Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Its like I live for intellectual lectures like that.

 

Integrating Islam with Science how it was during the Golden age is one of my fields to listen a lecture on.

I shall free up my ultra-busy schedule and delay a few international meetings for this lecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Hossein Nasr and co. (i.e. the Perennial philosophers) is that while they make some noteworthy criticisms of Darwinian Evolution, they never just articulate for you in clear and concise language their proposed alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

The problem with Hossein Nasr and co. (i.e. the Perennial philosophers) is that while they make some noteworthy criticisms of Darwinian Evolution, they never just articulate for you in clear and concise language their proposed alternative.

 

In your statement you are assuming:

 

1) that evolution is the belief mankind holds by default (i.e. it is the most obvious belief regarding the origin of species), and

2) that evolution is a viable proposal.

 

As for the first: Were people, before Darwin, ever "in need" of a solution that a proposed alternative is now needed? Why is it that people all of a sudden find the age old answer (that species descended from Heaven) highly suspicious and hard to believe?  If anything, this only goes to strengthen the claim held by Perennialists; that it is becoming increasingly more and more difficult for man to comprehend the efficacy and primacy of heaven (the Unseen).  In generations to come, don't be surprised if the majority of so called "believers", find even the descent of Adam from Heaven highly suspicious and hard to believe!                  

 

As for the second: One can only speak of "alternatives" if one already has in place a theory which is at least viable.    The entire lecture was to show how evolution is not only unscientific, but how it is mathematically, philosophically, and theologically impossible.   

 

Salaam

Ethereal

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother, I have great respect for Dr. Nasr and I have only listened to part of the video.

 

But whatever he or someone else might say, I think that more than 99% of all scientists believe that natural selection by evolution is a fact.  

 

I think that  if Dr Nasr feels so strongly on the subject, he should engage  in discussions with various universities and with people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other famous evolutionists and atheists.

 

By the way, I searched this video on You-tube but could not find it. 

 

If it is on You-tube, could you please give me the address. Thanks

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

 

There is the link.  

 

In the lecture he explains why it would seem that there is a unanimous acceptance of evolution among scientists. To paraphrase:  "a scientist who does not support evolution will not be promoted to associate professorship.  One's articles will not be published in leading journals and he will probably be kicked out of the field".  

 

People are told to accept the "norm" otherwise they will fail and will not be able to advance in their careers as biologists.  Modern Science has become a religion by itself.

 

It would be beneath Dr. Nasr's dignity to engage in an open debate with individuals such as Dawkins and Sam Harris.  as the Biblical proverb goes: ""Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

 

He is doing more than enough through his books and his lectures.  He has already trained so many accomplished intellectuals and he continues to influence millions around the world.  

 

Masalama

Ethereal

         

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

 

In your statement you are assuming:

 

1) that evolution is the belief mankind holds by default (i.e. it is the most obvious belief regarding the origin of species), and

2) that evolution is a viable proposal.

 

As for the first: Were people, before Darwin, ever "in need" of a solution that a proposed alternative is now needed? Why is it that people all of a sudden find the age old answer (that species descended from Heaven) highly suspicious and hard to believe?  If anything, this only goes to strengthen the claim held by Perennialists; that it is becoming increasingly more and more difficult for man to comprehend the efficacy and primacy of heaven (the Unseen).  In generations to come, don't be surprised if the majority of so called "believers", find even the descent of Adam from Heaven highly suspicious and hard to believe!                  

 

As for the second: One can only speak of "alternatives" if one already has in place a theory which is at least viable.    The entire lecture was to show how evolution is not only unscientific, but how it is mathematically, philosophically, and theologically impossible.   

 

Salaam

Ethereal

 

Again, evading the answer...

 

I never said anything about the truth validity of Darwinian Evolution. I merely pointed out one of the reasons why people don't tend to find the alternatives to it viable (regardless of what you think of them and how far they've gone astray...). Implying that people need not even a solution at all is precisely what I intend when I say "evading the answer..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, evading the answer...

 

I never said anything about the truth validity of Darwinian Evolution. I merely pointed out one of the reasons why people don't tend to find the alternatives to it viable (regardless of what you think of them and how far they've gone astray...). Implying that people need not even a solution at all is precisely what I intend when I say "evading the answer..."

 

(salam)

 

We don't need a solution just like people before Darwin didn't need a solution since the answer is already there!  Species descend from the Unseen (from Heaven).   Not finding it viable is today is due to the fact that our understanding of the Unseen, and in God is becoming increasingly limited. We are becoming increasingly materialistic (in the philosophical sense) even if we claim to believe in the Unseen.  We are falling farther and farther away from Heaven as time progresses.  So when the so called "alternative solution" people ask for nowadays is mentioned to them (a solution which people took for granted since the dawn of human history), they find it unbelievable or not viable.   

  

Ma'salama

Ethreal

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

We don't need a solution just like people before Darwin didn't need a solution since the answer is already there!  Species descend from the Unseen (from Heaven).   Us not finding it viable is now is due to the fact that our understanding of the Unseen, and in God is becoming limited. We are becoming increasingly materialistic (in the philosophical sense) even if we claim to believe in the Unseen.  

  

Ma'salama

Ethreal

 

Just for clarity sakes. So, you are saying each species individually, physically descends? Like, walk me through how the species become manifest on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html

There are already partial substitutes to where neo darwinism fails. I doubt a philosophical debate can solve a scientific question. Evolution is theory to explain how we come to the current shape, it succeeds in categorizing species but is not very good in explaining its major claim "macroevolution".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 So, you are saying each species individually, physically descends? Like, walk me through how the species become manifest on Earth.

 

No

 

I think what he means is that the pre-Darwinian understanding of how the species spread across the globe was more plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be beneath Dr. Nasr's dignity to engage in an open debate with individuals such as Dawkins and Sam Harris.  as the Biblical proverb goes: ""Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."         

 

I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to a theologian such as Nasr being torn to pieces by the champions of Enlightenment thinking. These men bastions of science, logic, reason, mental acuity, etc etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to a theologian such as Nasr being torn to pieces by the champions of Enlightenment thinking. These men bastions of science, logic, reason, mental acuity, etc etc.

You missed the point of the wise biblical saying, but that's expected from someone who has high regard and respect for fools "who hath said in their hearts, there is no God".

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to a theologian such as Nasr being torn to pieces by the champions of Enlightenment thinking. 

 

Brother

 

Dr Nasr is less of a theologian and mor of a scientist.

 

He is a physicist from MIT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the point of the wise biblical saying, but that's expected from someone who has high regard and respect for fools like Dawkin's, Harris, and Hitchens

 

Let us forget Hitchens.

 

May his sins be forgiven and his soul rest in peace.

He is a polymath.

 

Yes, I know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Hossein Nasr and co. (i.e. the Perennial philosophers) is that while they make some noteworthy criticisms of Darwinian Evolution, they never just articulate for you in clear and concise language their proposed alternative.

 

Well, the person is a...at best, physicist.  Hes not a biologist, hes not a paleontologist. He has a masters in geophysics which is great.  Ultimately though, his studies exist elsewhere, outside of research related to the theory of evolution. His experiences and knowledge exists elsewhere.

 

With that, he wouldnt be able to even discuss the theory of evolution in detail itself, let alone offer an alternative.

 

This is why he doesnt actually talk about the application of science and the theory of evolution.  Rather he talks about philosophy and sort of inter mingles it with religion and how he views the scientific community.

 

At the end of the day, I am sure this person is a brilliant guy.  But he...isnt an expert in the field. Its like listening to william dembski.  A brilliant guy, but what value is his opinion in relation to the community that supports the theory that actually researches material within the field?  He cant give an opinion to hold value.

 

"In the lecture he explains why it would seem that there is a unanimous acceptance of evolution among scientists. To paraphrase:  "a scientist who does not support evolution will not be promoted to associate professorship.  One's articles will not be published in leading journals and he will probably be kicked out of the field".  

 

People are told to accept the "norm" otherwise they will fail and will not be able to advance in their careers as biologists.  Modern Science has become a religion by itself.

 

And this just isnt true.  You'd be surprised the material you can find published.  Majority of scientists who support the theory, dont actually have jobs that depend on supporting it.  Like myself and all of those i have worked with and researched with.

 

I cant name a geologist who doesnt support at the very least, common descent.  But nobody has a career that depends on their opinion. I as others do, make our opinions based on what we read and what we see and find ourselves.

 

"We don't need a solution just like people before Darwin didn't need a solution since the answer is already there!  Species descend from the Unseen (from Heaven). "

 

We see species develop around us all the time, they are born from other species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for clarity sakes. So, you are saying each species individually, physically descends? Like, walk me through how the species become manifest on Earth.

(Bismillah)

(Salam)

Just like how each moment is a new moment (and a new creation, and a new instant) so also, the beginning of each species becomes manifest (within an instant) in the material realm, starting from simple organisms to the more complex (ending with Man, the most complex of all). So there is a kind of evolution (which literally means "unfolding" or "unwinding"), but an evolution from a higher and more subtle plane of existence (and ultimately from God Himself). This kind of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the modern concept of Darwinian evolution (which is that species evolve and transform from other species). By way of analogy, there is a kind of vaporous dimension (which is the unseen heavenly realm), a lower dimension (beneath the vaporous dimension) consisting of condensed liquid (which is the intermediate or barzakhi realm), and then finally the lowest of all dimensions consisting of frozen solids (Which is the material or visible world). The bottom is an unfolding of what is at the top. The material realm is nothing but a frozen version of the intermediate realm, which is in return nothing but a condensed liquid version of the vaporous or heavenly dimension. All these three dimensions emanate or unfold from God. The reason why creatures within the material realm become manifest in a hierarchical order, starting from the simplest to the more complex, is because this movement marks the upward ascent to God. So, there is a descent from God (which are the three dimensions mentioned already), and then an ascent to God (from minerals, to plants, to animals, and then to man). The entire creation has an Origin and a Return. These two movements are typically represented by the two arcs of a circle. Man, in his perfected state, is the culmination point of this entire circle of existence.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But nobody has a career that depends on their opinion.

 

I think you misunderstood Dr. Nasr. I believe he was saying that a lack of sympathy for the theory of evolution will not be a point in your favor when it comes to a recognition of some sort.  

 

He has a masters in geophysics which is great.  

 

He has a Ph.D.

 

And in any case, it is not necessary to be a biologist or a paleontologist to have an opinion on evolution.

 

The subject is not as terse as Einstein's relativity or Feynman's alternate paths.

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstood Dr. Nasr. I believe he was saying that a lack of sympathy for the theory of evolution will not be a point in your favor when it comes to a recognition of some sort.  

 

 

He has a Ph.D.

 

And in any case, it is not necessary to be a biologist or a paleontologist to have an opinion on evolution.

 

The subject is not as terse as Einstein's relativity or Feynman's alternate paths.

 

The quote provided above used the words "kicked out", as if people are exiled from a scientific field for challanging science.  Which just isnt the reality of the situation, as I had described above.

 

And, its ok to have an opinion on anything.  Though, if the person isnt informed of the actual science, his opinion is limitted to his own personal experiences.  Which are further limitted due to his lack of expertise on the actual research behind the subject.

 

You mentioned that he doesnt need to be a biologist or a paleontologist to have an opinion.  But, there he is talking about biology and paleo as if he actually knows about it (aside from what he may have read somewhere).  I wonder if this person even has experience with fossil discovery and research.  I doubt it.

 

That should be a cleaner response.

 

And again, I am sure this person is very intelligent. However, we should take into consideration his background.

 

Here is, from wikipedia.

 

"Seyyed Hossein Nasr (Persian: سید حسین نصر‎, born April 7, 1933) is an Iranian University Professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University, and a prominent Islamic philosopher. He is the author of many scholarly books and articles.[1][2] Nasr is a Muslim Persian philosopher and renowned scholar of comparative religion, a lifelong student and follower of Frithjof Schuon, and writes in the fields of Islamic esoterism, Sufism, philosophy of science, and metaphysics."

 

Islamic studies....Islamic philosopher.  Philosopher, comparative religion.  Islamic esoterism, sufism, philosophy of science and metaphysics.

 

These words...they immediately tell us, that...his opinion I am sure holds value, but he isnt really an expert on this topic (the actual research of the theory of evolution and paleontology).  He is likely very limitted in his understanding of paleontology and biology.

 

The rest of his lecture i wouldnt judge the same way though.  Just key components of it that relate to actual research.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, iCambrian, you may have misunderstood the point of Dr. Nasr's words. Perhaps you have been misled by the OP or by images that the uploader has coupled with the lecture on youtube into thinking that Dr. Nasr's lecture is a scientific debate on the validity of evolution as a natural phenomenon. He's not trying to propose an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution or question the evidence in favor of the idea that man and ape may share a common ancestor. He's dealing chiefly with the paradigm or worldview of modern science and evolutionism (that is evolution in terms of a system of thought). Dr. Nasr doesn't, at least nothing I've heard from him, suppose that the scientific phenomenon of evolution doesn't occur in the natural. Everything I've heard from him before suggests he's inclined to agree with much of modern scientific research in this field.

 

Dr. Nasr's main beef has always been with certain philosophical worldviews that are peddled in the name of modern science but which themselves have very little to do with the actual science, that is the material dimension of study. As he has stated before he has not problem with "modern science," he just "doesn't worship modern science, he worships God."There is a vast world of difference between the study of the scientific phenomenon of evolution and Evolutionism which is a system of thought that is built around a particular interpretation of the material evidence that is largely influenced by the ultra-rational and heavily mechanical worldviews of certain philosophers of the enlightenment and post-enlightenment era. That is the process by which man attempted to separate the material world from its divine origin and divine engine and in which science disregarded the issue of man and nature's sacred origin and purpose, seeing it as irrelevant, which is something Dr. Nasr feels lies at the root of the modern ecological crisis. The problem is not a matter of the plausibility or implausibility of evolutionary theory from a scientific point of view or even an issue of the historical course of evolution with regards to man's physical parts, but the issue is much more a worldview that piggy backs itself on modern science in which the sacred meaning or significance of man, of nature and the various natural phenomena is regarded merely as sentiment or poetry and not having any reality. Dr. Nasr believes that it is this attitude that has created a psychological turmoil in modern man and has upset the delicate balance of the natural world and modern science is of course unable to solve these problems because it does not regard anything as real that cannot be viewed under a microscope. And this sort of dangerous and demonic worldview (which in my own personal opinion has been the root of many of the most evil things done in the name of progress or science in the modern era) is very much embodied in modern theories of evolution. The problem is not the science, the problem is the paradigm within which we seek to understand, analyze and interpret scientific data which itself has very little to do with the actual scientific portion, that is the material dimension we can actually observe.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote provided above used the words "kicked out", as if people are exiled from a scientific field for challanging science.  Which just isnt the reality of the situation, as I had described above.

 

And, its ok to have an opinion on anything.  Though, if the person isnt informed of the actual science, his opinion is limitted to his own personal experiences.  Which are further limitted due to his lack of expertise on the actual research behind the subject.

 

You mentioned that he doesnt need to be a biologist or a paleontologist to have an opinion.  But, there he is talking about biology and paleo as if he actually knows about it (aside from what he may have read somewhere).  I wonder if this person even has experience with fossil discovery and research.  I doubt it.

 

That should be a cleaner response.

 

And again, I am sure this person is very intelligent. However, we should take into consideration his background.

 

Here is, from wikipedia.

 

"Seyyed Hossein Nasr (Persian: سید حسین نصر‎, born April 7, 1933) is an Iranian University Professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University, and a prominent Islamic philosopher. He is the author of many scholarly books and articles.[1][2] Nasr is a Muslim Persian philosopher and renowned scholar of comparative religion, a lifelong student and follower of Frithjof Schuon, and writes in the fields of Islamic esoterism, Sufism, philosophy of science, and metaphysics."

 

Islamic studies....Islamic philosopher.  Philosopher, comparative religion.  Islamic esoterism, sufism, philosophy of science and metaphysics.

 

These words...they immediately tell us, that...his opinion I am sure holds value, but he isnt really an expert on this topic (the actual research of the theory of evolution and paleontology).  He is likely very limitted in his understanding of paleontology and biology.

 

The rest of his lecture i wouldnt judge the same way though.  Just key components of it that relate to actual research.

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

iCambrian, whatever the case may be, I never meant for this discussion to center around someone's authority.  What particularly interests me, a humble student of the religious intellectual tradition, is how evolution is diametrically opposed to the religious worldview and of our very understanding of the nature of God as traditionally understood.  In other words, evolution is a diabolic, pernicious, and highly destructive ideology for anyone who is intellectually serious about their religious worldview; it is tantamount to the denial of God’s existence.  The reason why my interest lies here is because there is no so called "scientific fact" or "theory" that can yield such certitude so as to trump the certitude of God's existence and His Nature.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, iCambrian, you may have misunderstood the point Dr. Nasr's words. Perhaps you have been misled by the OP or by images that the uploader has coupled with the lecture on youtube into thinking that Dr. Nasr's lecture is a scientific debate on the validity of evolution as a natural phenomenon. He's not trying to propose an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution or question the evidence in favor of the idea that man and ape may share a common ancestor. He's dealing chiefly with the paradigm or worldview of modern science and evolutionism (that is evolution in terms of a system of thought). Dr. Nasr doesn't, at least nothing I've heard from him, suppose that the scientific phenomenon of evolution doesn't occur in the natural. Everything I've heard from him before suggests he's inclined to agree with much of modern scientific research in this field.

 

Dr. Nasr's main beef has always been with certain philosophical worldviews that are peddled in the name of modern science but which themselves have very little to do with the actual science, that is the material dimension of study. As he has stated before he has not problem with "modern science," he just "doesn't worship modern science, he worships God."There is a vast world of difference between the study of the scientific phenomenon of evolution and Evolutionism which is a system of thought that is built around a particular interpretation of the material evidence that is largely influenced by the ultra-rational and heavily mechanical worldviews of certain philosophers of the enlightenment and post-enlightenment era. That is the process by which man attempted to separate the material world from its divine origin and divine engine and in which science disregarded the issue of man and nature's sacred origin and purpose, seeing it as irrelevant, which is something Dr. Nasr feels lies at the root of the modern ecological crisis. The problem is not a matter of the plausibility or implausibility of evolutionary theory from a scientific point of view or even an issue of the historical course of evolution with regards to man's physical parts, but the issue is much more a worldview that piggy backs itself on modern science in which the sacred meaning or significance of man, of nature and the various natural phenomena is regarded merely as sentiment or poetry and not having any reality. Dr. Nasr believes that it is this attitude that has created a psychological turmoil in modern man and has upset the delicate balance of the natural world and modern science is of course unable to solve these problems because it does not regard anything as real that cannot be viewed under a microscope. And this sort of dangerous and demonic worldview (which in my own personal opinion has been the root of many of the most evil things done in the name of progress or science in the modern era) is very much embodied in modern theories of evolution. The problem is not the science, the problem is the paradigm within which we seek to understand, analyze and interpret scientific data which itself has very little to do with the actual scientific portion, that is the material dimension we can actually observe.

 

This is fine, though there are a few sections within the video in which the person does take some shots at the actual scientific research.  Which i think is a bit bothersome because he isnt exactly credentialed in what he is speaking of.

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

 

iCambrian, whatever the case may be, I never meant for this discussion to center around someone's authority.  What particularly interests me, a humble student of the religious intellectual tradition, is how evolution is diametrically opposed to the religious worldview and of our very understanding of the nature of God as traditionally understood.  In other words, evolution is a diabolic, pernicious, and highly destructive ideology for anyone who is intellectually serious about their religious worldview; it is tantamount to the denial of God’s existence.  The reason why my interest lies here is because there is no so called "scientific fact" or "theory" that can yield such certitude so as to trump the certitude of God's existence and His Nature.    

 

I personally do not view it the same way.  I have been trying to understand some of your comments on this topic and the other, but i still have yet to really understand what exactly you are saying. I havent viewed the theory as something that is destructive toward a religious world view.  Maybe toward, of course literalist views.  But i dont think that is what youre referring to nor do i think it is what you have in mind.

 

Not that I disagree, i just do not understand what youre getting at.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Nasr doesn't, at least nothing I've heard from him, suppose that the scientific phenomenon of evolution doesn't occur in the natural. 

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

I am in full agreement with your other points, but he is clearly claiming that macro-evolution (i.e. evolution from one species to another) is tantamount to the denial of God's knowledge of those very species.  In other words, since God is all knowing there is no possible way macroevolution can occur in nature.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fine, though there are a few sections within the video in which the person does take some shots at the actual scientific research.  Which i think is a bit bothersome because he isnt exactly credentialed in what he is speaking of.

 

I personally do not view it the same way.  I have been trying to understand some of your comments on this topic and the other, but i still have yet to really understand what exactly you are saying. I havent viewed the theory as something that is destructive toward a religious world view.  Maybe toward, of course literalist views.  But i dont think that is what youre referring to nor do i think it is what you have in mind.

 

Not that I disagree, i just do not understand what youre getting at.

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

In the other thread, you explained clearly that from an evolutionary point of view, there are just individuals (each individual becomes its own species-or there is just one species which spans across all life forms).  By the way, out of curiosity, where do you think that the first individual, presumably one of the "prokaryotes?", came from?  I ask this question because, from a purely theoretically point of view, there is no reason to stop at the simple cell organism.  You and I both understand that, from an evolutionary standpoint, we cannot draw any boundaries between the human and its so called "ancestor", because evolution claims a gradual process of development.  In other words the distinction between a man and an animal is merely conventional, and not based on reality.  The distinguishing marks of a dog, and of a man are literally "not real", and are merely imaginary or subjective.  The upshot of all this is that there is no basis upon which one can truly distinguish something from another.  The world is in reality a vacuum; it is empty of things.  Can we just go ahead and say that there really is no reality save for our collective subjectivities? Or, reality is nothing but conventional? Please let me know if you are following me up to this point.                         

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

In the other thread, you explained clearly that from an evolutionary point of view, there are just individuals (each individual becomes its own species-or there is just one species which spans across all life forms).  By the way, out of curiosity, where do you think that the first individual, presumably one of the "prokaryotes?", came from?  I ask this question because, from a purely theoretically point of view, there is no reason to stop at the simple cell organism.  You and I both understand that, from an evolutionary standpoint, we cannot draw any boundaries between the human and its so called "ancestor", because evolution claims a gradual process of development.  In other words the distinction between a man and an animal is merely conventional, and not based on reality.  The distinguishing marks of a dog, and of a man are literally "not real", and are merely imaginary.  The upshot of all this is that there is no basis upon which one can truly distinguish something from another.  The world is in reality a vacuum; it is empty of things.  Please let me know if you are following me up to this point.                         

 

I wouldnt call them "species".  But yes.  Thats one of the things ive noticed we are missing eachother on. Just the use of certain words.  It may be better to say that there is just one "life"v(though even this is an assumption, there could very well be many "life"s', even here on earth or across the universe and beyond). That spans across all life forms. And that every individual in that life, is unique.

 

I dont know if i would say that the differences between a dog and a man are imaginary.  But, it could be said that man and dog are both of the same "life" that exists on earth. Though man and dog are in a physical sense, much different in comparison to say, a dog and a wolf or a man and another great ape.

 

The second to last statement there, i do not really understand.  Empty of "things".  What is a thing? Then maybe i could agree or disagree.

 

Prokaryotes.  I do not know where prokaryotes came from.  If I had no choice but to guess, I would assume they developed from some sort of RNA replicating system that predated them.  But i dont actually know that.  Just a personal guess.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I wouldnt call them "species".  But yes.  Thats one of the things ive noticed we are missing eachother on. Just the use of certain words.  It may be better to say that there is just one "life"v(though even this is an assumption, there could very well be many "life"s', even here on earth or across the universe and beyond). That spans across all life forms. And that every individual in that life, is unique.

And where could this "one life", shared between all life forms, come from?  

 

I dont know if i would say that the differences between a dog and a man are imaginary.  But, it could be said that man and dog are both of the same "life" that exists on earth. Though man and dog are in a physical sense, much different in comparison to say, a dog and a wolf or a man and another great ape.

On what basis do we physically distinguish the dog and the man given that for each of them there was no definitive point where the two of them branched their separate ways from their common ancestors?  In other words, we can't really distinguish the dog and the man from each other because there was a time when they looked very similar to each other.  there was no point we can definitely start calling a dog a dog and a man a man.  So on what solid basis are we drawing a distinction between them (even physically)?

The second to last statement there, i do not really understand.  Empty of "things".  What is a thing? Then maybe i could agree or disagree.

 

 A thing is that which has a distinguishing mark.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

And where could this "one life", shared between all life forms, come from?  

 

On what basis do we physically distinguish the dog and the man given that for each of them there was no definitive point where the two of them branched their separate ways from their common ancestors?  In other words, we can't really distinguish the dog and the man from each other because there was a time when they looked very similar to each other.  there was no point we can definitely start calling a dog a dog and a man a man.  So on what solid basis are we drawing a distinction between them (even physically)?

 A thing is that which has a distinguishing mark.  

 

If we could define specifically what a human or dog is genetically or morphologically, then we could distinguish when one species branches off from another with use of words that we create. Which is what taxonomy does for us to an extent.  Though there are countless genetic and morphological features amongst a countless number of life forms.  So you will never be able to fully understand and class every single detail of every living thing.

 

You said, we couldnt distinguish the dog and the man from eachother because there was a time when they looked similar to eachother.  Well at that point in time, i wouldnt call them dog and man. At that point in time, they wouldnt have features that would make them a dog and a man. They would be something else.  If we had a gradient from white to black, we would have countless shades of gray. If we could choose a name for and understand traits of every single shade of gray, we would be able to say when the lineage of a dog and the lineage of a human separated.

 

"there is no point we can definitely start calling a dog a dog and a man a man."  These words are just words we make up to describe things.  So, we could arbitrarily pick a point in which we start calling a dog a dog or a man a man based on their traits.

 

"A thing is that which has a distinguished mark."

 

ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

If we could define specifically what a human or dog is genetically or morphologically, then we could distinguish when one species branches off from another with use of words that we create. Which is what taxonomy does for us to an extent.  Though there are countless genetic and morphological features amongst a countless number of life forms.  So you will never be able to fully understand and class every single detail of every living thing.

 

In order to use a word for X, we first need to be able to distinguish X from non-X.   According what you are saying above, the way we distinguish a dog from a non-dog is by somehow determining its specific DNA, shape, and features.  But this doesn't answer the question because the DNA, shape, and features are themselves in need of being distinguished from other DNA, shapes, and features.  This is because, as you have pointed out, evolution means a seamless continuity between life forms.     

 

You said, we couldnt distinguish the dog and the man from eachother because there was a time when they looked similar to eachother.  Well at that point in time, i wouldnt call them dog and man. At that point in time, they wouldnt have features that would make them a dog and a man. They would be something else.  If we had a gradient from white to black, we would have countless shades of gray. If we could choose a name for and understand traits of every single shade of gray, we would be able to say when the lineage of a dog and the lineage of a human separated.

 

 

We cannot distinguish the dog from the man unless we have a criteria for distinction.  Your criteria seems to be features and traits.  But as I mentioned already, features or traits themselves need to be distinguished.  What is the criteria for distinguishing between different features and traits?          

 

 

 

"there is no point we can definitely start calling a dog a dog and a man a man."  These words are just words we make up to describe things.  So, we could arbitrarily pick a point in which we start calling a dog a dog or a man a man based on their traits.

Also traits need to be distinguished from each other.  So what is is that distinction (between traits) based on?

 

"A thing is that which has a distinguished mark."

 

ok.

 

 
A thing is a thing because it has a distinguishing mark.  It can be distinguished and set apart.  Evolution (not only biological evolution, but also cosmic, stellar, and chemical evolution) is a denial of even things, because according to evolution there is nothing to distinguish things from other things since things themselves evolved from other things.
Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

In order to use a word for X, we first need to be able to distinguish X from non-X.   According what you are saying above, the way we distinguish a dog from a non-dog is by somehow determining its specific DNA, shape, and features.  But this doesn't answer the question because the DNA, shape, and features are themselves in need of being distinguished from other DNA, shapes, and features.  This is because, as you have pointed out, evolution means a seamless continuity between life forms.     

 

We cannot distinguish the dog from the man unless we have a criteria for distinction.  Your criteria seems to be features and traits.  But as I mentioned already, features or traits themselves need to be distinguished.  What is the criteria for distinguishing between different features and traits?"

 

Just to see where this goes.  I could say, we distinguish between a man and a dog because a dog has X shaped teeth and a tail, that exist due to W&X gene.While a human has Y shaped teeth and a smaller tail due to Y&Z gene that the human has..  These would be the distinguishing differences.

 

 

Also traits need to be distinguished from each other.  So what is is that distinction (between traits) based on?

 

The distinction is based on how things physically exist. Shape, size, there are phenotypes and genotypes. How genes operate etc.

 
A thing is a thing because it has a distinguishing mark.  It can be distinguished and set apart.  Evolution (not only biological evolution, but also cosmic, stellar, and chemical evolution) is a denial of even things, because according to evolution there is nothing to distinguish things from other things since things themselves evolved from other things.
 
I dont understand that last part. In a general sense, someone can say...that...there is a "seamless" transition that exists and occurs amongst living things.
 
But it isnt truly seamless.  In a broad sense it is.  Like if you have a dominoes, and you drop 10 of them.  To the naked eye, 10 dominoes hitting one another may appear seamless.  But in reality, there are still individual dominoes that are falling the entire way.
 
Same with...lets say I have a lightbulb. And it can dim with a dial.  It may seem to the naked eye, seamless when i dim the lightbulb to a point in which it is off. But in reality, it isnt truly seamless.  Every tiny bit that the dial is turned, you are either changing features of the light waves, or you are cancelling some out.
 
So, evolution is seamless in the sense that...one species may appear to be very similar to another.  But its not truly seamless.  Because there are traits that make the species independent from one another. 
 
Same with stellar evolution.  The formation of heavy elements may seem seamless.  But, in reality it goes through stages and each stage is indipendent and unique from another.  Just as a dog and a human are unique from one another because both have gone through independent stages.
 
 
It may be easier to hold this discussion, not about evolution, but about...we could just say a basic family. Or maybe instead of species, just say X and Y "things".  There is a seamless transition between the grandfather and their grandson.  And yet, the grandson is still unique and different from the grandfather.  They are very very very similar.  And yet, not so similar that at one point they were once identical beings.
 
Lets say you have a family of african americans.  Two cousins of the african american family may be very very very similar in their features and looks.  But they are still unique and hold independent traits.  And they may be very very very similar, but there was never a point in time in which the two cousins were identical (unless theyre some sort of twins born from the same aunt or something).
 
There is never a time in which beings are so so similar that theyre undistinguishable.  When you go that far back in their lineage, to a point where they are identical...they arent identical at all because they do not exist.  Only their parent exists.
 
So there is never a point in which you could not distinguish one "thing" from another.  And the word "Man" is a very broad umbrella term that encompasses many many variables, that still fit together in a way in which they are still a man. And a dog is the same.  But a dog, the umbrella term, only allows for certain variables.  And a human, the word human only allows for certain variables.  And if we go outside of those variables, they are no longer a dog or human. 
Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to pray for anyone's ill. God will take care of everyone suitably.

 

According to his justice.  

 

Including you and me 

I couldn't condone the pardoning of what Hitchens has done.

 

But yes, verily we will be judged and Allah's (SWT) judgement is the best of judgements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...