There are a lot of factors to that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The problem of Creationism in Islam rejecting the science of evolution.
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
I have no doubt in my mind there are a whole long list of excuses for it.
Your responses need to be more specific to the issue of the thread
That is hardly a problem.
Instead, that there is so much political and presumably religious support for the denial of science in favor of so-called "Creationism" is a very, very big problem.
As I said, there are a lot of factors.
Is this code for "there are ungodly people attempting to hide the truth"?
I think if you can prove Evolution to be true (that humans evolved to become humans from apes) than you can prove Islam to be false. I don't see how the interpretation of Adam (a) and verses about that as well as hadiths can go with "evolution science".
That said, what you posted about bacteria and evolution. I study computer science and so in designing some programs, we design it with "inheritance". This is useful for many reasons. The same can be true about God's design. It has appearance of inheritance and evolution same way a good program that uses inheritance does. It's useful and you showed one application why. Another is to make genetics useful to us and in future this can even extend to re-growing limbs who knows.
The appearance of evolution can be similar reasons for inheritance in a computer program. There is no reason to assume otherwise.
Also, irreducible complexity is true for things like the conscious mind. It's probably true of other systems as well. That proves design and there are verses pointing to the subject of consciousness as it points specifically to creatures with it as a proof/sign.
There are also math wise, if you understand probability and how many more bad mutations you would have to get before good mutations, I believe major change in time for adaption by chance is impossible.
Also, Quran talks about that sustenance for a lot of God's creatures is provided by him. This means "instinct" is not what science believes but rather animals obey God and have trust in God. They don't just brainlessly follow instinct, but rather, trust in their nature and guidance from God.
Also animals are accountable as everything else is. This is because things either submit to God willingly or unwillingly in the universe. The ones who hate submitting to God will be accounted for it as disbelievers.
That much is about as certain as anything can be.
To who and why?
You could probably decide that anything that you want to believe in is true yet perceived by humans (including human science) as false (or vice-versa) due to god wanting it to be so.
Anything could be decreed miraculously true or miraculously false, regardless of discernible evidence.
With that one proviso, biological evolution is biological fact. So is specifically the evolution of humans from other primates.
You can doubt it, but there isn't any actual fact to sustain that doubt.
McBell
Unbound
See post #22
All you will get is excuse after excuse as to why it has not been done.
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
I am sure in your mind you believe this to be true, but for many your belief in evolution over the scriptures and faith in God and His Word is foolishness because it only shows you do not know God.
It is not lying to you by telling you the truth. You claim to believe in God yet your words tell a different story.
Funny that those who have contributed the most to science (not the theory of evolution) are the minority that do not believe in the theory of evolution. It seems God has a sense of humor bringing to nothing the wisdom of this world which is foolishness in Gods eyes.
Religious belief contribute more to science than you think just not according to your version of it without God, which I believe is not science.
In your mind as an unbeliever perhaps to you that is true. But to those who know God, your words have no truth in them.
Then do no practice dishonesty and lying science built on mythology.
To be honest, I do not really care if you liked our discussion or not. I am not sorry for telling you the truth. What you believe or do not believe is your choice. Others will benefit from our discussion even if you do not.
I know science, believe in God, and the harmony of science and religion. I do not believe in a dishonest lying agenda based on an ancient tribal agenda. Science cannot falsify the existence of God not Intelligent Design a hypothesis based on religious belief of a Designer.
You are telling what you believe, not truth. Truth is a higher standard. Science cannot deal with subjective beliefs based on religious beliefs like ID.
It is not funny. Science is science, and not a religious agenda.
It is not science when you accuse science of lying based on an ancient tribal agenda whether God exists or not.
Science must remain independent of religious beliefs like ID.
That is what ID is, lying science based on mythology.
This a given for someone who considers over 95%+ scientists, and 98%+ Nobel prize winners are lying when they support and develop the sciences of evolution through research and discoveries instead of dishonestly jerry rigging statistics to justify an ancient tribal agenda.
Last edited:
There is a long history of conflict between science and religion. The problem is not whether Judaism, Christianity or Islam are true or false religion. The problem is whether they should be interpreted literally in opposition to science. After the Jewish Reformation in the 18th and 19th centuries Judaism mostly gave up a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch, and based a plan reading of the Pentateuch for inspiration, allegorical symbolic meaning for the human relationship with God. After the Age of Enlightenment in the Christian West Christianity progressively became divided between a progressive allegorical symbolic meaning of much of the Pentateuch. Islam did move toward a more progressive view of the Pentateuch, but in recent history Islam is progressively moving back to a literal Pentateuch and Quran.
Example is literally the Quran states that Creation is literally six days as in Genesis. There are later interpretations gave each day a possible longer time span.. I have heard figures of 50,000 years and longer.
The sciences of evolution, physics and Cosmology are fact hassed sciences using the same methods as those that developed computers and flight. Science is consistent and predictable.
Yes, like the fundamentalist Christians that cling to a literal ancient text the Islam today that rejects science becomes a false religion based on an ancient world view that is no longer relevant today. A real consistent religion does exist legitimately in a world of contradictions,
In the Golden Age Islam was enlightened far beyond the Christian West, but as the star of Islam faded science moved past.
The Baha'i Faith believes in the harmony of science and Religion where the understanding of the nature of our physical existence is accepted as the evolving knowledge of science. The scripture describing the physical nature of our existence is understood and harmonized in light of the knowledge of science. Scripture is in spiritual languages and does not directly translate to the sciences.
Last edited:
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
Then to not practice a dishonest lying agenda based on the lies of others that do not believe in God (atheism).
God and the intelligent design of a creator or creation are not separate from each other.
No you are telling us what you believe. You are not telling the truth. Real science is not the subjective belief of the theory of evolution.
Sure it is funny. You try and separate science from God and creation, yet it is those who believe in God and intelligent design that have contributed most to science even though Christian scientists are the minority of those practicing science as a profession. I can see this is something that seems to upset you.
In science people agree and disagree about many things. That does not mean those people are lying. It is a difference of opinion.
I agree. However, experimental science is not based around if we believe in God or do not believe in God. It is based around the experimental method to prove or disprove hypothesis. Theoretical science however like evolution is based around the assumption there is no God without being able to demonstrate or provide any evidence that there is no God. Therefore the theory of evolution is based on the religion of Atheism and is not science but an assumption there is no God therefore it is not science.
Well we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the 85% of the majority of noble prize winners who also believe in intelligent design and God of the Christians and Jews are also in disagreement with you so I think I am in good company. Lets be honest, science has never been in conflict with those who believe in God. The majority of Scientists that are noble prize winners believe in God. The conflict has always been between those who Believe in God and those who do not.
Last edited:
The 6 days has to do with the journey and ascension and descent of light and there are six stages before the final which makes seventh.
The Quran talks about sky, sun and moon created before earth, in one Surah, but in a Surah talking about the 6 days, the order is inversed. This seemingly a contradiction, however, it's obvious to me, the one about "and the earth thereby after that he expanded/oval shaped it" is literal, while the 7 days is not. The description of earth to food to heavenly sky by which is adorned the lights of Ahlulbayt (a), is about the stages of the heart in ascension. This especially if you keep in mind what Quran has said about heavenly sky and lights therein and the throne.
But you were talking about evolution, which is a different thing. That, I don't see compatible with the Quran.
I notice you conditionally reinterpret and try to resolve some conflicts and neglect science when faced with the sciences of evolution. It is not compatible with a literal Quran, which is the problem with a literal interpretation of scripture. You are presenting a picture with many contradiction with the contemporary world without even considering evolution. You face similar unresolvable contradictions as @3rdAngel in justifying your agenda.
.
The sciences of evolution are in harmony with ALL the sciences of Biology, Genetics, Physics, Geology and Paleontology, and a Cosmology of a universe13.8 billion years old, and a solar system 4.5 billion years old. All the major universities of the world support the sciences of evolution.
Do you believe in a universe ~13.8 billion years old, and an earth ~4.5 billion years old?
Last edited:
I'd rather be sincere to truth. If evolution is true, then just leave Quran. If Quran is true, leave evolution. We don't have to follow the insincere path of others towards truth.
You have not provided an adequate explanation for your contradictory explanation of the conflicts in the age of the earth, time of Creation.
Do you believe in a universe ~13.8 billion years old, and an earth ~4.5 billion years old?