from clay like [that of] pottery.

Our body isn't made of clay. Their chemical compositions differ way too much.

The composition of clay and human body is different. Clay consist to a large part of silicon (Si), about 40% normally. A human body doesn't have that much silicon at all, but has instead large amounts of oxygen (which, granted is usually bound to Si in a SiO2 molecule, but not enough to account for the amount in the human body), but also carbon, which is minor, or even non-existent, in pottery clay.

Ergo, you can tell from that sentence in the Quran compare it to our scientific knowledge, and understand that it's not to be taken scientific or literal since clay and human body composition is fundamentally very, very different.

Basically, the only way clay can become human, is to harvest a lot of clay, remove some components radically, or almost completely, and extract others to concentrate them, in the end, you don't end up with clay or pottery clay at all. You can do this the same way with dirt, dust, polluted air, sea water, if you just harvest enough (tons and tons) to extract some parts and discard others, which doesn't make a case for being made out of "clay" any special, but rather it shows that the idea that we come from earth, nature, is the basic concept here.

That verse really means to say, "God made us from nature." Just as evolution says. Evolution only explains how we were made from nature. Simple as that.

 

[Sabour]

Our body isn't made of clay. Their chemical compositions differ way too much.

The composition of clay and human body is different. Clay consist to a large part of silicon (Si), about 40% normally. A human body doesn't have that much silicon at all, but has instead large amounts of oxygen (which, granted is usually bound to Si in a SiO2 molecule, but not enough to account for the amount in the human body), but also carbon, which is minor, or even non-existent, in pottery clay.

Ergo, you can tell from that sentence in the Quran compare it to our scientific knowledge, and understand that it's not to be taken scientific or literal since clay and human body composition is fundamentally very, very different.

Basically, the only way clay can become human, is to harvest a lot of clay, remove some components radically, or almost completely, and extract others to concentrate them, in the end, you don't end up with clay or pottery clay at all. You can do this the same way with dirt, dust, polluted air, sea water, if you just harvest enough (tons and tons) to extract some parts and discard others, which doesn't make a case for being made out of "clay" any special, but rather it shows that the idea that we come from earth, nature, is the basic concept here.

That verse really means to say, "God made us from nature." Just as evolution says. Evolution only explains how we were made from nature. Simple as that.

Elements are the same. What suggests that percentages must be the same?

The verse says We were created from clay, it doesn't say we are clay

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't subscribe to the idea that it was scientists that showed it was a fraud. I would say they couldn't hide it anymore.

Piltdown was just an example on why I won't trust what I hear.

If something contradicts with what Allah tells us, than I am sure I know who is the one at fault. After all there was a time when the brightest minds on earth thought that the earth was flat.

It doesn't matter if you "subscribe to the idea" that it was scientists that showed it was fraud or not any more than it matters if I subscribe to the idea that blue is actually red.

Scientists G.S. Miller, Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner all played active roles in discrediting Piltdown man as a forgery. Probably man more as well. Seriously, look them up.
7

P.S. You're right, you shouldn't just trust everything you hear. You should look into the claim via various different sources and try to determine the veracity of it. Try it with Piltdown man.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree mistake would happen, but this is a huge topic we are are talking about here. It was major news back than.

Anyways philosophy goes by "do anything for the greater good". Evolution theory is viewed as the greater good by a huge number of parties. I can assure you that.
Still there are some scientists who are against evolution.

Too many possibilities here.


Anyways the hoax isn't the strongest reason why I don't believe in evolution. I already explained that.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Ouroboros]

Elements are the same. What suggests that percentages must be the same?

The verse says We were created from clay, it doesn't say we are clay

But if the ratios are off, then it's not clay.

What is clay or not clay. What is jello or not jello. What is water and what is not water all depends on the ratios of the components. The composition is what makes it so.

If you take a human body and totally made a soup out of it, it wouldn't be clay, it would be a stinky goo. You wouldn't be able to make clay from it. There's not enough silicon in the body to make a teaspoon.

So no, our body is not made out of clay, and especially not pottery clay (which lacks molecules that exist in our body).

And if you insist that we're made from molecules found in different kinds of clay, extracted and processed, then it's not literally taken or understood. It's obvious that the word "clay" is not literally clay in the text. If it was, you would be literally clay.

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

Can you think of other reasons it's easier for us to believe in god than it is for us to accept evolution?

...one of the biggest reasons that it is rejected by so many Christians is because it doesn't line up with a literal interpretation of Genesis. I can almost guarantee you that if the Bible was silent about the origins of the Universe...many more fundamentalists would be accepting of evolution than currently is the case.

I agree with Kryptid. Evolution threatens doctrine, and religion being such a political thing, gets stiff opposition from the doctrinaire.

Mooney's article says evolution has prewired our brains to favor teleology and dualism, among other things. I can buy the teleology since indeed one of our major life chores is to keep on top of the plans and designs of other people, or of living creatures such as bears. And we need to recognize sign in the environment even when the conscious agent is gone: bear tracks, a territory mark left on a tree by an enemy tribesman.

I'm less clear about predisposition to dualism. The article's supporting statement is

"Preschool children will claim that the brain is responsible for some aspects of mental life, typically those involving deliberative mental work, such as solving math problems," write Yale psychologists Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg. "But preschoolers will also claim that the brain is not involved in a host of other activities, such as pretending to be a kangaroo” (Chris Mooney, Mother Jones, Nov. 26, ’13).​

But doesn't this sound more like a result of mothers telling their kids at homework time, "Use your brain?" The mothers don't invoke the word "brain" while their kids are pretending to be kangaroos, so the kids associate that word with math but not playtime. I don't think preschool children even have the cognitive maturity to appreciate the mind-body problem yet. They just "be" and "do" without thinking about where their minds are located or whether they are separate from their bodies. Then, they are taught dualism later on, and like riding a bike, thinking of your mind as "inside your head" becomes natural. Egyptians thought it was in the heart. And some cultures don't have a special word for mind as opposed to the bodily person, and just use names or pronouns instead.
..:rainbow1:

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm positive that it would be from those Muslims being educated and informed enough. Especially informed enough to realize evolution doesn't contradict any known religious allegory.

Yes, it does. You clearly are not familiar with all religious teaching.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You always assume victory when you do nothing but stating your opinion.


Dude, listen to others points of view and discuss things.

If you don't want to do this with me than fine. But try doing it with others.



Evolution is not a fact. That is why it is called "THEORY of evolution"

I know a lot of people have already answered this post but one more couldn't hurt.

A theory can be a fact. Once it is fact it still doesn't stop being a theory. Do you think that gravity has yet to be proven? Gravity is just a theory.

The common non-scholarly or non-scientific usage of the term means exactly what you are implying. It is far more like a hypothesis or "guess" or "hunch". But in an academic, scholarly and scientific point a "theory" is a well respected but tentative understanding based upon current evidence. It has no bearing of if it is considered a fact or not. The way most scientific comminuted determine something to be a fact is when it becomes perverse to deny the evidence. I can't think off of the top of my head who first stated that but it has been something that I have kept with me.

Now this leads me into another question. How much do you know about the specific evidence of evolution? In debate forums like this when we "non-experts" get into discussions we tend to use broad terms and leave out specifics. Typically for those that do accept evolution based on evidence it is because it is a heavy task that proves far too much effort for someone to just simply brush it off as if evidence didn't matter. Typically for those that deny evolution they reject the claim in favor of some kind of information propagated in a creationist site that usually cites very few select forms of evidence that already has an explanation. Or in many cases are based off of false information (such as the idea that we can't date anything after a certain age).

 

[psychoslice]

Its easier to believe in a god because you don't have to do any thinking, its all done for you, which is sad.

 

[Sabour]

But if the ratios are off, then it's not clay.

What is clay or not clay. What is jello or not jello. What is water and what is not water all depends on the ratios of the components. The composition is what makes it so.

If you take a human body and totally made a soup out of it, it wouldn't be clay, it would be a stinky goo. You wouldn't be able to make clay from it. There's not enough silicon in the body to make a teaspoon.

So no, our body is not made out of clay, and especially not pottery clay (which lacks molecules that exist in our body).

And if you insist that we're made from molecules found in different kinds of clay, extracted and processed, then it's not literally taken or understood. It's obvious that the word "clay" is not literally clay in the text. If it was, you would be literally clay.

You seem to suggest that humans are clay and only clay, whereas made of clay suggests that clay is only a component.

 

[Sabour]

I know a lot of people have already answered this post but one more couldn't hurt.

A theory can be a fact. Once it is fact it still doesn't stop being a theory. Do you think that gravity has yet to be proven? Gravity is just a theory.

The common non-scholarly or non-scientific usage of the term means exactly what you are implying. It is far more like a hypothesis or "guess" or "hunch". But in an academic, scholarly and scientific point a "theory" is a well respected but tentative understanding based upon current evidence. It has no bearing of if it is considered a fact or not. The way most scientific comminuted determine something to be a fact is when it becomes perverse to deny the evidence. I can't think off of the top of my head who first stated that but it has been something that I have kept with me.

Now this leads me into another question. How much do you know about the specific evidence of evolution? In debate forums like this when we "non-experts" get into discussions we tend to use broad terms and leave out specifics. Typically for those that do accept evolution based on evidence it is because it is a heavy task that proves far too much effort for someone to just simply brush it off as if evidence didn't matter. Typically for those that deny evolution they reject the claim in favor of some kind of information propagated in a creationist site that usually cites very few select forms of evidence that already has an explanation. Or in many cases are based off of false information (such as the idea that we can't date anything after a certain age).

I agree to the part of we are non experts and we leave out the details. As for the evidence, I think major people who say yes to evolution haven't even seen the proof or evidence.

My closest guess is what we have evidence for is adaptation and not a change of species and people would say that the evidence of the first would lead to the second, but the second needs more time. It would be like because we have adaptation, with time more adaptation would take place and we will have change of species. This is only a guess here, I am not sure if its true. The reason I would say that is because once I heard something about the terms macro and micro.

Adaptation would be an acceptable concept. As for the change of species and for us being apes before, I am sure I know the answer to that.

And thanks for your explanation about the theory concept.

 

[Sabour]

What do you mean by that?

Something that falls into discrediting religions teaching because religion is viewed as reasons for war.

 

[Sabour]

Here is a video to explain my position

[youtube]q_uOwT-H8w4[/youtube]
Evolution in Islam - YouTube