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

[shunyadragon]

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.

 

[1213]

The problem of fundamentalist Creationism in Islam​

The problem is that you can't prove creation is not true.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem is that you can't prove creation is not true.

It is not logical nor rational to prove the negative. This incomplete response needs clarification. If you mean by Creationism as dimply God Created our physical existence as it is more than 13 billion years ago, and life evolves on earth it is generally accepted by Theistic Evolutionists. and not in contradiction with science.

But if you are considering literal Creationism as described in the Pentateuch Science can demonstrate by overwhelming evidence that this is false and in direct contradiction to the falsified hypothesis and theories of universally accepted science.

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.

 

[Muffled]

The problem is that you can't prove creation is not true.

or that evolution is true

 

[shunyadragon]

or that evolution is true

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.

 

[Link]

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

 

[shunyadragon]

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

First, science cannot prove anything. A logical proof requires assumption. To prove the existence of a Designer logically you must assume the existence of God, which is circular.

Problem Intelligent Deign assumes a Designer, which is a subjective claim that cannot be falsified by science.

This does not address the problem of Islam rejecting the sciences of evolution. The belief in Intelligent Design does necessarily reject the sciences of evolution.

 

[McBell]

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

Then why hasn't it been proven by science?

 

[shunyadragon]

Then why hasn't it been proven by science?

Science does not prove things. The bottomline here is you need a basic education on science and how science works. Proof is for math and logical arguments.

Evolution has been falsified beyond any reasonable doubt in the great depth of research and discoveries in sciences such as Geology, Paleontology, Comparative anatomy, and Genetics. There is no alternative explanation provided for the hypotheses concerning the sciences of evolution.

 

[Jimmy]

It’s so obvious that God created himself for a brief time. So obvious.

To me anyway

 

[3rdAngel]

FALSE CLAIMS AND TEACHINGS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS BASED ON SCIENCE.

I will just start by saying I do not believe in Islam. I was not even going to post here but for me personally though, as a professional Scientist, I do not believe in the theory of evolution. I believe that the theory of evolution is a lie fed to the masses based on theory that does not understand the origins of life and a falsehood promoted by those who do not believe in God and His Word.

Here is a fun fact though. Even though professional Christian Scientists are the minority of Scientists that are dominated by Atheists it is the Christian Scientists who are the minority that believe in God and intelligent design that have won of the majority of Nobel Prizes over time.

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.

Take Care.

 

[shunyadragon]

FALSE CLAIMS AND TEACHINGS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS BASED ON SCIENCE.

I will just start by saying I do not believe in Islam. I was not even going to post here but for me personally though, as a professional Scientist, I do not believe in the theory of evolution. I believe that the theory of evolution is a lie fed to the masses based on theory that cannot prove the origins of life by those who do not believe in God and His Word.

I wo;;d not consider you a reputable scientist believing that 95%+ of all scientists in the sciences of evolution as liers. It is the less than 5% including you that are most definitely liers. You should have enough background in science to stop lying. I believe 98%+ Nobel prize winners believe in evolution.

Nobel Winners Defend Evolution

Nobel Winners Defend Evolution
SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 / 2:14 PM EDT / AP
Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable" foundation of biology.

The group, led by the writer Elie Wiesel, said it wanted to defend science and combat "efforts by the proponents of so-called intelligent design to politicize scientific inquiry."

The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design.

That increasingly popular theory argues that some features of the natural world are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they are well-ordered and complex. Its followers attack Darwin's evolutionary theory, which says natural chemical processes could have created the basic building blocks of life on Earth, that all life had a common ancestor and that man and apes shared a common ancestor.

Education Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a conservative Republican who has supported the proposed standards, said he was unmoved by the scientists' plea, which became public Thursday.

I found only two who supported Intelligent Design - Lindahl and Mudrick

More to follow . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Evolution is a Winner -- for Breakthroughs and Prizes | National Center for Science Education

In 1965, the young American scientist Leland Hartwell had to make a decision crucial to his research on understanding how cells divide, a key step toward curing cancer.

ncse.ngo

In 1965, the young American scientist Leland Hartwell had to make a decision crucial to his research on understanding how cells divide, a key step toward curing cancer.

Hartwell had to decide whether to place his bet on simple single-celled organisms like baker's yeast, which were easy to study but might be too distantly related to humans for the information to matter. Or he had to cast his lot on cells from humans and mice, which were clearly relevant but difficult to study. Hartwell gambled that over the course of evolution, certain genes would be so important that natural selection would conserve their key features, making them recognizable even between yeast and humans. Over the next few decades, this speculation was confirmed, and in 2001 Hartwell was awarded the Nobel Prize.

The importance of evolution to Hartwell's work exemplifies a key perspective that has been overshadowed by recent attacks on science and evolution from creationist ideologues advocating "intelligent design". While it is essential to explain the flaws in the pseudoscience of "intelligent design" and to review the overwhelming evidence supporting the facts of evolution, such discussions of fossils and extinct species can seem irrelevant to everyday concerns. So let's focus on some of the many practical applications of evolution in an area that matters to all of us: breakthroughs in medicine.

Evolution, in addition to being solid science, provides us with a practical and powerful tool-kit. Applied techniques based on evolution play central roles in the biotechnology industry, and in recent advances in genomics and drug discovery. Bioinformatics, the application of computers to biology and one of the hottest career opportunities in science, is full of evolution-based computer code. Tens of thousands of researchers in the multibillion-dollar field of biomedical research and development use evolution-based discoveries and concepts as a routine part of their important work.

For instance, our interpretation of the human genome is largely based on comparisons to genomes of other species. Coincidentally, the statement by President George W Bush in support of teaching "intelligent design" (see p 13) occurred just weeks before the publication of the chimpanzee genome, work led by Washington University's Genome Sequencing Center.

In a peer-reviewed article, many of the same world-renowned scientists responsible for sequencing the human genome presented in detail the differences between the DNA of humans and chimps. Consistent with chimpanzees' being our closest living relatives, the researchers reported that across billions of bases in the genomes, about 97.4% of the human and chimp DNA is identical. And the differences in the remaining 2.6% are fascinating, showing the signatures not of creation or design but of evolution. The DNA sequence differences show change driven over the last 6 million years by the forces of mutation and natural selection, from the selection for genes that aid in our defense against infection to the movement of transposable elements (parasitic DNA).

To see the integral role of evolution in biomedical research, consider Nobel Prizes, a good indicator of the most important breakthroughs in biology. Reviewing the last 50 years of Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology, I asked, "Is training in evolutionary biology necessary for a thorough understanding of the award-winning discoveries and work resulting from each breakthrough?" By my criteria, understanding of evolution is necessary in 47 of 50 cases. From vaccines, viral cancer genes, and nerve cell communication to drug trials, and genes controlling cholesterol and heart disease, evolutionary insights are crucial.

In Hartwell's case, a bet on the simple yeast cell revolutionized our understanding of how cells of all organisms replicate. Versions of most of the genes found in yeast cells by Hartwell and his co-recipients Tim Hunt and Paul Nurse were later found in humans. Despite over a billion years of evolution since they diverged from their common ancestor, humans and yeast still maintain similar gene-encoded machinery for cell replication. Drugs aimed at this replication machinery are currently in clinical trials for the treatment of breast, lung, kidney and other cancers.

In Kansas, backers of "intelligent design" have scoffed at the idea that watering down the evolutionary biology curriculum would have a negative effect on that state's fledgling biotech industry.

What does evolution have to do with biotechnology? As the president of a biotech firm in St Louis, I can tell you that evolutionary biology is an integral part of what we and other companies do. I hire scientists who are well-trained in molecular evolutionary biology; who know how to recognize the business end of enzymes simply by looking at DNA sequences; who know which changes in a protein are important; who can design research tools based on the way a species manipulates the genetic code. Today, these skills are as important to discoveries in the laboratory as knowing how to use a microscope, and it takes an understanding of evolution to master them.

 

[shunyadragon]

It’s so obvious that God created himself for a brief time. So obvious.

To me anyway

Really?!?!? It has been a while sense you posted an honest post..

 

[3rdAngel]

I wo;;d not consider you a reputable scientist believing that 95%+ of all scientists in the sciences of evolution as liers.

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nothing personal but sorry I do not care what you think or believe.

That's obvious you do not believe in science as science

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 prove. 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.

So what?!?!?!!? Not meaningful if you reject science as science without a religious agenda.

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.

First problem. There are basics in academic science and Logic that must be understood as a basic in academics. Do you understand Methodological Naturalism, and the rules of Logic. Despite your claims you do not know the basics. Science cannot prove anything. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify subjective beliefs without objective verifiable evidence. Proving the Negative is fallacy. Apologetic logical arguments depend on assumptions that imply a "cause" and are very circular, and based on old science.

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.

It is not a matter of what I "believe," though it is matter of not only the majority of scientists, the majority of all Noble Prize winners which you misrepresented in a previous post, but also every major academic university and scientific publication in the world

It is your dishonest rejection of science along qith less than 5% of other scientists that prefer the mythology of an ancient tribal religion ovvver science.
This will be my last post here..... nice talking to you.

Not sure why you choose to post this dishonest nonsense here.

 

[3rdAngel]

That;s obvious you do not believe in science as science

Well that is not true at all. I am a published scientist that believes in science . I just do not believe your version of it.

So what?!?!?!!? Not meaningful if you reject science as science without a religious agenda.

I do not reject science as science. I acknowledge as a scientist science does not hold all the answers. If we did science would cease to exist. We are only as good as our last experiment.

First problem. There are basics in academic science and Logic that must be understood as a basic in academics. Do you understand Methodological Naturalism, and the rules of Logic. Despite your claims you do not know the basics. Science cannot prove anything. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify subjective beliefs without objective verifiable evidence. Proving the Negative is fallacy. Apologetic logical arguments depend on assumptions that imply a "cause" and are very circular, and based on old science.

It is you that does not understand the basics of science and are just making my point. The scientific method provides evidence related to a scientific hypothesis that can be measured (not in all cases) objectively with statistics. Evidence is used as proof for or against a hypothesis (theory).

It is not a matter of what I "believe," though it is matter of not only the majority of scientists, the majority of all Noble Prize winners which you misrepresented in a previous post, but also every major academic university and scientific publication in the world

Your argument is a silly one in my view. Why? If the majority of Scientists or academics are atheists who do not believe in a God or gods then just because the majority believe this way does not mean that this view is a true one. There was nothing I have posted to you in my earlier posts that was misrepresenting and not true.

Not sure why you choose to post this dishonest nonsense here.

You claiming that the video I posted on Scientists speaking about intelligent design is dishonest is simply you being dishonest. Everyone in that video are professional scientists and academics that do science for a living all supporting intelligent design and God. I believe we will all find out soon enough if God is true or not. This however will not be a pleasant experience for those who choose not to believe according to the scriptures when they had the opportunity to do so.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[1213]

But if you are considering literal Creationism as described in the Pentateuch Science can demonstrate by overwhelming evidence that this is false and in direct contradiction to the falsified hypothesis and theories of universally accepted science.

I don't think you can give any evidence that would show it wrong, only opinions and beliefs against it. No good reason to believe things didn't go as the Bible tells.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think you can give any evidence that would show it wrong, only opinions and beliefs against it. No good reason to believe things didn't go as the Bible tells.

Problem. It remains that you lack the basics of Methodological Naturalism, and Logic. The objective verifiable evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming. You proceeded to call 95%= of all the scientist and major academic universities wrong, and that is unbelievably arrogant blind faith in an ancient tribal mythology.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well that is not true at all. I am a published scientist that believes in science . I just do not believe your version of it.

It is very very true, based on the reality of science as science. Being published in science is not a big deal. There is only one legitimate version of the sciences of evolution

I do not reject science as science. I acknowledge as a scientist science does not hold all the answers. If we did science would cease to exist. We are only as good as our last experiment.

*Staff Edit* and reject science as science in favor of an ancient tribal mythology. You call 95%+ scientists and the major academic universities of the world as liers, *Staff Edit*

It is you that does not understand the basics of science and are just making my point. The scientific method provides evidence related to a scientific hypothesis that can be measured (not in all cases) objectively with statistics. Evidence is used as proof for or against a hypothesis (theory).

You only made the point of believing blindly in ancient tribal mythology. The sciences of evolution in the past more then 150 years has used scientific method provides evidence related to a scientific hypotheses that can be measured objectively beyond any reasonable doubt. Again your intentional ignorance is glaringly apparent science does not prove anything.

Your argument is a silly one in my view. Why? If the majority of Scientists or academics are atheists who do not believe in a God or gods then just because the majority believe this way does not mean that this view is a true one. There was nothing I have posted to you in my earlier posts that was misrepresenting and not true.

The majority of scientists cannot use Methodological Naturalism to falsify subjective beliefs in God and Intelligent Design. Religious beliefs do not apply to science.

You claiming that the video I posted on Scientists speaking about intelligent design is dishonest is simply you being dishonest. Everyone in that video are professional scientists and academics that do science for a living all supporting intelligent design and God. I believe we will all find out soon enough if God is true or not. This however will not be a pleasant experience for those who choose not to believe according to the scriptures when they had the opportunity to do so.

*Staff Edit"

This will be my last post here as it is only going in circles so we will have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for the discussion.

No chance of agreeing to disagree to dishonest lying science based on ancient tribal mythology.

There is no thanks on my part concerning this discussion.