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

[shunyadragon]

I seldom agree with atheists, but she said this in a pretty eloquent way, so let me quote

Your motivation here does not represent here intent. She believes in evolution and considers your view an ancient mythical belief incompatible and conflicting with science.

The fact that you reject the sciences of evolution based on intentional ignorance of science and a religious agenda, and in reality she does not.

Your beliefs are the problem not hers

 

[Link]

Your motivation here does not represent here intent. She believes in evolution and considers your view an ancient mythical belief incompatible and conflicting with science.

The fact that you reject the sciences of evolution based on intentional ignorance of science and a religious agenda, and in reality she does not.

Your beliefs are the problem not hers

She rejects both of our views. So I guess we should all reject Quran and believe in some scientists' theories (because they happen to be majority in Western countries)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

She rejects both of our views. So I guess we should all reject Quran and believe in some scientists' theories (because they happen to be majority in Western countries)?

No, once accepts the sciences because all of the evidence agrees with it. This is a problem with theists. They make it personal like the leader or founder of their religion. Darwin is not deified in evolution as Muhammad is. If someone wrote a mean cartoon about him we would probably say "What an idiot!" about the artist we would not advocate the death penalty. And the first people to tell you how Darwin was wrong, and do so accurately, would be scientists. Not creationists. Evolution has moved quite a bit past the works of Darwin.

 

[Link]

No, once accepts the sciences because all of the evidence agrees with it.

Evidence agreeing with it has two ways of being evidence. Circumstantial or proving it necessarily. From what I understand, the only type evolution has is circumstantial. That is the evidence lines up with it. We have mutations to provide change, natural selection to prove the means positive ones get selected, and you have some in between fossils.

However, evidencing lining up with a theory only creates plausibility and perhaps probability. It doesn't prove it definitely.

I suggest the following can counter evolution in theory:

(1) A mathematical model showing positive mutations will be outnumbered by negative mutations even if we make the assumption that radiation caused many more mutations and life was more "mutation" prone at a point for the sake of trying to prove evolution. Probability wise, it maybe a paradox, that cannot be mathematically solved. Because of the nature of negative mutations outnumbering severely the amount of positive, the time where changes are needed for adaptation, in a significant manner, may never come. Instead, if we assume mutations were more even then, then it's problematic because negative mutations would outnumber and this would harm and not benefit the species.

Now (1) is argued and debated, I'm saying, whether true or not, this shows, it's potentially circumstantial. Since this model would prove it impossible.

(2) Binary systems that are irreducible. There are systems, but to not make things complicated, let's focus on something obvious. The mind as in a ghost in the machine type. This is binary, either it has it or does not. The step between non-ghost has to be many mutations which won't occur at the same time and even if they do, not to form the design all together.

Now let's say (2) is wrong, let's say I'm wrong about this. Again, it's a counter argument to it, so if true, it proves it to be false. Therefore, the evidence is not the type that proves it as fact. It's circumstantial at best. At worst, there are better theories that go with the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence agreeing with it has two ways of being evidence. Circumstantial or proving it necessarily. From what I understand, the only type evolution has is circumstantial. That is the evidence lines up with it. We have mutations to provide change, natural selection to prove the means positive ones get selected, and you have some in between fossils.

However, evidencing lining up with a theory only creates plausibility and perhaps probability. It doesn't prove it definitely.

I suggest the following can counter evolution in theory:

(1) A mathematical model showing positive mutations will be outnumbered by negative mutations even if we make the assumption that radiation caused many more mutations and life was more "mutation" prone at a point for the sake of trying to prove evolution. Probability wise, it maybe a paradox, that cannot be mathematically solved. Because of the nature of negative mutations outnumbering severely the amount of positive, the time where changes are needed for adaptation, in a significant manner, may never come. Instead, if we assume mutations were more even then, then it's problematic because negative mutations would outnumber and this would harm and not benefit the species.

Now (1) is argued and debated, I'm saying, whether true or not, this shows, it's potentially circumstantial. Since this model would prove it impossible.

(2) Binary systems that are irreducible. There are systems, but to not make things complicated, let's focus on something obvious. The mind as in a ghost in the machine type. This is binary, either it has it or does not. The step between non-ghost has to be many mutations which won't occur at the same time and even if they do, not to form the design all together.

Now let's say (2) is wrong, let's say I'm wrong about this. Again, it's a counter argument to it, so if true, it proves it to be false. Therefore, the evidence is not the type that proves it as fact. It's circumstantial at best. At worst, there are better theories that go with the evidence.

Mathematical models are of no value unless you think of a way to test them and confirm them. And people have proposed such models in the past and they have always failed and ended up supporting the theory of evolution. What you propose sounds a lot like "Haldane's Dilemma". You might want to look it up. It was shown not to be a dilemma at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

She rejects both of our views. So I guess we should all reject Quran and believe in some scientists' theories (because they happen to be majority in Western countries)?

She does not reject the scientific evidence for evolution. The scientists that support the sciences of evolution is not a popularity contest. It based on over 150 years of research and discoveries, and a vast amount of physical evidence. In the opposing view Creationist beliefs based on literal text interpretations and 'Intelligent Design' have zero, zip, and negatory evidence to base their beliefs on.

I would not even remotely attempt to interpret ancient scriptures without science. The ancient scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam lack provenance to be interpreted literally.

The severe contradiction of the scriptures is your problem if you choose a literal interpretation like many Christians,

Jews for the most part have made peace with the ancient text and do not try to interpret them literally.

 

[Link]

Mathematical models are of no value unless you think of a way to test them and confirm them. And people have proposed such models in the past and they have always failed and ended up supporting the theory of evolution. What you propose sounds a lot like "Haldane's Dilemma". You might want to look it up. It was shown not to be a dilemma at all.

Whether it's true or not, the point is, the evidence that lines up with evolution is circumstantial.

 

[Link]

She does not reject the scientific evidence for evolution.

Nor accepts attempts to reconcile it with God creating humans as his prized creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nor accepts attempts to reconcile it with God creating humans as his prized creation.

God does not Create in conflict with the objective verifiable evidence based om mythology. Humanity being the ultimate goal of Creation does preclude natural Creation by natural processes that the overwhelming evidence demonstrates.

Whether it's true or not, the point is, the evidence that lines up with evolution is circumstantial.

No it does not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evidence agreeing with it has two ways of being evidence. Circumstantial or proving it necessarily. From what I understand, the only type evolution has is circumstantial. That is the evidence lines up with it. We have mutations to provide change, natural selection to prove the means positive ones get selected, and you have some in between fossils.
However, evidencing lining up with a theory only creates plausibility and perhaps probability. It doesn't prove it definitely.

What you understand has nothing to do with science and is patently false. You lack the basic understanding of the sciences of evolution and the evidence that supports it. Your ignorance is compounded by your reference of proof in science. Science does not rely on circumstantial or proof. Proof is for math and logical arguments, and logical arguments are not necessarily true.

The bold is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the sciences of evolution, only your intentional ignorance of science;

I suggest the following can counter evolution in theory:

(1) A mathematical model showing positive mutations will be outnumbered by negative mutations even if we make the assumption that radiation caused many more mutations and life was more "mutation" prone at a point for the sake of trying to prove evolution. Probability wise, it maybe a paradox, that cannot be mathematically solved. Because of the nature of negative mutations outnumbering severely the amount of positive, the time where changes are needed for adaptation, in a significant manner, may never come. Instead, if we assume mutations were more even then, then it's problematic because negative mutations would outnumber and this would harm and not benefit the species.

Now (1) is argued and debated, I'm saying, whether true or not, this shows, it's potentially circumstantial. Since this model would prove it impossible.

(2) Binary systems that are irreducible. There are systems, but to not make things complicated, let's focus on something obvious. The mind as in a ghost in the machine type. This is binary, either it has it or does not. The step between non-ghost has to be many mutations which won't occur at the same time and even if they do, not to form the design all together.

Now let's say (2) is wrong, let's say I'm wrong about this. Again, it's a counter argument to it, so if true, it proves it to be false. Therefore, the evidence is not the type that proves it as fact. It's circumstantial at best. At worst, there are better theories that go with the evidence.

The above has absolutely nothing remotely to do with the current knowledge of the sciences of evolution and the current knowledge of science.

You need peer reviewed scientific source to support your assertions, and none exist.

 

[Link]

God does not Create in conflict with the objective verifiable evidence based om mythology. Humanity being the ultimate goal of Creation does preclude natural Creation by natural processes that the overwhelming evidence demonstrates.

I think she said eloquently as to why it's problematic.

 

[Link]

Science does not rely on circumstantial

the scientific model is:

Hypothesis

Observation

Conclusion

....

Of course, scientists say it's imperfect because new observations make come and then we have no make new hypothesis and conclusion. Philosophers however see further problem in that it's circular and there are many possible conclusions and hypothesis not thought about.

Scientists don't refute what philosophers say, but say for pragmatic reasons, the simplest hypothesis with support of observations will be made the theory.

So it's almost always based on circumstantial evidence.

However, sometimes they have observations and do mathematical proofs, like in physics, and prove a lot through that way.

So it's not always hypothesis, observation, conclusion. But that's the heart and butter scientific method.

Sometimes observations that scientist know about conflict with two theories, and the two theories are against each other, yet they use both of them separately based on the pragmatic use. So they know both of them can't be true, and that both of them probably false, and need an alternative theory, yet all alternative theories complicate equations and uses, so they avoid those complications and stick to the simple.

You don't know too much about science but you like to push it as if it's concrete absolute knowledge.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think she said eloquently as to why it's problematic.

Her intent is it is problematic from the perspective of ancient Creationist views, which present impossible scenarios.

 

[Link]

Her intent is it is problematic from the perspective of ancient Creationist views, which present impossible scenarios.

Nope, she is saying, people who reconcile evolution with God creating humans purposefully, are dishonest. I agree with her on that.

I don't believe in evolution like her. But I do agree with her people who try to reconcile are dishonest.

 

[shunyadragon]

the scientific model is:

Hypothesis

Observation

Conclusion

....

Of course, scientists say it's imperfect because new observations make come and then we have no make new hypothesis and conclusion.

Sort of OK, but incomplete.

Philosophers however see further problem in that it's circular and there are many possible conclusions and hypothesis not thought about.

Philosophies are not based on objective verifiable evidence.

Scientists don't refute what philosophers say, but say for pragmatic reasons, the simplest hypothesis with support of observations will be made the theory.

Scientist do not try to refute what philosophers say, because philosophers lack objective verifiable evidence.

So it's almost always based on circumstantial evidence.

No based on predictable, verifiable evidence. By definition in the English language Circumstantial evidence does not apply in science.

However, sometimes they have observations and do mathematical proofs, like in physics, and prove a lot through that way..

Yes, but they are in agreement with the sciences of evolution. Math is the tool box of science, and there is no conflict with the sciences of evolution

So it's not always hypothesis, observation, conclusion. But that's the heart and butter scientific method.

As far as science is concerned it is always Methodological Naturalism based on objective verifiable evidence.

Sometimes observations that scientist know about conflict with two theories, and the two theories are against each other, yet they use both of them separately based on the pragmatic use. So they know both of them can't be true, and that both of them probably false, and need an alternative theory, yet all alternative theories complicate equations and uses, so they avoid those complications and stick to the simple.

No the science of evolution do not conflict with the theories of physics nor any other science.

Please document with scientific references from Physics or any other science if you believe you are correct.

You don't know too much about science but you like to push it as if it's concrete absolute knowledge.

I am a scientist with more than 50 years experience and never made this claim. and no one with a basic knowledge in science would make this claim. Apparently upi lack the basic understanding of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope, she is saying, people who reconcile evolution with God creating humans purposefully, are dishonest. I agree with her on that.

I don't believe in evolution like her. But I do agree with her people who try to reconcile are dishonest.

There is no need to reconcile the facts of the sciences of evolution as the basis for the nature of life on earth. God Creating the nature of our existence does not Create contradictions based on the literal interpretation of ancient literal scripture without science.

If you have a problem with the sciences of evolution you are the one that has to lif=ve with the contradiction based on an ancient worldview without science.

So far your arguments with a tragic misuse of science reflect a lack of knowledge of science.

 

[Link]

If you are a scientist, all the more reason for me not to trust the way they analyze things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether it's true or not, the point is, the evidence that lines up with evolution is circumstantial.

So what? You are using terms that you do not understand. Circumstantial evidence can be very very strong. DNA testing that shows that "You ARE the father" is circumstantial evidence. Saying "circumstantial evidence" is not a refutation. It is an admission of ignorance on your part.

 

[Link]

So what? You are using terms that you do not understand. Circumstantial evidence can be very very strong. DNA testing that shows that "You ARE the father" is circumstantial evidence. Saying "circumstantial evidence" is not a refutation. It is an admission of ignorance on your part.

Yes circumstantial can be very strong especially when all other chances of other events are zero or that there is none for any alternative. Circumstantial evidence is very useful in court, because, you make the assumption both sides will have it, and if one side does not, even though it's not a certainty, the jury can rule in favor of the one with it and against the one who lacks it. This is why "reasonable doubt" is explained to juries. So they know they don't have been proven beyond doubt, but reasonable doubt, means circumstantial evidence is useful.

However, what I was showing is that, there can be counter theories to evolution, and so it's obviously of the circumstantial type.

At least you agree unlike the supposed scientist who can't even admit that much.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you are a scientist, all the more reason for me not to trust the way they analyze things.

It is same scientific basis for computers, medicine, airplanes and cars. You have not presented one scrape of evidence or knowledge that would lead me to question the sciences of evolution nor any other science/ All the sciences are in harmony, and virtually 95% of all scientist support evolution base don the objective evidence.

Where are your references to support your argument. Hine: There are none!!!