HassanShia

Evolution And Islam?

Rate this topic

214 posts in this topic

How does evolution explain the occurrence of homosexuality?

See the problem with evolution is that it has too many holes.

If evolution had no exceptions (like the laws of gravity), then I would accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok it's nice that you darwinists seem to think you've got proof on this..and yes I will genuinely research on this topic with all my ..uhm power? and I will come to a conclusion..

but again, you guys seem to shut up when I say that the Quran is the ultimate proof you keep saying we got proof.. but you cannot have 2 theories propagating then one has to be at fault, at least agree with this? Then if one is at fault, and the other is perfect in all its essence, then everything other is at fault. Yes, the Quran and science go together..who do you think created everything? ..so he created everything, and scientists only try to know the WHY part. While they fail to acknowledge the WHO-part. So I will stick with my claim that it darwinism is at fault because the Quran is the ultimate proof. We are not living in the past with the Quran but in the present, because it's still funny no one has still refuted it, and scienctists HAVE refuted darwinism..lots of them. I'm not gonna elaborate furhter on this, cause it seems you don't get the thing that when I say: Quran, then you say NO QURAN..that doesn't make sense..cause the Quran is the only proof for non-scientists to refute darwinism. I don't need to do research, even though yes I am going to. Not for you guys, but for myself..

And the part that is edited about me: I DIDN'T MEAN IT OFFENSIVE..I'm not a native english speaker..it was more sarcastic?? I hear it a lot on television, american tv lol..so if it was offensive taken then forgive me for it ;)

btw, God doesn't hate scientists..that doesn't make sense..greatests scientist was a Muslim: Imam Jafar (as) ..but that's another discussion etc etc..

(bismillah)

(salam)

If you are not a scholar of the Qur'an and its tafsīr and you are not a scientist who has studied and researched evolution, then how on earth can you be so confident that:

1. The Qur'an and evolution conflict

2. That evolution has no evidence

I don't need to do research, even though yes I am going to. Not for you guys, but for myself..

It is imperative that we research things before coming to conclusions. There is no such thing as "no need to research".

(wasalam)

Baka likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, we are in agreement that our DNA is changing/ mutating etc.

I don't quite see how that translates to being "not adaptation if our dna is ever mutating."

But please continue.

sure, now i havent read the massive text box that pomba posted, but i assume he got into this. When you adapt, its certain alleles being promoted as...im trying to think of how to say this. Its...like when you have a dominant and recessive gene, an environment can bring out traits that are already within your genes. Thats adaptation because you arent evolving new DNA nor traits, youre just using what you already have within you.

For example if one grand parent had red hair and one had black hair, then both your parents had black hair, then you had red hair...you would be drawing from traits that have been in your family lineage for generations. But thats not the same as you evolving red hair. Thats the work of genes already within you, not the creation of new genes. So when your DNA mutates, thats new genes, thats new genetic traits coming into your DNA. And DNA sequences for your proteins which manipulate your morphology. So if your DNA mutates, we arent dealing with adaptation, were dealing with mutation, and when a mutation is selected for in an environment, then you have species evolution...or "speciation".

Adaptation = same genes, different traints

Evolution = different genes, different traits

Çåá ÇáÈíÊ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

If you are not a scholar of the Qur'an and its tafsīr and you are not a scientist who has studied and researched evolution, then how on earth can you be so confident that:

1. The Qur'an and evolution conflict

2. That evolution has no evidence

(wasalam)

yea exactly, theres the issue right there, he seems to believe there is a direct conflict between evolution and the Quran, which i would say isnt true.

Baka likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does evolution explain the occurrence of homosexuality?

See the problem with evolution is that it has too many holes.

If evolution had no exceptions (like the laws of gravity), then I would accept it.

I want to respond to you, but i want you to recognize the initial points being made first. Often people will see something and they will just say "well if B doesnt make sense, then A must not be true". Well, i want to see you say "ok A appears to be true, now what about B". I want to know that we are on the same page with basic concepts. We have to establish that evolution occurs (in one way or another), before we can ask questions like, what about the evolution of sex. You cant ask about the evolution of sex if you still have yet to recognize the process in general.

That would be like me asking for an explanation of the history of Islam without even first acknowledging the exstance of Muhammad. You gotta start from the bottom and build your way up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does evolution explain the occurrence of homosexuality?

See the problem with evolution is that it has too many holes.

If evolution had no exceptions (like the laws of gravity), then I would accept it.

I think you're taking the wrong approach. Even if you find a few things that we can't fully understand using evolution yet it by no means nullifies the theory. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It is most definitely a fact. The genetic sequences alone prove this. Not to mention the experiments where we've seen bacteria evolve right in front of our eyes or the evolution of drug resistant TB or HIV. Same with skin colour, if Adam and eve were the first two humans, they could only produce a certain range of coloured children, nowhere near the variation we see today. The evidence is extremely strong. So, when problems like this show up the solution isn't to throw a very correct theory out the window, it’s to work on how we can find an explanation using evolutionary biology.

I'm happy there’s problems because it means we're still making progress and the theory is getting more refined and comprehensive day by day. It’s very rare an idea in science does not change or evolve otherwise you have static dogma which is exactly what science isn't. Evolutionary theory has been refined ever since the time of Darwin. Darwin realised things evolved but he had no idea how this change was passed on. It was only when gregor mendel (a catholic monk) working on pea plants discovered modern genetics that we could understand how these variations are passed on. There was a problem and we overcame it. This has happened many times.

I always find it bizarre that people don't have problems with any other "theories" like gravity or have any problems when any other ideas have holes, like the higgs bosson in the standard model of physics. We don't yet know if it is or isnt there and yet i dont see anyone here using this to decry the idea or even caring about it or science in general. It's only when there’s some perceived conflict against it that’s when people start to go on a crusade against it. There are plenty of holes in other theories (https://en.wikipedia...lems_in_physics / https://en.wikipedia...ms_in_chemistry / https://en.wikipedia...ms_in_economics).

It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. I often see people around these forums claim homosexuality isn't caused genetically and it is a free choice, so people are morally culpable for it. In case you didn't realise, our genes don't determine our free choices and will for the rest of our lives; If you do believe its purely genetic and subject to evolution, then they aren't morally culpable for being homosexuals. You have to choose one position, you can't argue for both.

Evolution only acts on inherited genetic characteristics. If you lift weights during your life and become very big and strong you don't pass that onto your children because it is an acquired characteristic. Same with someone who decides to be a socialist, it’s not passed on to your children. If you were born with red hair though or a gene that causes depression that might be passed onto your children.

This is why if according to some homosexuality is indeed a choice, it can't be an inherited characteristic, so, its not subject to evolution.

Either its caused by genetics solely and this causes your supposed problem with evolution but if it isn't their choice you can’t hold them account to it, they are not morally culpable then.

OR

It's a free choice and if we have the freedom to make that choice the then it isn't determined by genes and isn't subject to evolution, so, your problem with evolution disappears and they are morally culpable.

So, you either have to pick a fight with evolution but accept homosexuals can't choose their actions or say homosexuals can choose their actions but drop your claim against evolution. I'll hand this one back to you.

So first you need to figure out where you're coming from in regards to that issue.

It skipped my mind before but i just thought i would add it since people might find it interesting. I mentioned before that you have the genes to make teeth in every piece of DNA in your body, same with hair, same with everything. It's just regulated so all these genes don't "turn on" in the wrong places. Cancer is your own cells spreading past where they should go and they have defective genetics and cell death mechanisms. Theres a certain kind of tumor where this regulation is disrupted and you can actually grow teeth and hair inside this particular tumour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma).

====================================

====================================

====================================

I think a lot of confusion is going on here too. I think people are equating evolution with the common ancestor of humans being apes.

Evolution is the idea the entire population of a species (individuals never evolve) undergoes a change in genetically inheritable characteristics over time via natural selection. That is they change or evolve. This applies to everything that is alive, like in my example above of drug resistant HIV or the bacterial experiment.

Humans having apes as common ancestors are one example of natural selection, speciation and evolution occurring but it is not what evolution solely is.

So, i think people really need to clarify what exactly they have a problem with. Do you have a problem with the idea of evolution as a whole or just based on a literalist interpretation of the quran you take some offense in the fact that our common ancestor looked like an ape?

I've been on the defensive here but i think its time to throw the other side on the defensive, you are all so keen to point out minor side problems in a theory that is well grounded in evidence. We have seen evolution take place in front of our eyes. Any small problems or unexplainable things are just things that are waiting to be explained.

Creationism has numerous problems with the very foundation and fundamentals of the hypothesis that God created everything and us.

Challenge to creationists

There are numerous problems with following a creationist ideology:

1. For one, as i have shown in this thread (or perhaps another, cant really remember) all humans are related through a female and a male. This would imply an Adam and eve, except for the fact this man and this woman lived something like one hundred thousand years apart. This is an incontrovertible genetic study, the genetics don't lie. If you follow everyone’s fathers grandfathers, great grandfathers, great great great grandfathers...eventually you reach a point where everyone is descended from the same man. Exactly the same for females.

I explained this in some detail. There were obviously other humans around at this time and other females around at this time but for one reason or another all their lineages died out (not hard to imagine, killed/diseased/infertile/eventually one of their descendants didn’t have children/ect. I explain it at some length, can't remember exactly where but it was on these forums. If you feel the need try find it, if you can't I’ll do my best.

This is a hugely significant problem to the very fundamentals of that adam and eve were the first humans and were the only two around. This is one of the pillars of the idea if you want to be a literalist about it, unless you want to be interpretative but then, literally anything could stand to interpretation.

(In lieu of finding my explanation this might help - http://biologos.org/questions/the-mitochondrial-eve / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

2. Creationism is the position God created the species as they are, unchanging.

I have quite clearly shown things like bacteria and HIV evolve. You can find many other examples of evolution.

Back to Adam and eve. The genome of a person can only contain so much variation. If adam and eve were the very first two people (if you are a literalist) they could only produce offspring with a limited amount of skin colors. Since their genes cannot undergo change (this implies evolution), how are you to explain the wide variety of differing skin colours? Not only skin colors but many other polygenic traits like eye colour, hair colour, hair texture, penecillin allergy, lactose intolerance, ect.

In addition to this variation that would be impossible to explain, all genetic diseases as well. They are passed on through genes after all.

So, either Adam and eve had every genetic disease known to man (very hard to believe) or somehow there were more than 2 people around or these diseases later evolved.

Things like hair colour and skin colour are impossible to explain, we can only have two variants of a particular gene.

You don't see a white couple spontaneously producing a black child for instance or vice versa. You don’t see two red head parents having a child with black hair;

If you at all acknowledge genes can change, rather than the static model of creationism, you automatically must accept evolution.

3. The pieces of evidence above (the genetic sequence comparisons that prove evolution) and also the experiment with ecoli, evolution quiet clearly happened there, how do you explain that? Either you say their genes didnt change and they didn't evolve (seems like an impossible position given that they did) or say everything but humans evolve.

IF you take the latter position though, you are at a loss to explain my first 2 things. You also have to answer why everything else evolved and still continues to evolve and yet we don't. Even though we have DNA like those things do and we experience selective pressure like those things do. Speciation quiet clearly occurs all across life, if you accept things speciate, why couldn't apes speciate into humans?

4. Any other human variation and recent human evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolution&oldid=472630015 - Scroll down to the recent human evolution section.

For example, the natural selection and subsequent evolution that occured when the black death swept through europe (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2011/09/02/the-black-death-is-dead-thanks-to-evolution/ ).

Another case: I've also written about this somewhere here in great detail. Sickle cell disease is debilitating. In genetics we have two copies of each gene, so we can have up to do variations. I'll use S and s (upper and lower case) to represent the no sickle cell and sickle cell disease variant respectively. So, someone with no sickle cell would be SS. Someone with full blown sickle cell would be ss and someone with mild sickle cell would be Ss.

In the normal person, both gene "recipes" lead to the production of fully normal red blood cells. In a person with ss, all their blood cells would be malformed and they would be quiet ill. In a person with Ss though, half their blood cells are normal and half are malformed.

The person with a mild variation still has enough normal blood cells to function in most cases just as normally as any other person with SS.

Malaria is a debilitating disease rampant in Africa.

It just happens that people with sickle cell disease are more resistant to malaria than normal people. Their malformed blood cells are much harder for the parasite to get into and infect. Malaria is obviously a pretty bad disease and natural selection knocks out those who are less "fit" (in a biological sense, less adapted).

The full blown sickle cell ss, makes a person much too sick. It isn't a good trade off, even if you're resistant to malaria you're very sick anyway.

A person with SS is totally normal but more susceptible to malaria.

Both of these are less than optimal and won't be selected for by natural selection. People with these variations are less fit and will die more often, sooner and have less offspring and pass on their genes less in the long run because they are not as well adapted.

However, people with Ss are something very special. The mild sickle cell disease doesn't hurt them all that much (or at all in most cases) but at the same time they're also resistant to malaria. This is obviously the optimal condition if you live in an area where malaria is present and you genes will be selected for.

Is it just a coincidence that in the areas with the highest also have the highest prevalence of the Ss mild variation of sickle cell disease which confers some resistance to malaria?

If you live in an area without malaria, there is no advantage to having mild sickle cell disease and resistance to malaria. There is no malaria present. So, people from northern Europe and indigenous populations of Australia for example have a very low prevalence of this gene, much less than these African populations.

That is natural selection in action and that is evolution in action.

Genes have obviously changed and evolution has occurred.

Do you deny this?

For more info (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sickle-cell_disease&oldid=472511173)

If you accept we evolved here then you can't automatically deny we could of also evolved from apes. If evolution takes place here, why not in apes?

5. Is it just by pure coincidence as we move through the fossil record organisms get more complex and the newer organisms resemble in many ways (anatomically, genetically, functionally) the organisms in the lower strata?

6. Why are certain animals and certain plants in certain places?

All the continents on earth use to be joined together into one super continent.

If God created kangaroos at the begging, why are there not kangaroos everywhere? Surely they eventually moved to the other parts of this supercontinent. Same with koalas and countless other life forms.

7. Why do certain kinds of organisms only appear at certain stages in the fossil record? Surely, God created all the animals at once and all the plants at once. Unless he was continuously adding new animals but this implies he did not do a perfect job in the first place if he had to edit anything and as an all-perfect being he is unable to perform an imperfect action.

First we only see things like bacteria’s. Then come in the marine animals and nothing else. Then we get dinosaurs. Later things like horses and sheep appear for the first time then finally humans.

How do you explain this, especially in regards to what i was saying above about perfection?

8. So, God is a perfect being. As a Muslim you must accept this. It is impossible for a perfect being to do anything imperfect. Every single thought, intention, and action that is set into motion also will be perfect since God knows everything, is all-powerful, and is perfect. It is impossible for God to willingly carry out any imperfect act.

Why are we not perfectly designed then? We have numerous flaws.

Our eyes have a blind spot, all mammals do. Animals like octopus' don't though. In-fact, you can even do a little experiment and find your own blind spot using this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blind_spot_%28vision%29&oldid=468771340 .

This is an imperfection, it might be excusable if it was present in everything but other animals eyes in regards to the blind spot are obviously more perfect than ours.

We have knees that are prone to dislocating, due to our nature of being bipedal and upright but not perfectly made we are prone to numerous back injuries.

Our spinal cord is such a vital part of our body and yet one simple break and you're entire body is useless, if it was perfectly made why not include much more protection?

We have wisdom teeth that erupt later on in life and yet we have insufficient room in our gums for these teeth, they push other teeth around, explain something like this?

If we were truly created by God none of these imperfections could be present unless you contend God is imperfect or able to produce flawed things.

9. I won't bother retyping it but if you look in my above posts, i mentioned how diseases caused deaths of billions and billions of innocent children. Children that cannot sin and cannot be judged. If you do not believe in evolution and believe God created everything, then, God must of created these diseases. (Refer to my more comprehensive post on this before you answer).

These were not pleasant deaths either, they are slow and excruciating.

Right now around the world children, have worm-like parasites boring into their eyes. If God created everything God must of created these parasites, how do you rationalise the creation of these parasites with an all loving God?

What about horrible diseases like smallpox? They killed many many children and yet us humans eventually got rid of them. We abolished the very diseases God instituted upon us. Why even bothering instituting them in the first place?

These are challenges to the very fundamentals of creationist ideology. If even one of these is lacking an answer, your entire position becomes untenable.

Çåá ÇáÈíÊ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure, now i havent read the massive text box that pomba posted, but i assume he got into this. When you adapt, its certain alleles being promoted as...im trying to think of how to say this. Its...like when you have a dominant and recessive gene, an environment can bring out traits that are already within your genes. Thats adaptation because you arent evolving new DNA nor traits, youre just using what you already have within you.

For example if one grand parent had red hair and one had black hair, then both your parents had black hair, then you had red hair...you would be drawing from traits that have been in your family lineage for generations. But thats not the same as you evolving red hair. Thats the work of genes already within you, not the creation of new genes. So when your DNA mutates, thats new genes, thats new genetic traits coming into your DNA. And DNA sequences for your proteins which manipulate your morphology. So if your DNA mutates, we arent dealing with adaptation, were dealing with mutation, and when a mutation is selected for in an environment, then you have species evolution...or "speciation".

Adaptation = same genes, different traints

Evolution = different genes, different traits

Fair point. I'm busy reading something on the subject and I'll return to you on this in-depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does evolution explain the occurrence of homosexuality?

See the problem with evolution is that it has too many holes.

If evolution had no exceptions (like the laws of gravity), then I would accept it.

(wasalam) (bismillah)

Well there is a reason homosexuals are not in abundance :P . Sexuality is not separated in to alleles so basically homosexuality is not completely genetic (genetics may have a factor), there are many environmental factors that contribute to it. A person with hetero parents could potentially have a homosexual child (god forbid).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point. I'm busy reading something on the subject and I'll return to you on this in-depth.

Sure, also id like to add that these mutations have been observed in animals including humans to have manipulated the actual bone structure of organisms. Which, ill just put on the table to minimize the potential response you may give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

I don't need to be a top scholar to understand the following ayahs:

  • 2:117- The Initiator of the heavens and the earth: to have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is.

  • 3:47- She said, "My Lord, how can I have a son, when no man has touched me?" He said, "God thus creates whatever He wills. To have anything done, He simply says to it, 'Be,' and it is."

  • 6:73- He is the One who created the heavens and the earth, truthfully. Whenever He says, "Be," it is. His word is the absolute truth. All sovereignty belongs to Him the day the trumpet is blown. Knower of all secrets and declarations, He is the Most Wise, the Cognizant.

  • 16:40- To have anything done, we simply say to it, "Be," and it is.

  • 19:35- It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is."

  • 36:82- All He needs to do to carry out any command is say to it, "Be," and it is.

  • 40:68- He is the only One who controls life and death. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is.

If you are using these "Be and it is" verses to disprove the "evolution of species", then you are doing a very bad job.

This just shows that you have to be more familiar with the Qur'ān before you can understand those verses. God also says:

Your Lord is
Allah
, Who
created the heavens and the earth
in six days
and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne... (Qur'an, 7:54)

6:73- He is the One who created the heavens and the earth, truthfully. Whenever He says, "Be," it is.

Are you suggesting that "Be" and "it is" means "it takes no time"?

So why did the heavens and earth take six days (and according to a lot of scholars, six time-spans) to create?

21:30
Have not those who disbelieve known that
the heavens and the earth
were
of one piece,
then
We rented them asunder

6:73- He is the One who created the heavens and the earth, truthfully. Whenever He says, "Be," it is.

Are you suggesting that "Be" and "it is" means "it does not evolve"?

So why did the heavens and earth evolve from being one piece to being parted and rent asunder?

------

The above is ample proof that you need to be more familiar with the language of the Qur'ān before giving out judgemental fatwās. "Be and it is" does not mean "it springs fully into being in one moment" nor does it mean "it is created whole and complete". In fact, all the Qur'anic evidence shows that "Be and it is" unfolds in time and undergoes change.

I really recommend that you do research before you judge. Research is necessary. Judgement before knowledge is dangerous and blind.

Don’t follow that of which you have no knowledge. Verily the ear, the eye, and the heart, each will be questioned. (Quran, 17: 36)

(wasalam)

(wasalam)

Çåá ÇáÈíÊ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, also id like to add that these mutations have been observed in animals including humans to have manipulated the actual bone structure of organisms. Which, ill just put on the table to minimize the potential response you may give.

Okay, I'm interested here. Please elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam-How about the possibility that evolution, as we so far understand it, happened, but at the point where 'humans' finally develpoed the needed mental capacities and what not, it was at THAT point God 2 of them soul/spirit, thus creating Adam and Eve, the 'first humans'? This possibility allows for the explaination of the large numbers of humans present that would have allowed for a viable gene pool...Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam) (bismillah)

Well there is a reason homosexuals are not in abundance :P . Sexuality is not separated in to alleles so basically homosexuality is not completely genetic (genetics may have a factor), there are many environmental factors that contribute to it. A person with hetero parents could potentially have a homosexual child (god forbid).

Salam-I just want to add a comment that I was raised on a farm, and have worked numerous years in the field of animal husbandry, and I can attest that homosexuality exists even in the animal kingdom, and it is not simply an alpha male trying to assert his dominance, and likewise with females trying to assert alpha dominance-these animals actually took turns with each other-not one simply being dominated by the other...It is not too common, but it does happen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm interested here. Please elaborate.

This is why i created my evolution topic. Go check it out, its in my signiture.

Check out the Italian Wall lizard paper and the LDL receptor paper.

Mutations have been observed to have changed many things about our physical existance. When you look at a whales fin, it has the same bones as humans, theyre just bigger and have long fingers.

hands.jpg

We all have the same bones, just different shapes and sizes, and mutations in todays time can be seen to change not only things like hair and skin color and tall skeletons and short skeleton humans. Our physical morphology does have limits, but the limits are not within the range of "human" traits.

If you can see that our physical bodies can evolve, then there should be even less of a reason for you to doubt that we are related to something like a whale. Because the whales bones are just like ours. They may be a different shape and size, but u know, our parents bones are a different shape and size too. And our children will be different as well. So over many many generations its understandable to see that a whale and any other mammal could be related (and there are many details im not talking about here).

Like, african and indian elephants. Physically they appear alike, but their bone structures are very different. Yet we just kind of know that they came from the same elephant ancestor. Same with alligators and crocodiles. The same ancestor, but clearly they are different.

So it all comes down to time. The reason humans dont appear to transform into monkeys or vise versa, and the reason we dont grow wings or fins to go swimming, is because it takes a really really really long time. Like, we're talking millions of years.

But in the few thousand years we have been here, we have observed bone density increases in families of humans and in animals like the italian wall lizard, in a short observable time we have observed a shift in the morphology of its skull and organs. And these are just 2 examples of hundreds that could be given.

And there are many other lines of evidence, this is just 1, and i dont expect it alone to convince anyone of anything.

whaleevolution.gif

gomphotheres1.jpg

On both of these if you squint hard enough you can see timelines, and you can see how animal morphology has changed along with time.

All mammals share traits, its what defines us as mammals. And this is why we know that whales are not fish, this is why whales have babies like we do and dont lay eggs. Its because we are closer related, and its simply been a really really long time since weve shared an ancestor with them. (but not as long as its been since our reptile or amphibian or fish ancestor and not as recent as our chimp and orangutan shared ancestors)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(wasalam)

Thanks for explaining, no it does not prove it indeed even though the starting process is with BE AND IT IS. Like Jesus son of Mary (pbuh) who was created by that, and the like of Jesus is like that of Adam, Allah said to it: Be and it is and then Jesus was formed in the belly of Mary .. so then accepting that the Quran in all it's beauty and essence is the Final Word of Allah the Creator and Originator of all things, because it has not been found guilty by mistakes or errors, we can say that it is not contradicting in any sence.

Then see Quran 30:30 - دگرگونی در آفرينش خدا نيست. (FARSI) and فِطْرَتَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْها لا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ in ARABIC. So I hope you guys understand this a little bit it says: There is not alteration in Allah's creation (except in the limits he has given: Yes this part from 'except..given' I typed myself after reading a tafsir)- This is a part of the ayah. You can look it up.

Say: ‘What thing is greatest as a witness?’ Say: ‘Allah. He is Witness between me and you. This Qur’an has been revealed to me so that I may warn you by it, and anyone else it reaches. (Surat al-An’am: 19)

So can someone then bring me another tafsir? I have given you in Persian, Arabic and English. I hope the one who is going to give the tafsir doesn't give me an answer that Allah doesn't mean THAT, but He means : Don't alter yourself, coz then he hasn't understood anything out of the 3 language choices I gave him and he better not reply, because this is the actual meaning and I looked it up just in case. If someone still wants to say that, then I have my reply..but first do some research yourself before saying that..coz it wouldn't make sense and you clearly don't understand the Quran.

Wassalam

Btw, Jebreil you're a Muslim?

(bismillah)

(salam)

I am Muslim, and I've read in Makārem Shīrāzī that - in his understanding - evolution of species and Qur'an do not contradict - although he has misgivings to extend this to human beings - but, if I remember correctly, he was prepared to still believe that physically humans could have evolved from other organisms, but that there was a qualitative leap when the "soul" was breathed. But I'm not sure of that last part; I just think I remember.

Apart from that, there is no doubt that the human body was fashioned out of physical matter (what the Qur'ān calls "clay"), bit by bit, over some period of time. If inanimate, unintelligent, unfeeling, boring piece of clay can become a living, thinking, loving, creative human being by the will of Allāh, then I'm sure there is no problem to believe that a living, feeling, even creative organism can become a human being. Obviously, there has to be some qualitative leap, and there is - humans are the only creatures with intelligent civilisation.

This versepart: لا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ الله

"There is no alteration in the creation of God".

What does it mean?

Well, we can look and see what it does not mean:

- It does not mean that clay does not turn into human beings by the will of Allāh.

- It does not mean that sperm can fertilise an egg and develop into a human being.

- It does not mean that human beings cannot change through environmental changes (e.g. look at Chernobyl biths)

- It does not mean that human beings do not genetically change (e.g. how can a single-coloured Adam be the father of blacks, whites, reds and yellows, unless genetic change was possible?)

- It does not mean that a clay-bird cannot miraculously be breathed to life.

- It does not mean that living things can be brought out of water (Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing?)

All this alchemy of the world, changing one substance to another, extracting new properties from old properties, is the miracle of nature, the signature of a creative God.

Evolution does not conflict with the Qur'ān.

Whether it's true or false for scientific reasons, it's another matter - but Qur'ānically, it doesn't appear to be false. Every day we see creation renewing itself, the rising of the sun and the moon and their setting, the tides and the floating plates of the earth, the gathering clouds, the blowing winds, the hailstorms and bouts of sleet and snow. Yet, it all happens upon the natural logic of order and harmony and law. Why shouldn't we suppose that this is how it has always been: the beginning of the world, the formation of the earth, the creation of the first living thing, the multiplication of organisms, the changes in climate and environment, the "first human" where a qualitative leap probably occurred, etc?

Of course, I am suggesting this - but I emphasise that before we make strong judgements from Qur'ān on Evolution, we must have a good grounding in the Qur'ān and a solid understanding of the claims of Evolution. Until then, we must suspend judgement.

(wasalam)

Çåá ÇáÈíÊ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riiight..and Imam Ali (as) knew in a SPLIT SECOND the answer to which animals lay leggs and other's give birth:

One day another (Jewish) person came to Imam Ali (as). He was planning to ask Imam Ali (as) such a question, which would take Imam Ali (as) a long time to answer and because of that his Maghrib Prayers would be delayed.

He asked, "Imam Ali you say you know everything in the world, then tell me which animals lay eggs and which animals give birth to their young ones."

Imam Ali (as) looked back at him- smiled- and said, "The animals who have their ears outside their body give birth to their young ones and the animals who have their ears inside their body lay eggs."

So if you see that all animals who have their ears out give birth and the ones whom you can't see the ears of lay leggs..

Dolphins have ears inside of their body and they dont lay eggs. Well that was simple enough...

The outer ear is a product of mammal evolution. But please dont ignore all of the other things i had previously said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

Makārem Shīrāzī knows enough tafsīr when he says that evolution of species in itself is not conflicting with the Qur'ān.

And capital letter LOLs is very immature.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, LOL that everyone just ignored my post about the white baby from black parents - it's such a blow to evolution.

In order to pose an argument against anything, you will need science. A random internet news article wont get you anywhere here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, dolphins do not have ears on the outside of their head, nor do they lay eggs. Neither do whales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

If you want a mature, serious discussion, be more respectful:

You definitely didn't understand the verse and it's real meaning, sorry so go and do some real research and don't misguide people from Allah's way if you are truthful. If you are a Muslim then don't go against me if you yourself don't know anything about tafseer. You will be held accountable for it.

Anyhow, I'm giving a guess, and assuming you know Fārsī:

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%87_%D8%AA%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%84

Check the bit about "Evolution and Islām", then check those who accept Evolution, those who reject it, and those who suspend judgement because of what they see to be lack of evidence - the actual sources can be found cited at the bottom of the Wiki-article.

Please be more careful before giving out heavy fatwās, unless you happen to be a mufassir of the Qur'ān or a scientist on Evolution. Given the lack of religious consensus on this issue, and given the stronger scientific consensus for Evolution, I would suggest, at the very least, to suspend judgement.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I am Muslim, and I've read in Makārem Shīrāzī that - in his understanding - evolution of species and Qur'an do not contradict - although he has misgivings to extend this to human beings - but, if I remember correctly, he was prepared to still believe that physically humans could have evolved from other organisms, but that there was a qualitative leap when the "soul" was breathed. But I'm not sure of that last part; I just think I remember.

Apart from that, there is no doubt that the human body was fashioned out of physical matter (what the Qur'ān calls "clay"), bit by bit, over some period of time. If inanimate, unintelligent, unfeeling, boring piece of clay can become a living, thinking, loving, creative human being by the will of Allāh, then I'm sure there is no problem to believe that a living, feeling, even creative organism can become a human being. Obviously, there has to be some qualitative leap, and there is - humans are the only creatures with intelligent civilisation.

This versepart: لا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ الله

"There is no alteration in the creation of God".

What does it mean?

Well, we can look and see what it does not mean:

- It does not mean that clay does not turn into human beings by the will of Allāh.

- It does not mean that sperm can fertilise an egg and develop into a human being.

- It does not mean that human beings cannot change through environmental changes (e.g. look at Chernobyl biths)

- It does not mean that human beings do not genetically change (e.g. how can a single-coloured Adam be the father of blacks, whites, reds and yellows, unless genetic change was possible?)

- It does not mean that a clay-bird cannot miraculously be breathed to life.

- It does not mean that living things can be brought out of water (Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing?)

All this alchemy of the world, changing one substance to another, extracting new properties from old properties, is the miracle of nature, the signature of a creative God.

Evolution does not conflict with the Qur'ān.

Whether it's true or false for scientific reasons, it's another matter - but Qur'ānically, it doesn't appear to be false. Every day we see creation renewing itself, the rising of the sun and the moon and their setting, the tides and the floating plates of the earth, the gathering clouds, the blowing winds, the hailstorms and bouts of sleet and snow. Yet, it all happens upon the natural logic of order and harmony and law. Why shouldn't we suppose that this is how it has always been: the beginning of the world, the formation of the earth, the creation of the first living thing, the multiplication of organisms, the changes in climate and environment, the "first human" where a qualitative leap probably occurred, etc?

Of course, I am suggesting this - but I emphasise that before we make strong judgements from Qur'ān on Evolution, we must have a good grounding in the Qur'ān and a solid understanding of the claims of Evolution. Until then, we must suspend judgement.

(wasalam)

salaam

can i see in detail what Ay.shirazi said?

If u dont mind what is ur view on evolution and islam?

wsalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salaam

can i see in detail what Ay.shirazi said?

If u dont mind what is ur view on evolution and islam?

wsalaam

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Love

The link in the previous post is a Fārsī wiki-article for Evolution, including a section for Evolution and Islām which offers 3 views: those who hold Evolution to be in conflict with the Qur'ān, those who hold Evolution to be supported by the Qur'ān, and those who hold Evolution and the Qur'ān to be reconcilable, but in various ways.

Makārem Shīrāzī's view is presented with its source in that article in which he believes that while the literal take of the Qur'ān does seem to suggest a creationist point of view on Ādam, however, this is not obvious; as for the creation of other creatures, the Qur'ān is silent on how it came about. He believes it is "clear as light" that there is no conflict between Evolution and the Qur'ān.

----

I agree wholeheartedly with the view of Makārem Shīrāzī outlined above.

What I think is relevant is that, if a huge majority of respectable scientists come to a conclusion after years of study and scrutiny, even if it is mistaken, it is wrong to dismiss them unless we have studied the science ourselves. They clearly have evidence, both rational and empirical. If we wish to make an opposite judgement, we should do some research, get some evidence and provide scientific arguments.

Also, we should not be afraid of science. True science illuminates the vaguer passages of our scriptures; it doesn't burn them. And while there are possibilities of scientists getting things wrong, we have to either study ourselves for making such an evaluation or we should suspend judgement.

(wasalam)

Çåá ÇáÈíÊ and Pascal like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace to all

I haven't read all the posts because I'm driving but I just want to clarify something real quick I don't know if someone did before me first Islam is opposed to Macro evolution not Micro evolution with that said we believe in it as a process but not as the origin of all things. Now as for the origin Islam does not believe Prophet Adam Peace Be Upon Him and Lady Eve kids mated with each other because Islam opposes Brother and sisters mating Allah(SWT) would never allow that and the truth doesn't change. So what happened? Well Islam says Allah(SWT) created Prophet Adam(AS) and Lady Eve in marriage then they had kids now here's the key what happened next is Allah (SWT) Created other people not related to Prophet Adam(AS) kids so they can mate with Prophet Adam(AS) kids in marriage of course because Islam opposes Illicit relationship outside marriage. Creating other people is easy for Allah(SWT) All he needs to do is say BE and its done look at Prophet Jesus Son Of Mary peace be upon them both. This is just a quick summary theirs a lot more details. Allah (SWT) knows best !

Najib likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam-How about the possibility that evolution, as we so far understand it, happened, but at the point where 'humans' finally develpoed the needed mental capacities and what not, it was at THAT point God 2 of them soul/spirit, thus creating Adam and Eve, the 'first humans'? This possibility allows for the explaination of the large numbers of humans present that would have allowed for a viable gene pool...Just a thought.

I'm interested in your idea, care to elaborate a little?

Are you suggesting (ill just make up a number here) that there were 10 000 humans around and God chose 2 of them (eg "adam" and "eve") to have modern kind of human cognition?

The problem is though a lot of things that make up our brain are genetic. We just dont aqcuire them.

So, even if adam and eve mated with the other 10 000 people, its not like they'd be anything like them.

I guess you could say God chose two pious favored people as his two chosen people and they went to mix on in the community but this is obviously a non-literal view.

In regards to Najib:

Walking is an instinctial, not a learned behaviour. That could be considered analogous to flying or swimming in birds and fish respectively. It goes through the same maturation process you describe as well.

You're seriously misguided if you expect non-believers to accept the authority of the quran or the hadith or take anything it says as true without proof. You can't just keep throwing random quran and hadith verses at people who don't believe in the authority of such things. Your effect on them will be 0... I read it the first couple times but now im just ignoring them. This isn't how arguments should be constructed. It's imperative to argue on premises your opponents accept otherwise they'll just simply say, wait, i don't buy or believe in that premise, i don't accept it. Your argument is killed.

And oh yeh for All Muslims out there: It IS either evolution theory OR the Quran. Whoever of these people tries to claim that these two go together is disbelieving in the Quran and is no Muslim anymore. Each single ayah in the Quran is Allah's Word and has to be taken as the complete truth. And YES Islam DOES encourage science..so don't tell me that please.

According to you and your interpretation but i find it almost arrogant that you think every other muslim here has to be bound by your interpretation that you have to choose between good science and your faith when you can have both.

SORRY, but I HAD TO LAUGH,,cause guess what: THe impossible happened!!!! :D A BLACK male and a BLACK female got a WHITE child with BLOND hair..there goes the theory: Throw it OUT of the Window :D

Do you really trust all you read in newspapers....especially an article about science...by a non-scientist...in a newspaper? Unless its published in a journal its hardly credible..

A lot of the newspapers said saddam had WMD's...how'd that turn out?

So, both parents had some kind of white ancestry and they had the genetics for it from previous generations. Mystery solved. I don't see what the big deal is. It's just like how red hair can skip a couple generations.

I was talking about two people who have pure african lineage with no admixture of white ancestry to give them white alleles hiding around in their DNA.

instead of the theories that don't have any ground....

I think we'll leave dealing with the quran to people who are sufficiently qualified and the science to the scientists. I'm a biologist, seriously, what better judge do you want on evolution? It's part of my profession. Its up to the scientists to decide what theory has scientific merit. I thought this was a simple enough concept..

Just like i've said, if you want to be treated you go to a doctor, if you want advice on law you go to a lawyer if you want a suit you go to a tailor but why is it suddenly different when it comes to science?

I am sick of you saying it is absolutely baseless and has no proof when iDevonian and I have provided numerous proofs, many times over. Have you simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and not listen? You keep calling it baseless or unproved and we keep providing proof.

Read one of the proofs i gave here - Tell me what you think and i will respond to your problems.

If you truely think it is the best theory (creationism) and has no holes in it then i invite you to answer all the problems i have with creationsim right here . Prove me wrong on each count then, i invite you to. I await your response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

Let me be frank in this post, because your tone is extremely rude.

First, I know some scholars reject Evolution, but also some scholars accept it and some scholars find no conflict between them - but you are not prepared to accept the latter 2 groups, and you think they "definitely didn't understand the verse and it's real meaning" and rather, they shouldn't "misguide people from Allah's way"!!

Moving on...

Either you are lying - or you can't read Fārsī, and so you're deceiving.

ناصر مکارم شیرازی: «

با این که بسیاری کوشش دارند میان این فرضیه [تکامل] و مسئله خداشناسی تضاد قائل شوند ... ولی امروزه برای ما روشن است که این دو با هم تضادی ندارند؛ یعنی ما چه فرضیه تکامل را قبول کنیم و چه... رد کنیم، در هر دو صورت می‌توانیم خداشناس باشیم... آیات قرآن هر چند مستقیما درصدد بیان مسئله تکامل یا ثبوت انواع نیست، ولی ظواهر آیات (البته درخصوص انسان) با مسئله خلقت مستقل سازگارتر است، هرچند کاملا صریح نیست. ظاهر آیات خلقت آدم، بیش‌تر روی خلقت مستقل دور می‌زند؛ اما در مورد سایر جانداران قرآن سکوت دارد.[۲۳]

Source:

  1. ناصر مکارم شیرازی و دیگران. «جلد ۱۴». در تفسیر نمونه. ذیل تفسیر آیات ۲۶ تا ۴۴ سوره حجر.

His tafsīr of verses 26-44 of ṣūra Hijr in Tafsīr Nemūne, Volume 14.

Translation:

Nāṣer Makārem Shīrāzī:

Despite the fact that many try to find conflict between this theory [of Evolution] and Believing in God ... but it is clear tas light for us today that these 2 are not in conflict. This means that, whether we accept or ... reject the theory, we can still be God-believers ... the verses of the Qur'ān even if they do not directly explain Evolution or Creationism of Species, but the literal reading of the Qur'ān (in regard to humans) is more consistent with Creationism, even though it is not completely obvious. The literal reading of the Qur'ān about the creation of Ādam revolves more around Creationism; but about other Species, the Qur'ān is silent.

Interesting conclusions:

1. Makārem Shīrāzī rejects the opinion of these people: Despite the fact that many try to find conflict between this theory [of Evolution] and Believing in God

2. Makārem Shīrāzī's own opinion: but it is clear tas light for us today that these 2 are not in conflict. This means that, whether we accept or ... reject the theory, we can still be God-believers

3. Makārem Shīrāzī believes that a literal reading suggests Creationism, but it's not completely obvious.

4. Makārem Shīrāzī believes that the Evolution of Species other than human beings is a possibility, because the Qur'ān is silent on that issue.

5. Makārem Shīrāzī finds that the literal reading of making of Ādam is "more consistent" with Creationism, which means that the literal reading of Ādam's making is "less consistent" with Evolution, but not in conflict.

6. From all of the above, we learn that Makārem Shīrāzī does not rule out the possibility of less literal, more figurative reading - just like Moṭahharī.

You can be sure that I know Fārsī very very well.

If you are young, have some humility.

(wasalam)

Baka and Çåá ÇáÈíÊ like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SORRY, but I HAD TO LAUGH,,cause guess what: THe impossible happened!!!! :D A BLACK male and a BLACK female got a WHITE child with BLOND hair..there goes the theory: Throw it OUT of the Window :D

http://www.thesun.co...white-baby.html

yes they have tested their DNA and said the baby is REALLY theirs..no stolen baby reported!! lol.. AND GUESS WHAT! :D She's not an Albino :D

Prof Sykes said BOTH parents would have needed "some form of white ancestry" for a pale version of their genes to be passed on.

But he added: "The hair is extremely unusual. Even many blonde children don't have blonde hair like this at birth."

ALLAHO AKBAR!

So explain THIS before you elaborate any further with your science :) Please,,

It's not our science, it's everyone's science. It's science, period.

That process of looking at the world and learning from what it reveals that is described in that book you pretend to follow.

I'm not clear how in your confused mind you think this baby in England speaks to evolution one way or another.

Ironically, if the white pigmentation came about by a new mutation rather than from dormant partial white heritage, it's arguably a support for the concept of evolution.

So just to say you're a bit cracked.

Çåá ÇáÈíÊ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. For one, as i have shown in this thread (or perhaps another, cant really remember) all humans are related through a female and a male. This would imply an Adam and eve, except for the fact this man and this woman lived something like one hundred thousand years apart. This is an incontrovertible genetic study, the genetics don't lie. If you follow everyone’s fathers grandfathers, great grandfathers, great great great grandfathers...eventually you reach a point where everyone is descended from the same man. Exactly the same for females.

I explained this in some detail. There were obviously other humans around at this time and other females around at this time but for one reason or another all their lineages died out (not hard to imagine, killed/diseased/infertile/eventually one of their descendants didn’t have children/ect. I explain it at some length, can't remember exactly where but it was on these forums. If you feel the need try find it, if you can't I’ll do my best.

This is a hugely significant problem to the very fundamentals of that adam and eve were the first humans and were the only two around. This is one of the pillars of the idea if you want to be a literalist about it, unless you want to be interpretative but then, literally anything could stand to interpretation.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam are not fixed individuals through time; rather, who they are depends on who is alive today. Mitochondrial Eve is just the most recent mother of all humans alive today. The same goes for Y chromosomal Adam who is the most recent father. If the population of humans alive today was different, then the most recent mother could have been someone else. During this (so called) Eve's time, there would have been other female humans. Likewise for the so called Adam. Therefore, mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam are NOT the mother and father of the human race. For this reason, its unfortunate that they are referred to as Adam and Eve. It just ends up confusing lay people.

Let me explain further. Suppose that a disease wipes out every human apart from 2 humans - Mary and John. They then get married and have kids. Many generations later there is a sizeable human population on Earth. Who is the mitochondrial Eve of this population? Its Mary, as she is the most recent mother of the present human population. And John is the Y chromosomal Adam. A second question: Who is Mary and John's respective mitochondrial Eve and y chromosomal Adam? Its 2 different people. So we're not talking about the mother and father of the human race here. Consequently, its not challenge to thiests who believe that Adam and Eve are the father and mother of the human race. Noone claimed that they are the most recent father and mother of all present humans.

Edited by .InshAllah.
Najib and Çåá ÇáÈíÊ like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8. So, God is a perfect being. As a Muslim you must accept this. It is impossible for a perfect being to do anything imperfect. Every single thought, intention, and action that is set into motion also will be perfect since God knows everything, is all-powerful, and is perfect. It is impossible for God to willingly carry out any imperfect act.

Why are we not perfectly designed then? We have numerous flaws.

Firstly, its important to point out that this is all philosophy and not science. Science just tells us that there are blind spots and wisdom teeth, but says nothing about the philosophical implications of these structures for theism. Now onto perfection.

Whether or not we are perfect depends on the extent that we conform to God's design plan and motives. Suppose that I make a table. Is it a perfect table? Maybe. Is it a perfect door stop? No! But is the fact that its not a perfect door stop in any way a criticism of my creation? No, because I intended to create an object that served a particular purpose ie to support my cup of tea, not to keep the door open. The lesson from this is that in order to assess whether a particular creation is perfect or not, we need to know the purpose for its creation. If we misunderstand the purpose, we can end up viewing it as an imperfection because it doesnt fulfill what we wrongly took to be the reason for its existence.

So, in order to argue that there are imperfections in God's creation you have to show that your conception of perfection is accurate. For example, you have to show that the particular weaknesses in the human body that you identify do not serve their purpose for being there. If God wanted us to live forever and not suffer any physical pain, then yes we are imperfect because we get old and die, and in the process suffer. But this isnt what God wants; it isnt the purpose of creation.

Our eyes have a blind spot, all mammals do. Animals like octopus' don't though. In-fact, you can even do a little experiment and find your own blind spot using this page - https://en.wikipedia...oldid=468771340 .

This is an imperfection, it might be excusable if it was present in everything but other animals eyes in regards to the blind spot are obviously more perfect than ours.

The blind spot of each eye is compensated for by the other eye, so our visual field is unaffected. Secondly, the blind spot has saved lives. Doctors exam the blind spot in people with certain symptoms to rule out life threatening conditions like raised intracranial pressure (eg from a tumour). In these people, the optic nerve (which causes the blind spot) becomes blurred, alerting the doctor to a serious underlying medical problem that requires urgent treatment. The optic nerve also shows different changes in other diseases, and so is very useful in diagnosis

We have knees that are prone to dislocating, due to our nature of being bipedal and upright but not perfectly made we are prone to numerous back injuries.

Our spinal cord is such a vital part of our body and yet one simple break and you're entire body is useless, if it was perfectly made why not include much more protection?

Knee dislocations are very rare. Far more common are shoulder and elbow dislocations, so I dont know where you got that from. Regardless, this along with the point about back pain is assuming that God woudlnt want us to endure illness or pain at all, but Islam is quite clear that illness and pain are part of Gods plan to give humans opportunties to grow spiritually, and also to compensate for sins.

We have wisdom teeth that erupt later on in life and yet we have insufficient room in our gums for these teeth, they push other teeth around, explain something like this?

If we were truly created by God none of these imperfections could be present unless you contend God is imperfect or able to produce flawed things.

This is mainly a problem for modern humans with our modern diets eg processed foods. Hundreds of years ago when our diet included foods that were more rough we didnt have this problem, as the foods would erode our teeth to make room for wisdom teeth. Maybe we'd be better off physically if we returned to the more natural diets of the past. Who knows.

A final comment on this sort of philosophical objection from evolution. As a thiest, I expect to come across certain structures and processes for which I cant think of a plausible explanation. I expect this because there are so many structures and processes in the biological world, so of course I wont understand some of them! This is another reason I dont find these sorts of objections persuasive.

Edited by .InshAllah.
Çåá ÇáÈíÊ and Najib like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace to all

I haven't read all the posts because I'm driving but I just want to clarify something real quick I don't know if someone did before me first Islam is opposed to Macro evolution not Micro evolution

Theres no such thing as "macro" and "micro" evolution.

With that said, the rest of this persons post can be disregarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knee dislocations are very rare. Far more common are shoulder and elbow dislocations, so I dont know where you got that from. Regardless, this along with the point about back pain is assuming that God woudlnt want us to endure illness or pain at all, but Islam is quite clear that illness and pain are part of Gods plan to give humans opportunties to grow spiritually, and also to compensate for sins.

This is mainly a problem for modern humans with our modern diets eg processed foods. Hundreds of years ago when our diet included foods that were more rough we didnt have this problem, as the foods would erode our teeth to make room for wisdom teeth. Maybe we'd be better off physically if we returned to the more natural diets of the past. Who knows.

A final comment on this sort of philosophical objection from evolution. As a thiest, I expect to come across certain structures and processes for which I cant think of a plausible explanation. I expect this because there are so many structures and processes in the biological world, so of course I wont understand some of them! This is another reason I dont find these sorts of objections persuasive.

Some of the answers are horrid lol.

"regardless, this along with the point about back pain is assuming that God woudlnt want us to endure illness or pain at all"

by the nature of this response, you could explain any and all imperfections with humanity. Thats a cop out based on an assumption.

"maybe we'd be better off physically if we returned to the more natural diets of the past. Who knows."

Actually, the jawbone itself has shrank over time, so even if we did change our diets, wed still have horrible teeth problems. Obviously this is because weve evolved.

"A final comment on this sort of philosophical objection from evolution. As a thiest, I expect to come across certain structures and processes for which I cant think of a plausible explanation. I expect this because there are so many structures and processes in the biological world, so of course I wont understand some of them! This is another reason I dont find these sorts of objections persuasive."

and another cop out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.