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

[shunyadragon]

How can a book be wrong by your standards then?

Not my standards. They are the standards of independent Methodological Naturalism based on objective verifiable evidence.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

How can a book be wrong by your standards then?

If a book has false statements that contradict science and logic, AND the author of the book meant to express a literal meaning.

But in my view, the Quran has many statements that the Author was not speaking literally.

A hadith attributed to Muhammad is essential in understanding the inward aspects of the Quran, and it is fundamental to Quranic exegesis:[10]

"The Quran possesses an external appearance and a hidden depth, an exoteric meaning and an esoteric meaning. This esoteric meaning in turn conceals an esoteric meaning so it goes on for seven esoteric meanings (seven depths of hidden depth)."
There is a statement made by the Imam, Jafar Sadiq (d. 765 CE):[10]

"The book of God comprises four things: the statement set down, the allusions, the hidden meanings relating to the supra-sensible world, and the exalted spiritual doctrines. The literal statement is for the ordinary believers. The allusions are the concern of the elite. The hidden meanings pertain to the friends of God. The exalted spiritual doctrines are the province of the prophets."

Every book can be asserted to not mean to express a literal meaning though where it's wrong.

Yes, this can be claimed for every book that has mistakes to justify its errors, but it is not a valid or acceptable reason in every case, rather could be an excuse.

It is about recognizing if the Author meant to convey a literal meaning, or a metaphor, a similitude, or a symbol.
For example, if a historian writes a book, and later it was discovered that there are evidence contradictory to the book, one cannot claim the historian was speaking spiritually or metaphorically. A historian writes literal events. There is no reason for a history book to be symbolic.
But if a Poet or Novel Writer writes a book, it is more valid to say, they didn't mean everything literal facts.

When it comes to Quran, its Author already had said that some of its verses are Mutishabihat, and its Taweel is only known to God chose ones. Its Author already said that He speaks similitudes and can mislead many. Therefore to say, everything in Quran is meant to be literal contradicts with what Quran itself says.
Then, it is the matter of recognizing when the Author is speaking literal and when speaking non-literally. This is about recognizing case by case, or verse by verse if the Author is speaking literally or not.
In this case, understanding the reason why in a particular verse Author would speak non-literal is the key to accept and believe it. For example, when Quran says, Allah created Adam with clay, if I see that as Figurative, I must have a valid reason, as to why would the Author didn't speak scientifically? If God indeed spoke these words, why wouldnt God say the science behind evolution, rather than, speaking Figuratively.

 

[shunyadragon]

We share DNA also with pigs, bananas, chickens, cats, mice and slugs, but does this mean that we developed from them?
This is a strawman argument.

How Much DNA Do Humans Share With Other Animals and Plants?

beenhereKey Takeaways: Nearly 99.9% of human DNA is identical to that of other humans. Cats and humans share about 90% of their genetic makeup. Around 85% of human DNA is shared with mice. Humans and pigs share a substantial portion of DNA, about 98%. Over half of human DNA, or…

thednatests.com

Sharing DNA does not mean "we developed from them." The DNA relationships in evolution is determined by progressive relationship0s of the DNA over time. There are many factors involved with tracking the relationships of species that evolve. Tracking mutation rates.tracking specific similarities that are due to mutations, dating the fossils, comparative anatomy of different species including related existing species, and strategraphic, relationship between fossils.

DNA relationships are only used for recent geologic history, because it deteriorates over time.

 

[Link]

It is about recognizing if the Author meant to convey a literal meaning, or a metaphor, a similitude, or a symbol.
For example, if a historian writes a book, and later it was discovered that there are evidence contradictory to the book, one cannot claim the historian was speaking spiritually or metaphorically. A historian writes literal events. There is no reason for a history book to be symbolic.
But if a Poet or Novel Writer writes a book, it is more valid to say, they didn't mean everything literal facts.

What's the symbolic meaning that God created humans first from clay then later from semen?

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ ثُمَّ جَعَلَكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا ۚ وَمَا تَحْمِلُ مِنْ أُنْثَىٰ وَلَا تَضَعُ إِلَّا بِعِلْمِهِ ۚ وَمَا يُعَمَّرُ مِنْ مُعَمَّرٍ وَلَا يُنْقَصُ مِنْ عُمُرِهِ إِلَّا فِي كِتَابٍ ۚ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرٌ | Allah created you from dust, then from a drop of [seminal] fluid, then He made you mates. No female conceives or delivers except with His knowledge, and no elderly person advances in years, nor is anything diminished of his life, but it is [recorded] in a Book. That is indeed easy for Allah. | Faatir : 11

 

[shunyadragon]

Every book can be asserted to not mean to express a literal meaning though where it's wrong.

This could be the case for any book, particularly ancient books, that people believe are historically and scientifically accurate, and reject contemporary science based on a 'faith' belief in the book.

The rejection of science by believers of ancient religions like Christianity and Islam has deeper ramifications than just the rejection of evolution and abiogenesis. The trend is to not trust and believe science concerning issues like Global Warming, Pandemics like Covid, and Vaccines

 

[Link]

This would be any book, particularly ancient books that people believe are historically and scientifically accurate, and reject contemporary science.

The rejection of science by believers of ancient religions like Christianity and Islam has deeper ramifications than just the rejection of evolution and abiogenesis. The trend is to not trust and believe science concerning issues like Global Warming, Pandemics like Covid, and Vaccines

There are also consequences if people are insincere to the interpretation of Quran. The biggest issue with Muslims is they are not sincere to the interpretation of Quran and will twist Quran left right and center for their leaders and authorities in religion.

More twisting left right and center of Quran to justify theories of scientist will also have consequence from my point of view. The insincerity is expressed in a hadith qudsi "He doesn't believe in me (God) who interprets my book according to their opinion".

 

[shunyadragon]

All

What's the symbolic meaning that God created humans first from clay then later from semen?

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ ثُمَّ جَعَلَكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا ۚ وَمَا تَحْمِلُ مِنْ أُنْثَىٰ وَلَا تَضَعُ إِلَّا بِعِلْمِهِ ۚ وَمَا يُعَمَّرُ مِنْ مُعَمَّرٍ وَلَا يُنْقَصُ مِنْ عُمُرِهِ إِلَّا فِي كِتَابٍ ۚ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرٌ | Allah created you from dust, then from a drop of [seminal] fluid, then He made you mates. No female conceives or delivers except with His knowledge, and no elderly person advances in years, nor is anything diminished of his life, but it is [recorded] in a Book. That is indeed easy for Allah. | Faatir : 11

All life arises from the earth and of course [returns to the earth]

There are many possible symbolic and allegorical meanings that can be derived from ancient scripture that may be meaningful today. It is interpretations that are in conflict and contradictory to science is the issue.

 

[Link]

All

All life arises from the earth and of course [returns to the earth]

There are many possible symbolic and allegorical meanings that can be derived from ancient scripture that may be meaningful today. It is interpretations that are in conflict and contradictory to science is the issue.

God could've explained we came from apes who came from other animals who came from earth. But the Quran never gave such a hint. It said Adam (a) was created from clay. Then after that, we are created from semen.

وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ مِنْ سُلَالَةٍ مِنْ طِينٍ | Certainly We created man from an extract of clay. | Al-Muminoon : 12

ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاهُ نُطْفَةً فِي قَرَارٍ مَكِينٍ | Then We made him a drop of [seminal] fluid [lodged] in a secure abode. | Al-Muminoon : 13

The then would not make sense if evolution was true. Man coming from apes, would mean, then there is no sequential here with "thuma".

 

[AdamjEdgar]

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

What writings are going to survive 4500 years?
Even the oldest extant work of Julius Ceasar's chronicled work of the conquest of Gaul was written 900 years later.

There are other archaeological artifacts containing knowledge of ancient hebrews that align with biblical history.

Your problem shuny is thst you won't believe until someone actually finds the ark of the covenant with the tablets of stone, jar of manner, staff of Aaron etc still inside.

You can use the primitive man argument all you like, it does nothing more thsn support biblical statements about mans journey after being ejected from the garden of eden.

The evolutionary story aligns with that same narrative...they are not greatly different in that regard...the exception being thst you claim God did not literally breathe the breath of life into Adam nostrils and he became a living being (that biblical statement is not evolutionary and there is no room for inserting evolution into it)

I think even in the torah, genesis chapter 2 causes headaches for herectical TEists.

It is clear that God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground...not out of another animal. The torah says God made Eve from Adam...not another animal.

You are like a dog barking up trees with your "thats untrue" "that isn't right" "that's not correct". None of those responses provdes credibility to any of your responses and that is because like another idiot I've come across on forums, what almost always comes next is unreferenced and what is referenced is done so by using references out of context and twisting the writers obvious intended meaning.

I don't know why you keep coming up with this nonsense all the time...its devoid of intelligent study and certainly not interested in finding truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

What writings are going to survive 4500 years?
Even the oldest extant work of Julius Ceasar's chronicled work of the conquest of Gaul was written 900 years later.

Actually a lot of older Latin writing survived that dates before Julius Caesar regardless of what survives of his writings.

Egyptian hieroglyphic writing 3,200 BCE, Canaanite, 1,500 BCE, Sumerian/Babylonian cuneiform 3,500 BCE. Hebrew evolved out of Proto-Canaanite ~600 BCE. There were numerous archaeological finds of writing in these scripts all around the Levant at the time of Moses. Still absolutely no text of the Pentateuch before 600 BCE.

There are other archaeological artifacts containing knowledge of ancient hebrews that align with biblical history.

Not much. In fact the archaeological evidence demonstrates Israel was only pastoral tribe in the Hills of Judah and some in Northern Palistive. no evidence of a powerful Hebrew Kingdom existed before ~600 BCE without a written language, not 900 BCE, not 1200 BCE, not 1500 BCE orwhenever..

Your problem shuny is that you won't believe until someone actually finds the ark of the covenant with the tablets of stone, jar of manner, staff of Aaron etc still inside.

Easy, because no such thing has been found. The text of the Dead Sea scrolls dates to ~ 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE.

.

You can use the primitive man argument all you like, it does nothing more tasn support biblical statements about mans journey after being ejected from the garden of eden.

There is absolutely no evidence of the Creation story, Noah's flood nor the Exodus as described in the Bible.

The evolutionary story aligns with that same narrative...

No

they are not greatly different in that regard...the exception being thst you claim God did not literally breathe the breath of life into Adam nostrils and he became a living being (that biblical statement is not evolutionary and there is no room for inserting evolution into it)

The objective verifiable evidence that support the history of the earth billions of years old and the evolution of life determines objectively that there is no room for the mythology of the text of any ancient religion including the Bible.

I think even in the torah, genesis chapter 2 causes headaches for herectical TEists.

I am believer in TE and no ancient mythical texts cause me headaches. One may interpret them in a symbolic or allegorical way to give them meaning, but as ancient tribal texts they have bo history or scientific value.

It is far to common to accuse others of heresy when others simply do not believe the same as one who believes there way is the one and only 'True' way to interpret ancient tribal texts without provenance.

It is clear that God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground...not out of another animal. The torah says God made Eve from Adam...not another animal.

Ancient mythology does not determine what is evidence for science.

You are like a dog barking up trees with your "thats untrue" "that isn't right" "that's not correct". None of those responses provdes credibility to any of your responses and that is because like another idiot I've come across on forums, what almost always comes next is unreferenced and what is referenced is done so by using references out of context and twisting the writers obvious intended meaning.

Keep barking up the tree of ancient mythology.

I don't know why you keep coming up with this nonsense all the time...its devoid of intelligent study and certainly not interested in finding truth.

My sources are objective verifiable science, history, and archaeology.

Keep looking for the fruitless search for Noah's Ark. It does not exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

God could've explained we came from apes who came from other animals who came from earth. But the Quran never gave such a hint. It said Adam (a) was created from clay. Then after that, we are created from semen.

Well, ah . . . God could have told us in the Quran that the earth orbited Sun, but the Quran states the sun orbits the earth, and the earth is 3.5 billion years old, but it stated it was Created in less than a week as described in the Pentateuch.

وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ مِنْ سُلَالَةٍ مِنْ طِينٍ | Certainly We created man from an extract of clay. | Al-Muminoon : 12

ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاهُ نُطْفَةً فِي قَرَارٍ مَكِينٍ | Then We made him a drop of [seminal] fluid [lodged] in a secure abode. | Al-Muminoon : 13

The then would not make sense if evolution was true. Man coming from apes, would mean, then there is no sequential here with "thuma".

As written from the perspective of an ancient tribal world view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What writings are going to survive 4500 years?
Even the oldest extant work of Julius Ceasar's chronicled work of the conquest of Gaul was written 900 years later.

There are other archaeological artifacts containing knowledge of ancient hebrews that align with biblical history.

Your problem shuny is thst you won't believe until someone actually finds the ark of the covenant with the tablets of stone, jar of manner, staff of Aaron etc still inside.

You can use the primitive man argument all you like, it does nothing more thsn support biblical statements about mans journey after being ejected from the garden of eden.

The evolutionary story aligns with that same narrative...they are not greatly different in that regard...the exception being thst you claim God did not literally breathe the breath of life into Adam nostrils and he became a living being (that biblical statement is not evolutionary and there is no room for inserting evolution into it)

I think even in the torah, genesis chapter 2 causes headaches for herectical TEists.

It is clear that God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground...not out of another animal. The torah says God made Eve from Adam...not another animal.

You are like a dog barking up trees with your "thats untrue" "that isn't right" "that's not correct". None of those responses provdes credibility to any of your responses and that is because like another idiot I've come across on forums, what almost always comes next is unreferenced and what is referenced is done so by using references out of context and twisting the writers obvious intended meaning.

I don't know why you keep coming up with this nonsense all the time...its devoid of intelligent study and certainly not interested in finding truth.

It does not matter what the Torah says. Concepts in this discussion need to be properly supported. And that would be with scientific evidence. Do you have any?

 

[shunyadragon]

There are also consequences if people are insincere to the interpretation of Quran. The biggest issue with Muslims is they are not sincere to the interpretation of Quran and will twist Quran left right and center for their leaders and authorities in religion.

Those that argue and dispute among the diverse conflicting interpretations of scripture are not a concern of science.

More twisting left right and center of Quran to justify theories of scientist will also have consequence from my point of view. The insincerity is expressed in a hadith qudsi "He doesn't believe in me (God) who interprets my book according to their opinion".

No twisting left right and center or whatever, By definition science is not based on opinion, though without objective evidence the various conflicting interpretations of ancient text are based on opinion by definition. Science needs no justification of ancient tribal text without provenance. Science is independent and neutral to religious beliefs based on objective verifiable evidence.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What's the symbolic meaning that God created humans first from clay then later from semen?

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ ثُمَّ جَعَلَكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا ۚ وَمَا تَحْمِلُ مِنْ أُنْثَىٰ وَلَا تَضَعُ إِلَّا بِعِلْمِهِ ۚ وَمَا يُعَمَّرُ مِنْ مُعَمَّرٍ وَلَا يُنْقَصُ مِنْ عُمُرِهِ إِلَّا فِي كِتَابٍ ۚ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرٌ | Allah created you from dust, then from a drop of [seminal] fluid, then He made you mates. No female conceives or delivers except with His knowledge, and no elderly person advances in years, nor is anything diminished of his life, but it is [recorded] in a Book. That is indeed easy for Allah. | Faatir : 11Allah created you from dust, then from a drop of [seminal] fluid, then He made you mates. No female conceives or delivers except with His knowledge, and no elderly person advances in years, nor is anything diminished of his life, but it is [recorded] in a Book. That is indeed easy for Allah. | Faatir : 11

There is an apparent meaning and there are inner meanings.

As for its apparent meaning, it is talking about the creation of human beings. Which of course contradicts with science. But, I don't have a Problem With God speaking incorrectly, because God and His Prophets spoke to the level of understanding of people of the time, as recorded in Al-Kafi:

A group of our people has narrted from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from al-Hassan ibn Ali ibn Faddal from certain persons of our people from abu ‘Abdallah who has said the following:

"The holy Prophet never spoke to people from the height and with the full power of his intelligence. The holy Prophet (s.a.) has said, "We the community of the Prophets are commanded to speak to people up to the level of their intelligence and understanding."

Thus, as the people of the time, had not advanced in science yet, they were not ready to be told.

It is not the mission of Prophets to teach science. Their mission is to create a new human spiritually. Humanity discovers science gradually themselves.

As regards to its hidden and inner meaning. I don't claim i know it. But this is what I suggest:



Allah created you from dust,

by 'you' is meant the Muslims, and by 'creating' is meant spiritually. As Manifestation of Muhammad was a Day of Resurrection, it is said, they were dust, and God Created them from dust. Meaning they were spiritually Dead, and became dust, and God revived them.

then from a drop of [seminal] fluid,

This is an allusion, to the Mahdi. Islam was pregnant with Mahdi, and symbolically, this is expressed as Notfeh. Meaning after Muslims, another Community will be created, which is like Nutfeh of Islam, and that is through Manifestation of the Mahdi.


then He made you mates. No female conceives or delivers except with His knowledge, and no elderly person advances in years, nor is anything diminished of his life, but it is [recorded] in a Book. That is indeed easy for Allah.

These references are meant that, the number of believers increases, as per Allah’s Will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those that argue and dispute among the diverse conflicting interpretations of scripture are not a concern of science.

No twisting left right and center or whatever, By definition science is not based on opinion, though without objective evidence the various conflicting interpretations of ancient text are based on opinion by definition. Science needs no justification of ancient tribal text without provenance. Science is independent and neutral to religious beliefs based on objective verifiable evidence.

I am getting old. As a result I am shopping for a religion that denies gravity.

 

[Monty]

Nothing personal but I do not care what you think or believe. I am a peer reviewed published Scientist having three books published in the national Library with multiple publications in my field of science. As posted in my first post in this OP.. professional Christian Scientists are the minority in a profession dominated by Atheist who do not believe in God or gods which they are unable to demonstrate do not exist. Evolution is a theory based scientific assumptions. I am one of many of those minority Scientists that believe in intelligent design who are the majority of Nobel prize winners as shown in post # 11 linked.

Sorry dear friend lets talk more when you can prove to me through Science that there is no God. Lets be honest as a Scientist I am the first to say that science does not have all the answers. If we did science would cease to exist. As posted earlier, Funny that those who have contributed the most to science (not the theory of evolution) are the minority (those who believe in God and intelligent design) 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 His eyes. Just because I do not believe what you believe does not mean I am wrong unless you can prove to me through Science that God is not real. The fact is you cannot so your words matter very little to me that you support the majority view of Scientists that are the minority of Nobel prize winners.

Nice talking to you.

Take Care.

Can you list your peer reviewed scientific publications and the three scientific books you have published? And have you received a Nobel prize for your scientific research, and if so, when and in which field of science?

 

[Monty]

Nothing personal but I do not care what you think or believe. I am a peer reviewed published Scientist having three books published in the national Library with multiple publications in my field of science. As posted in my first post in this OP.. professional Christian Scientists are the minority in a profession dominated by Atheist who do not believe in God or gods which they are unable to demonstrate do not exist. Evolution is a theory based scientific assumptions. I am one of many of those minority Scientists that believe in intelligent design who are the majority of Nobel prize winners as shown in post # 11 linked.

Sorry dear friend lets talk more when you can prove to me through Science that there is no God. Lets be honest as a Scientist I am the first to say that science does not have all the answers. If we did science would cease to exist. As posted earlier, Funny that those who have contributed the most to science (not the theory of evolution) are the minority (those who believe in God and intelligent design) 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 His eyes. Just because I do not believe what you believe does not mean I am wrong unless you can prove to me through Science that God is not real. The fact is you cannot so your words matter very little to me that you support the majority view of Scientists that are the minority of Nobel prize winners.

Nice talking to you.

Take Care.

IOW you have no actual scientific evidence to support your theory of intelligent design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IOW you have no actual scientific evidence to support your theory of intelligent design.

Of course there is no such theory. To have a theory one needs a testable explanation. Odds are that if asked he will say that no test can refute it. That would be an admission that it was just pseudoscience.

 

[1213]

Experts are not supporting literalist creationists because they evidence does not support Bible literalism. It is creationists, like you, whose interpretation of the Bible is incorrect based on evidence.

Experts can be wrong and have many times been wrong. I trust more to what can actually be seen and tested.

Experts aren't getting it wrong, creationists are.

 

[1213]

Science by definition is not based on "beliefs.",

I agree that is why a lot of what is called science today, like evolution theory, are pseudoscience.

These are examples of evidence of continental drift over millions of years at very slow rate. This bizarre mythical synario neglects some very basic principles of the energy relationships of physics. The amount of energy required in the short period of time for what you describe would roast the earth to cinder. Gradual continental drift, mountain building and volcanics can only be explained by over millions of years time generated by the interior heat of the earth.

Sorry, I disagree with you.

We have overwhelming evidence of human habitation of places on the earth for over 200,000 years.

Why should I believe the number is correct? How do you explain that humans have existed 200,000 years, but only about 6,000 years we have developed things.

Jericho was a Neolithic village 9,000 BCE and occupied since with no evidence of a flood. Jericho | Facts & History.

Damascus has been continuously occupied for 0ver 12,000 years.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

No, each seasonal layer for 100.000 years has a distinct seasonal pollen layer deposited each spring just as it happens every year now.

All the layers are formed, if there are similar conditions. Similar conditions could be several time in a year, which can cause it to look there are more years than there actually is.

A world or regional flood would leave vaste flood deposited debri. No such debri deposits exist beyond local river floods, glacial flood deposits and Tsunamis.

The flood was global an not the same as regional small flood. Therefore it is irrational to expect similar signs than from a small flood.