The problem of Creationism in Islam rejecting the science of evolution.

[AdamjEdgar]

If there would have been global flood covering even the mountain tops, we would probably find marine fossils from those areas, do you agree with this?

If we find such fossils, in such places, it is evidence for that there could have been such a flood. But, obviously the reason for the fossils could maybe be something else also. The point is only to say, if it happened, it would have left certain signs. And we can see the signs, therefore it may have happened.

Answers in Genesis is no authority for me, and it should not overrule truth and reason/logic.

Why look up for evidence, what about the vast deposits of fossil fuels buried below? I think these are generally consistent with a global flood.

The point of Answers in Genesis is not as an absolute authority...no scientific interpretation can be that. The point is, they find evidence that aligns with the biblical narrative. There is nothing wrong with that and few others take any interest in trying to sort out the theological mess Theistic Evolution has caused in its dependency on naturalism over the bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah hello...that was a published reference! You know that right? I think I smell trouble..you attempted to rebutt a published reference without peer reviewed reference of your own.

The published reference referred to previous references that called the Biblical claim the the Existence of Hittites was "fake." It was true in the past the existence of Hittites were not documented by independent sources, but I did not believe academics sources considered the claim as "fake."

Nonetheless, yea the Bible contains many fact, people and places in history, but it remains not historically accurate.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why look up for evidence, what about the vast deposits of fossil fuels buried below? I think these are generally consistent with a global flood.

The point of Answers in Genesis is not as an absolute authority...no scientific interpretation can be that. The point is, they find evidence that aligns with the biblical narrative. There is nothing wrong with that and few others take any interest in trying to sort out the theological mess Theistic Evolution has caused in its dependency on naturalism over the bible.

First, Theistic Evolution is not a mess. It is simply accepting the objectively verified sciences of evolution and the history of our universe ~13,5 billion years old as reflecting Creation by God.

The unbelievable mess is trying to justify the Genesis and Noah flood accounts as any sort of factual history. There is no objective verifiable evidence to consider these narrative anything more than ancient myths compiled after 600 BCE reflecting the beliefs and culture of the time without science. I am a scientist and a Theistic Evolutionist.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, explain if you can, how did it came about, if you claim that you know this

No problem. The science of Genetics and the objective verifiable evidence of how DNA and mutations are passed in each generation.

 

[justaguy313]

No problem. The science of Genetics and the objective verifiable evidence of how DNA and mutations are passed in each generation.

Genetics of whom? I'm talking about origins. The prime source of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If there would have been global flood covering even the mountain tops, we would probably find marine fossils from those areas, do you agree with this?
If we find such fossils, in such places, it is evidence for that there could have been such a flood. But, obviously the reason for the fossils could maybe be something else also. The point is only to say, if it happened, it would have left certain signs. And we can see the signs, therefore it may have happened.

No, I don't. Those marine fossils are there as a result of the ways in which mountains form from the sea bottom.

A flood of the magnitude you are talking about would not produce marine fossils on mountaintops. Rather, the intense waters would erode mountaintops and deposit the marine fossil sediments into valleys. Sea shells aren't found in sediments that weren't formerly covered by the ocean.

And the fossils we find there are not scattered about as though re-deposited through a mass flood. Rather, they are in the same position they would have been when they were alive. There are fossilized tracks and borrows left by these creatures showing again, that these regions were once under the ocean.

Answers in Genesis is no authority for me, and it should not overrule truth and reason/logic.

Agreed. So let's starting using some reason and logic in regards to the above points.

 

[shunyadragon]

Genetics of whom?

Genetics of ALL life if you want to carry the argument beyond the 'chicken and the egg.' The same principles of the evolution of life through genetic mutation and natural selection in response to changing environments that apple to to the seelctive breeding of chickence from their wild ancestors in Southeast Asia.

I'm talking about origins. The prime source of it.

You initially brought up the question of the 'chicken and the egg' and I answered that.

If we are going to take into consideration of the evolution of ALL life the same principles of biology and genetics apply back to the first most primitive prokaryotic (bacteria and archaea) at the point life began with abiogenesis.

In this dialogue I assume from the beginning as before you do not accept the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis, which is the reason why you do not accept my answers to your questions, nor are you willing to do the research to understand the science involved on your own.

 

[justaguy313]

Genetics of ALL life if you want to carry the argument beyond the 'chicken and the egg.' The same principles of the evolution of life through genetic mutation and natural selection in response to changing environments that apple to to the seelctive breeding of chickence from their wild ancestors in Southeast Asia.

You initially brought up the question of the 'chicken and the egg' and I answered that.

If we are going to take into consideration of the evolution of ALL life the same principles of biology and genetics apply back to the first most primitive prokaryotic (bacteria and archaea) at the point life began with abiogenesis.

In this dialogue I assume from the beginning as before you do not accept the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis, which is the reason why you do not accept my answers to your questions, nor are you willing to do the research to understand the science involved on your own.

I have stated stance of the Holy Household of Muhammad about abiogenesis in a clear writings. To state that this is archaic or non valid argument is no argument at all

If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.

Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is an ignoramus who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah (swt) is far above what the heretics say.

And in case an infant was born with mature intellect, he would have been bewildered in this world so strange to his, in an unrecognisable environment abounding with animals and birds of varied forms all around, which would be focussed to his vision every moment of the day.

Consider it in the manner of a man migrating to another country from the prison of one country. If he has a perfect intellect, you will see him perplexed and astounded. he can neither learn the foreign language soon enough, nor acquire the etiquette and decorum of the place. On the other hand, one who is taken as a prisoner to a strange land in his early days when his intellect is immature, will soon learn the language, etiquette and manners of the place.

Similarly, if a child had been born with mature intellect, he would have been astounded on opening his eyes and seeing such varied assortment, different kinds of forms, and distinctive imagery of unity and disunity. For a long time, he would not have understood as to whence he had come and where he had arrived and whether all that he was seeing was a dream.

Then, if he had been born of mature intellect, he would have felt disgusted and degraded on finding himself being carried about in the lap, being fed with milk, being wrapped up in bandages(the manner of the Arabs) and being laid in the cradle - all these proceedings being necessary for the infants because of their soft and delicate bodies.

There would not have been, if they had been born with a mature intellect, this sweetness, nor that sweetness, nor the considerations for the infants in the minds of the adults which springs generally from fondling the untutored children because of' their artlessness creating a particular attention for them. As such he is born in this world without an understanding for anything, quite unaware of the world and what lies therein. He views all these things with his underdeveloped brain and inadequate understanding, and so does not feel perplexed.

His intellect and understandings by degrees, slowly from time to time, little by little develop, so as to introduce him gradually to the things around and to accustom his brain accordingly in order to habituate him thereto without further need for curiosity and wonderment, thus enabling him to seek his sustenance serenely with understanding and planning, to bend his efforts thereto and to learn the lessons of obedience, error and disobedience.

And behold! There are other aspects of the matter. If the infant had been born mature intellect with an understanding of his functions, there would have been few occasions for the sweetness felt in the nature of the offspring, and the exigency, under which the parents find a full time pre-occupation with the affairs of the young ones, would not have arisen.

Love and affection, felt for ordinary children, following the inconvenience undergone for their sake, would not subsist between the parents and their offspring. Because of their mature intellect, the children would not have needed parental care. A separation would have taken place just after birth of the infant from its parents. Even a mother or a sister would have been strangers to him and as such within wedlock limits.

-from tradition of Mufaddal

 

[BrightShadow]

The problem of fundamentalist Creationism in Islam​

Today, 09:35 AM

Before 18th-19th fundamentalist Creationism was dominant in the Christian and Islamic world based on a plain reading of scripture. The Christian West the advances in science and the advent of the Age of Enlightenment has given the rise of the academic acceptance of science, and in moderate Christian churches, but in the fundamentalist Christian Churches literal Creationism remains dominante.

Because of the Quran belief in a literal Pentateuch a literal interpretation of Genesis Creation remains the over whelmingly dominate view in Islam.

Turkey was considered a growing moderate voice in Islam in recent history in government, science, and the separation of religion and state, but like to some degree in the Christian West the plain reading of the scripture leads to strong literal Creationism and there rejection of science, Despite reform movement the literal plan reading to scriptures remains a force that rejects science, and the separation of religion and state.

I believe Turkey represents the trend to return to the plain reading and interpretation of ancient tribal scripture in Islam.

Source: Creationism by country - Wikipedia.


Turkey

Source: Creationism by country - Wikipedia.



Following the 1980 Turkish coup d'état, the military leadership and subsequent governments promoted Islamicism to promote national unity, which eventually included translation and distribution of materials from the US Institute for Creation Research and creationist high-school textbooks.[29] A survey published in 2008 found that about 25% of people in Turkey accepted evolution as an explanation for how life came to exist.[61] In 2008, Richard Dawkins' website was banned in Turkey;[62] the ban was lifted in July 2011.[63] As of 2009, creationism had become the government's official position on origins.[56] In 2009, the Turkish government agency Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK), publisher of the popular Turkish science magazine Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), was accused of stripping a cover story about the life and work of Charles Darwin from the March 2009 issue of the Council's publication just before it went to press. The planned portrait of Darwin for the magazine's cover was replaced and the editor of the magazine, Çiğdem Atakuman, claims that she was removed from her post.[64][65][66][67] Most of the Turkish population expressed support for the censorship.[68] In 2012, it was found that the government's internet content filter, designed to prevent the public having access to pornographic websites, also blocked the words 'evolution' and 'Darwin' on one mode of the filter.[69]

In 2017, Turkey announced plans to end the teaching of evolution in Turkish schools, with chairman of the Board of Education, Alpaslan Durmuş, claiming it was too complicated and "controversial" a topic for students.

Creationism vs Evolution
Why one or the other? Both should be taught IMO
Both can be true to an extent!

Imagine we discover a planet that has undergone evolution and many animals are roaming around. We decided to send a couple of human there. Lets call them Adam and Eve. They start living there and have offspring and start a new generation of human race out there. Many many years later - someone called "Darwin" comes around. What would Darwin think when he looks around and find all those apparent evidence of evolution? He obviously might think - he is also a result of that same evolution process! Many folks are also thinking like Darwin and thus have no faith in Creationism. Who are they fooling?

This is why one must not blindly accept Darwin's theory because there are too many variables.... too many holes. Darwin was only half right (IMO).

Remember - some of the religious doctrines speak of devil approaching Eve as a talking serpent. Question arises - where did he see serpents? Where did he get the idea to come to Eve as a serpent?

Since neither side can prove their stance - both should be taught. IMO

 

[shunyadragon]

Creationism vs Evolution
Why one or the other? Both should be taught IMO
Both can be true to an extent!

Evolution does not reject Creationism as our physical existence Created by God. The sciences are neutral as to the existence of God or Gods. As far as both being true to certain extent is likely a problem as to what on considers true and which of the many conflicting versions Creation would be true.

Imagine we discover a planet that has undergone evolution and many animals are roaming around. We decided to send a couple of human there. Lets call them Adam and Eve. They start living there and have offspring and start a new generation of human race out there. Many many years later - someone called "Darwin" comes around. What would Darwin think when he looks around and find all those apparent evidence of evolution? He obviously might think - he is also a result of that same evolution process! Many folks are also thinking like Darwin and thus have no faith in Creationism. Who are they fooling?

This a bit too hypothetical for me to respond to.

This is why one must not blindly accept Darwin's theory because there are too many variables.... too many holes. Darwin was only half right (IMO).

Not a good reason why. Actually it is best we refer to the sciences of evolution and not Darwinism Yes Darwin proposed a Theory of Evolution, but is misleading to represent the contemporary sciences of Evolution. The sciences of evolution does not have many variables and no holes. This is a misleading view of the sciences of evolution, because yes i science we have not discovered everything about evolution, but the sciences have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt as the only scientific explanation of the history of life on earth

;

Remember - some of the religious doctrines speak of devil approaching Eve as a talking serpent. Question arises - where did he see serpents? Where did he get the idea to come to Eve as a serpent?

Since neither side can prove their stance - both should be taught. IMO

First, science does not prove anything. It is based on objectively verifiable evidence as to the physical history of life on earth. It is neutral to religious claims of the existence of God and the highly variable beliefs in Creation. There are no conflicting controversial versions of the sciences of evolution and the history of our universe.

Different religions and churches have different beliefs and versions of Creationism from Theistic Evolution. Literal Biblical Creation, versions of Intelligent Design, Islamic versions, Hindu Vedic Creation, and other conflicting versions. Only the belief in Theistic Evolution is compatible with science, and it remains a theological view of Creation.

All these versions are being taught in the Houses of Worship of the many various version. The only way to teach these religious beliefs is in courses in Comparative Religions, and not in science class. Many Christians would object to an objective comparison of the different religions with Christianity.

 

[BrightShadow]

Not a good reason why. Actually it is best we refer to the sciences of evolution and not Darwinism Yes Darwin proposed a Theory of Evolution, but is misleading to represent the contemporary sciences of Evolution. The sciences of evolution does not have many variables and no holes. This is a misleading view of the sciences of evolution, because yes i science we have not discovered everything about evolution, but the sciences have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt as the only scientific explanation of the history of life on earth

That is your opinion!
Sciences of evolution (as you call it) has many holes. IMO. It is incomplete because it doesn't consider many variables. Does it take into the account that Adam and Eve could have arrived here on earth as fully humans and then at some point some of their off-springs (generations later) could have been raped by apes? Apes that came out of the so-called ongoing evolution and that were already roaming around here on planet earth? There is always a chance of cross contaminations that way. In this automated world (where we seemingly don't see direct evidence of God - anything is possible!
To disregard creationism is foolish. IMO

Things in some of the major religions are mentioned in a need to know basis. Everything is not required to be revealed to establish faith in a monotheistic idea of a God. I believe that is the idea why we are here. IMO.
Evolution is just a theory. Treat it as one!

 

[shunyadragon]

That is your opinion!

Not my opinion, based on science as science.

Sciences of evolution (as you call it) has many holes. IMO. It is incomplete because it doesn't consider many variables. Does it take into the account that Adam and Eve could have arrived here on earth as fully humans and then at some point some of their off-springs (generations later) could have been raped by apes? Apes that came out of the so-called ongoing evolution and that were already roaming around here on planet earth? There is always a chance of cross contaminations that way. In this automated world (where we seemingly don't see direct evidence of God - anything is possible!
To disregard creationism is foolish. IMO

Good thing you included IMO, because the above is not based on the objectively verifiable foundation of the sciences of evolution.

By the way what is your academic background in the sciences of evolution to make such outrageous claims other than IMO.

As far an alien Adam and Eve no. All humans are genetically related to our primate relatives and ancestors on earth demonstrating that humans evolved on earth. Homo Sapiens have been around for over 300,000 years

There is absolutely no evidence for any such 'cross contaminations?' from outside our solar system. There is evidence for amino acids arriving on meteorites that contributed t the origins of life, but nothing more.

I cannot accept hypothetical mythology and science fiction without evidence.

Things in some of the major religions are mentioned in a need to know basis. Everything is not required to be revealed to establish faith in a monotheistic idea of a God. I believe that is the idea why we are here. IMO.

This remains a religious subject covered in the churches, and comparative religion classes and nothing with a scientific basis for a science class.

Evolution is just a theory. Treat it as one!

What other theory can you offer is based on the objectively verifiable evidence?

 

[BrightShadow]

As far an alien Adam and Eve no. All humans are genetically related to our primate relatives and ancestors on earth demonstrating that humans evolved on earth. Homo Sapiens have been around for over 300,000 years

There is absolutely no evidence for any such 'cross contaminations?' from outside our solar system.

If you no longer have the original sample - how would you use science to figure out if at certain point cross contaminations occurred or not?

Similarly - unless you have a time machine to go back in time and affirm that human race is a direct result of evolution and that human race indeed did not start from Adam and Eve - you cannot use science to disprove creationism either. As far as I know - even the clay that was used to make Adam was from planet earth . So, I wouldn't say Adam and Eve were aliens. I just implied that to show you the hole in the theory of evolution!

Science's hands are tied behind its back and it can only investigate with the available tools it possess. When the tools are inadequate to perform a task - the answers provided by science would not be accurate. If I give you a tiny mirror to tell me how a certain mole on your back looks like - you cannot describe it accurately unless you use two larger mirrors or a camera to take a picture of it. If you only have that tiny mirror and you cannot catch a glimpse of your mole with it - you shouldn't look at a different mole on another part of your body and start describing it. That is what Darwin did with his theory of Evolution.

When you are using science to investigate religious teachings or anything supernatural - you are limiting yourself even one step further because the tools science possess (are not and may never be adequate to perform such tasks).
In other words, the scope of your research would always be limited to the inadequate tools at hand. That is why to broaden your horizon and to get the bigger picture -regarding certain religious beliefs - "faith" is a prerequisite at times.

Limiting oneself only to the scientific methodology- is foolish IMO especially when science is lacking the right tools.

 

[1213]

Why look up for evidence, what about the vast deposits of fossil fuels buried below? I think these are generally consistent with a global flood.

I agree with that. I think they are a great evidence for the flood.

The point of Answers in Genesis is not as an absolute authority...no scientific interpretation can be that. The point is, they find evidence that aligns with the biblical narrative.

Ok, I think that is nice.

 

[1213]

A flood of the magnitude you are talking about would not produce marine fossils on mountaintops. Rather, the intense waters would erode mountaintops and deposit the marine fossil sediments into valleys. Sea shells aren't found in sediments that weren't formerly covered by the ocean.

If you think so, I don't see how you can believe mountains rise in slow pace.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I just want to jump back a little to the following point made...

I have not yet described my Theology. In this post you are dishonestly projecting false claims as to what other people believe in a hostile and aggressive manner. It is considered inadequate by those who reject science based on an ancient tribal agenda.

Science is not above anything. There are many diverse conflicting accounts of Creation and the history of our physical existence. Science simply must remain neutral to the claims of religions and base scientific knowledge on the objective verifiable evidence.

Actually none of the above is true of those who reject the inerrancy of scripture in both Islam and Christianity. By far most that propose TE is that the Bible was compiled and edited based on the culture and times of what they believed.

An example of the limited knowledge of those that compiled the Bible is the existence of polar ice and Ice Ages. They had no knowledge of this and did not record it in their view of Creation.

Not true. Those who believe in TE believe the knowledge of humanity evolves over time through Revelation. Actually in virtually all religions of the world the writing reflect the knowledge of the people at the time.

They are not claim God is learning. You are continuing dishonestly and aggressively falsely projecting on other people what you demand what they believe.


First archaeology has not discovered that the Bible is right. In fact the reverse is true.

Yo have not responded to the problems with the Pentateuch. If Moses was so educated why did he not leave any written records at the time. In fact the Pentateuch was compiled after ~600 BCE. The Hebrew language did not even exist at that time. The authors of the Pentateuch recorded what they believed at the time without any prior written text.

Please respond to the following:

How can Noah's flood be supported by contemporary science and history when there is absolutely no evidence of such an event? In fact it is physically impossible,
How can a Biblical Creation story thousands of years old in the Creation stories of the Bible and the Quran be reconciled with scientific evidence of an earth and universe billions years old?

There is objective verifiable evidence of humans existing more than 250,000 years ago and billions of years of evolving live in earth's history. Your intentional ignorance of science cannot change the evidence.

the part of the above post i want to focus in on is the following...

By far most that propose TE is that the Bible was compiled and edited based on the culture and times of what they believed.​

I belive that the above statement has a huge problem that is destructive of that TEism claim (ie knowing original language and culture)

TEists use that to support the notion that Genesis and Job are both allegorical books and do not contain literal historical accounts.

At first, the Job example doesnt appear to be a problem, however it is a massive problem and here's why:

1. The book of Job is almost certainly to have been set back in the time either shortly before or during Abrahams life. It predates the more well known writings of Moses by something like 500 years.
2. Satan enterred the heavenly council and requested permission to attack Job physically 500 years before the law of Moses was given at Sinai
3. If the writings of Moses and Job are largely an allegory...we are to take a general principle away from them rather than literal history, this then means that the general biblical principle to be taken away from Job 1 is that God had already given Satan general permission to attack all of those who are followers of the God in heaven! So contrary to what TEists claim, satan does not need to continually ask God for permission to attack and corrupt this world and all individuals who live upon it...he already has that permission universally as outlined in Job 1!

The above is completely damning for TE theology. They cannot rely on the claims of Genesis allegory...the book of Job predates the writings of Moses and therefore God had already given allegorical permission to Satan to tempt and corrupt all creation! Lets not forget, Satan used both the heathen bandits to attack and steel Job's flocks and the weather (a windstorm) to destroy the house his children were in!

in an allegorical sense, Job would be considered the followers of God, and the heathen bandits secular non believers. The windstorm is natural processes and Satan was given universal permission to attack the followers of God using living organisms and other naturalistic phenomonom.

We can also add to the above Genesis 3

17And to Adam He said:“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat, cursed is the ground because of you; through toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.​

18Both thorns and thistles it will yield for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.​

19By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread, until you return to the ground— because out of it were you taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”​

​

If we consider Genesis 3 in addition to Job 1, i think it is quite evident that God gave universal permission to Satan in a manner in which most people wont even think about...God is not the one making the choice. God created mankind with free will and in man choosing to rebel, the consequences of that choice allow Satan entry into corrupt everything and our environment! This is evidenced by the curse placed upon all nature in Genesis 3 17-19 (aside from the curse upon eve in childbirth)

So no matter which way a TEist attempts to manipulate the scriptures, they are still stuffed even when using the allegory argument for the writings of Moses and the book of Job! The bible is so consistent with its theology, false doctrine is immediately exposed and the allegory argument for Genesis flood is clearly wrong and the book of Job, written long before Moses writings, is our proof TEism is false even when attempting to use the allegory argument. It simply doesnt work and is self defeating!

(note i'm not sure ir we can prove Moses wrote job...so i separate the book from his writings for this post)

 

[Muffled]

False, your intentional ignorance of science is profound. First science does not prove anything. The sciences of evolution have been falsified as the only possible explanation available for the history of life.

Since God is a subjective belief, belief in Creation in and of itself remains subjective and cannot falsified by scientific methods. Intelligent Design remains i subjective religious belief.

It is glaringly apparent that clinging to ancient mythology and the rejection of science plagues both Christianity and Islam and not relevant to today.

I believe God is not subjective. Knowing God personally is subjective. I believe God speaks the truth about creation and science fantasizes about evolution.

 

[Muffled]

I believe in design and believe it can be proven by science.

How a person can view the double helix and think it isn't a design is beyond me. Not only that the genome is so complicated that great minds are still leaning about it which suggest a great mind came up with it.

 

[Muffled]

Then why hasn't it been proven by science?

There is no need for proof. It either is by definition or it isn't: an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration.

 

[McBell]

There is no need for proof.

There is when it is flat out claimed it can be proven.
Which is the claim that my post you replied to is in reply to.