Darwin, Evolution and Islam: Bilal Muhammad

[Eddie Mecca]

Just as it is important to learn what the theory of evolution teaches, it is also important to know what it doesn't say.

How and when did life begin on Earth? Did it form from nonliving things (abiogenesis, Millery-Urey experiment) or did life arrive on Earth (biogenesis, panspermia)? When exactly did life form? 3.8 billion years ago, 4.3 billion years ago, or longer?

The theory of evolution does not explain where life came from – only how species develop. The theory is, basically, an inference to the best explanation: since we cannot observe the 4 billion year history of evolution, the best we can do is piece together the fossil record and what we know about mutations and natural selection. Inference to the best explanation is the procedure of choosing the hypothesis or theory that best explains the available data.

(as a sidenote, cosmological and teleological arguments are also inferences to the best explanation. So these arguments for God's existence use the same philosophical process)

Dr. Stephen Meyer says that there is a "signature in the cell" that comes from an intelligent mind. Francis Crick, a codebreaker in World War 2, discovered that the four chemicals that form the basis of DNA function like alphabetical characters in a written language, or like code in software. They carry instructions to build the proteins that cells need to stay alive. This “code” is even arranged in a specific order. In other words, there is highly complex genetic information inside the DNA molecule. If you want to build a new animal, you need a lot of information. Even a basic organism, like a sponge, has over 60 types of cells, which all require unique proteins, and each protein requires this genetic information.

Crick ultimately went on to argue that DNA is the creation of an alien intelligence.

Random changes tend to degrade information. Adding random characters in code does not usually give new features to a program. Adding random words to a sentence does not usually give new instructions or coherent meanings. Similarly, random mutations may not be able to generate the information needed to build the proteins necessary to make new forms of life completely by chance.

Dr. Douglas Axe compares this to a bike lock with 77 dials and 10 numbers per dial. That is one hundred Quattuorvigintillion possibilities. That is far more than the amount of seconds that have passed since the Big Bang (20 sextillion).

To give a parallel example, imagine if we gave one million typewriters to one million monkeys. Would they eventually produce a Shakespearean play? Similarly, random variation and natural selection may be able to explain small changes – like the shapes of beaks and the density of furs – but could they produce all the complexities of all the species that are alive today?

We cannot observe evolution, but we can propose hypotheses, and we can see which one best fits the available evidence. Similarly, what is the best explanation for the digital information inside of DNA? We know from our lived experiences that information comes from a MIND. Just like coding comes from programmers, and just like books come from authors, perhaps this same complex information comes from a great mind or designer. What is the probability that a full book was written by unguided chance, just because it is made from natural materials? What are the chances that a video game was created out of unguided inputs and variations?

Then there is the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian Explosion was a period, roughly 541 million years ago, where most major categories of species appear in the fossil record. Before the Cambrian Explosion, most species were single-celled organisms or small multicellular organisms.

However, by the Cambrian Explosion, almost all categories of species that are recognizable today came into existence. The Cambrian Explosion was a problem for Charles Darwin. The fossil record that he had at the time in the 1800s could not explain this huge influx of new species. This was called “Darwin’s Doubt.”

Darwin expected new discoveries to solve this. Darwin thought that the Cambrian Explosion took place over ~70 million years, which is a relatively short period in geological terms. However, scientists now estimate that the Cambrian Explosion lasted only 10 million years. Dr. David Gelernter, a leading computer scientist, says that evolution in this short window of time is mathematically “highly unlikely or impossible.”

Evolutionary biologists say that the Precambrian fossil record is poor because (1) fossilization itself is a rare process; the conditions have to be exactly right for a fossil to be formed. (2) Precambrian organisms lacked bones or hard-parts that are common in fossils. (3) Precambrian fossils may be deep beneath the ground.

Darwin was haunted by the question of how the first flowering plants evolved. He wrote, “The rapid development … of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery.” These plants make up the majority of all living plants, from oaks to wildflowers to water lilies. The plants appeared very suddenly in the fossil record 100 million years ago. These plants conquered the world very quickly, while mammals evolved more gradually. Biologists still have not solved this mystery.

Is evolution falsifiable? Yes and no. Finding a 4 billion year old rabbit would falsify it - and that will (almost certainly) never happen - this gives weight to the theory. It is clear that organisms went from simple to complex over a long period of time. It is clear that some species changed while others went extinct. But: according to natural selection, the species that have survived had the right traits, while the species that went extinct had the wrong traits. While this can make logical sense, we can’t exactly prove or disprove this. We just have to assume that the species alive today are the “fittest.” But there is no mechanism that quantifies fitness. There are no universally recognized “good traits” and “bad traits.” All species that are alive today are incredibly diverse, and they all have strengths and weaknesses. It is the same with many of the species that have gone extinct.

Proponents of evolution assume that any evidence that is missing today will fit their theory. This is what Dr. David Berlinski calls “Darwin-of-the-gaps.” People put their faith in the theory even if the theory has holes.

Alfred Russel Wallace wrote about evolution around the same time as Charles Darwin. Wallace points out a problem: If humans are so closely related to apes, why can they do so much more than apes? Not how, but why? Humans are capable of speaking, mathematics, writing, building, cleaning, sewing, and playing instruments. This is despite the fact that humans can survive in some climates just fine without these skills – just like other animals do, including apes. Why is it that humans developed all these extra skills that are not a matter of life and death? And if these skills are so advantageous to our survival, then why did only humans develop these traits?

Then there is the development of language. Among scientists, there are several evolutionary theories on how language developed. One of the most interesting theories is the single-step theory, which was proposed by Noam Chomsky. This theory is that one mutation in one single human being led to a near-perfect grasp of language. According to this theory, before this mutation, hominids (prehistoric humans) were only capable of making basic noises. All modern humans would be descendants of this person. Was this person Adam?

Darwinian evolution is still the prevailing scientific theory used to explain the origin and development of all life. Evolution has done a lot to help us understand biology and medicine. Scientific consensus can only change with new research and new discoveries. A real scientist must stay at the drawing board – testing old conclusions and coming up with new ones. Still, there are many valid scientific questions about evolution. Many of these important questions unfortunately are mocked or go ignored.

In conclusion: seek knowledge. Islam is not threatened by knowledge. Let scientists continue doing their work, and part of that work is asking questions.

 

[Antimatter]

On 10/12/2022 at 2:26 PM, Eddie Mecca said:

The theory of evolution does not explain where life came from – only how species develop

How death is evolved in living organisms?

[Searching for truth]

Thanks so much, I learnt a lot from your post. 

Many valid and insightful points. I agree with the approach completely - what does evolution say and what doesnwit say? - but not in a position to comment on some of the details. 

I particularly liked the mathematical and probabilistic analysis, considering how likely the information in cells is to be produced by random mutations by comparing it to 1 million monkeys typing a Shakespearean play. The time period and number of organisms is simply not large enough to produce the complexity we can observe, it is far more complex than a Shakespearean play. 

The point about it being how living organisms develop, not where they came from in the first place makes perfect sense. 

The way you presented Noam Chomsky's theory of language immediately reminded me of the ayah in the Quran where Allah taught Adam (عليه السلام) the names, all of them. 

May Allah reward your effort. 

[Eddie Mecca]

@Searching for truth salaam bro...the article was written by Mr. Bilal Muhammad...check out his Facebook page

[Ashvazdanghe]

15 hours ago, Searching for truth said:

Noam Chomsky's theory of language

Salam his theory is based on zioniat story of destroction of tower of Babylon(Bable) in Torah bible about wrath of god which has resulted to destruction of single language which idea people likewise Noam Chomsky & in simislar fashion rest of Freemasons & Illuminati groups is restoring single language of Babylon(Babel)  from hidden Babylon language in DNA codes through AI   for taking revenge with God so then turning into gods through Kabala & etc .

Cognition

Evidence Rebuts Chomsky’s Theory of Language Learning

Much of Noam Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics—including its account of the way we learn languages—is being overturned

• By Paul Ibbotson, Michael Tomasello on September 7, 2016

• In Brief

  • Noam Chomsky has been a towering giant in the field of linguistics for many decades, famed for his well-known theory of universal grammar.
  • Chomsky’s idea of a brain wired with a mental template for grammar has been questioned, based on a lack of evidence from field studies of languages.
  • The theory has changed several times to account for exceptions that run counter to its original postulations—marking a retreat from its ambitious origins.
  • Alternatives to universal grammar posit that children learning language use general cognitive abilities and the reading of other people’s intentions.

  Quote

  Chomsky’s first version of his theory, put forward in the mid-20th century, meshed with two emerging trends in Western intellectual life. First, he posited that the languages people use to communicate in everyday life behaved like mathematically based languages of the newly emerging field of computer science. His research looked for the underlying computational structure of language and proposed a set of procedures that would create “well-formed” sentences. The revolutionary idea was that a computerlike program could produce sentences real people thought were grammatical. That program could also purportedly explain the way people generated their sentences. This way of talking about language resonated with many scholars eager to embrace a computational approach to ... well ... everything.

  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/

  Quote

  Other critiques are serious. In “Language in a New Key,” in the November Scientific American, Paul Ibbotson and Michael Tomasello contend that “much of Noam Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics, including its account of the way we learn languages, is being overturned.” The online headline says “Evidence Rebuts Chomsky's Theory of Language Learning.” Ibbotson and Tomasello propose that children acquire language via “general cognitive abilities and the reading of other people’s intentions.”

  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-chomskys-theory-of-language-wrong-pinker-weighs-in-on-debate/

  Quote

  The languages of babel

  by Murray Adamthwaite

   

  

  The origin of languages poses a major problem for evolutionists—how did man come to be a verbalizing creature who can communicate meaningful information through language? Following the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, speculation on the subject became rife. So outlandish was some of it that the Société de Linguistique de Paris placed a ban on all such discussion, which lasted more than a century.¹

  Modern evolutionists seek answers in primitive ‘symbols’ whereby human language began in ape-like creatures with simple grunts and noises in response to various stimuli, e.g. threatening predators. From these came a sequence of symbols,² in turn moving on to simple sentences, to ever higher and more complex arrangements of words, and ultimately to abstract concepts.

  But evolutionists Christiansen and Kirby are forced to concede concerning language evolution:

  There is inevitable scepticism regarding whether we will ever find answers to some of the questions surrounding the evolution of language and cognition.³

  

  Animals communicate in many ways, including sounds—e.g. danger calls, mating calls, etc. But as extensive research indicates, only people have true language with syntax and grammar—and we learn it effortlessly as children.

  And Jean Aitchison cites the renowned linguist Joseph Greenberg:

  … the evolution of language as such has never been demonstrated, and the inherent equality of all languages must be maintained on present evidence.⁴

  https://creation.com/tower-of-babel-languages

  https://latterdaysaintmag.com/does-science-support-the-idea-of-a-splitting-of-an-original-language-at-the-tower-of-babel/

  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hebrew-Bible/Books-of-the-Hebrew-Bible

  https://armstronginstitute.org/41-the-tower-of-babel-just-a-bible-story

[Ashvazdanghe]

16 hours ago, Searching for truth said:

Noam Chomsky's theory of language

 

Quote

Your Online Bible Study Supplement Source

The Tower of Babel: From One Language to Confusion

Published

The Tower of Babel: From One Language to Confusion: With the entire earth under one language, satan stood up through Nimrod, son of Cush. Nimrod galvanized the people to build a tower that would reach to heaven in support of Lucifer, who has the keen desire to return to where he was thrown out.

Genesis 11:1-9 KJV

[1] And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. [2] And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. [3] And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

[4] And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. [5] And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

[6] And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. [7] Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

[8] So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. [9] Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

https://biblestudyministry.com/the-tower-of-babel-from-one-language-to-confusion/

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

17 hours ago, Searching for truth said:

Allah taught Adam (عليه السلام) the names, all of them. 

Slam it's about teaching name of ahlulbayt (as0 to prophet Adam (عليه السلام) which angels & sahitan have been aware of name of everything but on the other hand they have not access to root & real meaning of everything because oly names of Ahlulbayt (as0 has been essential keyword for having access to depth of knowledege which about evolution & reason behind differnces in languages & words has been mentioned in other verses likewise Suar A-_Rum 22

 

Commentary on verse 22 of Surah Rum

Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) says in a narration: Yes! When the imam lays eyes on a person, he knows what religion and belief he has; If he hears his voice from behind the wall, he knows what religion the owner of the voice belongs to; Because Allah  says:

Quote

وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ خَلْقُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافُ أَلْسِنَتِكُمْ وَأَلْوَانِكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّلْعَالِمِينَ ‎﴿٢٢﴾‏

 Among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. There are indeed signs in that for those who know. (22)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/30:22

which ,They are scholars.

When the imam hears the voice of each person and the accent of each person, he understands whether he is a person of salvation or destruction.so therefore he  Gives answer to anybody based on way which he follows .

Quote

Apparently, the difference of languages means the difference of words, and the difference of colors means the difference of different races in terms of color, one is white, the other is black, one is yellow, and the other is red.

Of course, it is possible that the difference in language includes the difference in accents, and the difference in the tone of the sounds, because we see that in one language, there is a difference in accent between this city and that city, and even ten and ten adjacent cities, as we will see if we pay close attention. that the tone of voice of two people is not the same, and also the difference of tones may include people of the same race, because if you look carefully, two people of the same race do not have the same color, and this meaning is certain according to the scholars of this field.

So the thinkers and debaters who discuss about the great world in the system of creation, come across precise verses that indicate that the world of creation and creation with the system that is running in it is not possible except from the hand of Allah.

The messages of verse 22 of Surah Rum

1- The creation of the heavens and the earth is one of the signs of Allah's infinite power. وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ خَلْقُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ  Among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth

2- The difference between races and languages is a way to know Allah.وَاخْتِلَافُ أَلْسِنَتِكُمْ وَأَلْوَانِكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ and the difference of your languages and colours. There are indeed signs in that ..

3- Every language has its own value and originality, and changing it is neither perfect nor necessary. (No one has the right to humiliate other races and languages.)

4Having same shape and color of all humans is not compatible with Allah's initiative and innovation. [Allah can make different humans with different colors  and shapes so therefore making clones in same color & shape is not compatible with Allah's initiative and innovation.]«وَ مِنْ آیاتِهِ اِخْتِلافُ أَلْسِنَتِکُمْ» the difference of your languages and colours. There are indeed signs

5-A learned and understanding person reaches divine knowledge from the difference of colors and languages, but the ignorant makes color and language a means of contempt and pride. لِّلْعَالِمِينَ those who know.

 

https://www.yjc.news/fa/news/7666650/منظور-قرآن-کریم-از-اختلاف-در-زبان-و-نژاد-انسان-ها-چیست-صوت

[Ashvazdanghe]

18 hours ago, Searching for truth said:

Allah taught Adam (عليه السلام) the names, all of them. 

Today, we know that there are two things at the root of the differences between languages: First, the power of innovation and creativity of human thought, which constantly creates new words and new phrases to meet their needs. The second is the distancing of ethnic groups and nations from each other; Because there was no means of collective communication in the form of today in the past ages, when people and nations stayed away from each other, changes and transformations were gradually created in their existing words and phrases; And these changes were accumulated over thousands of years and words and languages were separated from each other and became the origin of different languages.
Since the difference of languages was one of the foundations of the recognition of different ethnicities, it effectively contributed to the issue of recognition in human society; And if the Holy Qur'an lists the difference of languages as the difference of colors among the verses and signs of Allah, it is referring to this philosophy; Because both the difference of colors is a means of recognition and the difference of languages; with the difference that the first one is beyond human control and the second one has an obvious connection with human initiative and creativity. (2)

https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?typeinfo=25&lid=0&catid=22895&mid=254797

https://makarem.ir/compilation/reader.aspx?mid=15804

[Searching for truth]

@Ashvazdanghe I apologise if the voicing of my ignorant thoughts offended you in any way! 

I am a lay person and I hope my ignorance is an excuse to benefit from the Mercy of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), which we all need endlessly, if I speculate about something which is actually incorrect. I did not mean to suggest that this was the interpretation of that ayah - I do not know it or even think I know it. Our ulama and the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) do of course.

I am grateful for you pointing me to various resources on this topic. I did not mean to suggest this was the interpretation. Just that reading that theory for the first time reminded my limited mind of that ayah and got me reflecting a bit.  It is awe inspiring to think of how language originally developed essentially from nothing other than the Knowledge and Will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).  Not that there is really anything other than that in a creative sense anyway.

Please do continue to share these kinds of valuable resource if I do anything like this again and I will of course try my best not to.  On the other hand, I am pleased I shared that thought as I have now benefited from this valuable knowledge you have shared.

Thank you!

[Silas]

Excellent and fascinating post Eddie. Fundamental and deep questions here for sure, and I will not pretend to have the answers.

One idea that has been put forth is that "evolution" is simply God's active endeavor of creation within a set time frame. Allah exists beyond time and space (everything depends on Him), and a billion years is but a blink of an eye for Him. If we are to accept that humans evolved from earlier life-forms, that does not mean God did not create us--as the sculptor begins with raw clay, he is nevertheless able to produce something beautiful and perfect from it

now that doesn't necessarily answer the question "why and how are humans so different than other animals, and when did this distinction manifest"?

I suppose it was somewhere in the creative process of the Divine

 

[JannahLM]

I personally never understood why so many religious people think the theory of evolution and belief in God are mutually exclusive. As long as a person is not claiming that life developed out of nowhere I don't see any contradictions. God could have still created everything and then set in motion the process of evolution. He has that type of power and it is something that humanity can marvel at. In fact, observing nature's marvels is how a lot of people come to faith in the first place.

Of course, there's also verses in the Quran that arguably could be alluding to evolution. If anything, accepting these verses as such only proves in my mind that the Quran is a miraculous book. There's likely Muslim scientists that thought similarly as they theorized evolution long before Darwin did. Darwin merely popularized the theory and he was a Christian himself, not an atheist like so many people claim.

Edited December 30, 2023 by JannahLM

[Abu Nur]

7 hours ago, JannahLM said:

I personally never understood why so many religious people think the theory of evolution and belief in God are mutually exclusive. As long as a person is not claiming that life developed out of nowhere I don't see any contradictions. God could have still created everything and then set in motion the process of evolution. He has that type of power and it is something that humanity can marvel at. In fact, observing nature's marvels is how a lot of people come to faith in the first place.

Of course, there's also verses in the Quran that arguably could be alluding to evolution. If anything, accepting these verses as such only proves in my mind that the Quran is a miraculous book. There's likely Muslim scientists that thought similarly as they theorized evolution long before Darwin did. Darwin merely popularized the theory and he was a Christian himself, not an atheist like so many people claim.

The reason why some of the principles of Evolution are correct is because they are only representing the cause and effect of evolving of species in this physical realm. Evolution itself will never be the real explanation, because there is an divine intervention in every creation. What some people do is that they are satisfied to think that evolution as explanation itself is enough and there is no need for God. This is only limiting to understand the skin of the thing and not the totality of the thing, the ultimate of cause. 

This goes to every subject of Science. 

[Qa'im]

It is pretty clear that life started simple and became bigger and more complex, and that organisms adapted to their environment and gained new properties. The question for scientists is, is evolution (through random variation and natural selection) the only mechanism by which speciation takes place, given the data available to us. The question for religious people is, how is the story of Adam to be understood. The OP focuses on the first question.

[Eddie Mecca]

12 hours ago, JannahLM said:

As long as a person is not claiming that life developed out of nowhere I don't see any contradictions.

Believing in evolution from the primordial soup period through to the primate stage is permissible according to Islam...when it comes to the creation of man (i.e. ʾĀdam) however the Qurʾān alludes to a "miraculous" or "supernatural" and "direct" and "abrupt" formation or existence...a divergence from the natural and normal processes...Allah says the creation of Jesus was similar to the creation of ʾĀdam..."Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of ʾĀdam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." 3:59...there's no getting around this verse...if this verse didn't exist then perhaps we could accommodate the belief that Homo Sapiens branched from ape subdivisions but because the verse is an actuality it invalidates that aspect of the theory  

Edited December 31, 2023 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

12 hours ago, JannahLM said:

There's likely Muslim scientists that thought similarly as they theorized evolution long before Darwin did.

"In Kitab al-Hayawan ('Book of the Animals'), the 9th-century Muslim scholar al-Jāḥiẓ references several facets of natural selection, such as animal embryology, adaptation, and animal psychology. One notable observation al-Jāḥiẓ makes is that stronger rats were able to compete better for resources than small birds, a reference to the modern day theory of the "struggle for existence". Al-Jāḥiẓ also wrote descriptions of food chains.

Animals engage in a struggle for existing, and for resources, to avoid being eaten, and to breed... Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming them into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to their offspring.

— Al-Jahiz, Book of the Animals

In 10th century Basra, an Islamic Encyclopedia titled Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity introduced the earliest attested evolutionary framework. The Encyclopedia expanded on the Platonic and Aristotelian concept of the great chain of being by proposing a causal relationship advancing up the chain as the mechanism of creation, beginning with the creation of matter and its investment with energy, thereby forming water vapour, which in turn became minerals and "mineral life". Coral, with its branch-like structure, was the highest mineral life which gave rise to lower plants. The date palm was considered the highest plant, giving rise to lower animals, and then through apes came barbarian man, followed by superior man, including the saints and the prophets. Thereafter the chain continues in the traditional form using less causal clarity, with the angels being above man, and above the angels being God as both the originator and the pinnacle. Muhammad Hamidullah summarises this concept found in the work: "Everything begins from Him and everything returns to Him." However, some scholars also criticized and dismissed the Brethren text reading as a proof on pre-Darwinian evolution theory.

According to Sami S. Hawi, the 11th-century Persian scholar Ibn Miskawayh wrote about the evolution of man in his Fawz al-aṣghar.

The 14th-century influential historiographer and historian Ibn Khaldun wrote in the Muqaddimah or Prolegomena ("Introduction") on what he referred to as the "gradual process of creation". Some of Ibn Khaldun's thoughts, according to some commentators, anticipate the biological theory of evolution. Ibn Khaldun asserted that humans developed from "the world of the monkeys", in a process by which "species become more numerous". He believed that humans are the most evolved form of animals, in that they have the ability to reason. He also stated that the Earth began with abiotic components such as "minerals". Slowly, primitive stages of plants such as "herbs and seedless plants" developed and eventually "palms and vines".

Shoaib Ahmed Malik has pointed out that Ibn Khaldun's theory, while remarkable for its acceptance of the kinship between monkeys and humans, should be understood in the context of the late antique and medieval concept of the great chain of being. This theory postulates a linked hierarchy between all entities in creation but is not properly a theory of evolution. The system of the great chain of being implies a graded similarity between the various stages in the hierarchy from minerals to plants, animals, humans, angels, and God, but not a temporal process in which one species originates from the other. While according to some mystical interpretations individual souls may move up the 'ladder' in order to reunite with the divine, the species (or 'substantial forms', in the language of Aristotelian and Neoplatonic ontology) themselves are eternal and fixed. Malik also notes that the Muqadimmah is often quoted without proper regard for context. One widely cited quote is taken from a section called The Real Meaning of Prophecy, which argues that prophets occupy a place in the great chain of being just beneath angels. In Ibn Khaldun's view, this explains why individual prophets may temporarily ascend to the rank of angels and share with them in the knowledge of the divine, which they may then bring back to humanity in the form of revelation. According to Malik, interpretations that see in this an early form of scientific evolution theory ought to explain how angels, prophets and the upwards ascent of the soul fit into that theory." Wikipedia

[Eddie Mecca]

9 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Ibn Khaldun asserted that humans developed from "the world of the monkeys"

 

10 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Shoaib Ahmed Malik has pointed out that Ibn Khaldun's theory, while remarkable for its acceptance of the kinship between monkeys and humans, should be understood in the context of the late antique and medieval concept of the great chain of being. This theory postulates a linked hierarchy between all entities in creation but is not properly a theory of evolution. The system of the great chain of being implies a graded similarity between the various stages in the hierarchy from minerals to plants, animals, humans, angels, and God, but not a temporal process in which one species originates from the other.

I'd like to hear Shoaib Ahmed Malik elaborate on this in-depth...he's a bright and intellectually sharp brother

[123xo]

On 10/12/2022 at 8:26 PM, Eddie Mecca said:

Proponents of evolution assume that any evidence that is missing today will fit their theory. This is what Dr. David Berlinski calls “Darwin-of-the-gaps.” People put their faith in the theory even if the theory has holes.

Alfred Russel Wallace wrote about evolution around the same time as Charles Darwin. Wallace points out a problem: If humans are so closely related to apes, why can they do so much more than apes? Not how, but why? Humans are capable of speaking, mathematics, writing, building, cleaning, sewing, and playing instruments. This is despite the fact that humans can survive in some climates just fine without these skills – just like other animals do, including apes. Why is it that humans developed all these extra skills that are not a matter of life and death? And if these skills are so advantageous to our survival, then why did only humans develop these traits?

Really enjoyed reading what you posted !  Especially the above paragraphs me likey. 
 

I'm also curious how did they come up to the conclusion of knowing how old fossils are ?  Like how can they give an estimation of (x) million years when in reality earth/life isn't a million years old..?

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/31/2023 at 10:47 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

In Ibn Khaldun's view, this explains why individual prophets may temporarily ascend to the rank of angels and share with them in the knowledge of the divine, which they may then bring back to humanity in the form of revelation. According to Malik, interpretations that see in this an early form of scientific evolution theory ought to explain how angels, prophets and the upwards ascent of the soul fit into that theory." Wikipedia

Salam this part is against Islamic teachings specially Shia teachings & holy quran which according to Quran all of angels have prostrated to prophet Adam (عليه السلام) so therefore all of angels have lower rank than all prophets which all prophets before prophet Muhammad (pbu) have equivalent rank to arch angel Jibrail which Miraj of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) shows his superiority to all prophets & angels which he is only has lower rank than Allah , which this misunderstanding in Sunni viewpoint has lead to denying status of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) so then they have denied that infallible Imams who only have lower rank fom prophet Muhammad (pbu) can't have equivalent position to prophets pre prophet Muhammad (pbu) .

[Eddie Mecca]

1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam this part is against Islamic teachings specially Shia teachings & holy quran which according to Quran all of angels have prostrated to prophet Adam (عليه السلام) so therefore all of angels have lower rank than all prophets which all prophets before prophet Muhammad (pbu) have equivalent rank to arch angel Jibrail which Miraj of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) shows his superiority to all prophets & angels which he is only has lower rank than Allah , which this misunderstanding in Sunni viewpoint has lead to denying status of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) so then they have denied that infallible Imams who only have lower rank fom prophet Muhammad (pbu) can't have equivalent position to prophets pre prophet Muhammad (pbu) .

Yes, exactly...I was going to comment on this but you beat me to the punch...may Allah reward you with goodness for your effort

[Shian e Ali]

On 1/7/2024 at 11:18 PM, 123xo said:

I'm also curious how did they come up to the conclusion of knowing how old fossils are ?  Like how can they give an estimation of (x) million years when in reality earth/life isn't a million years old..?

I don’t think there’s anything that suggests that Earth isn’t that old. The way some narrations mention that there were 124k Prophets, the math makes it clear that the Earth could in fact be millions of years old. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 10/12/2022 at 2:56 PM, Eddie Mecca said:

Alfred Russel Wallace wrote about evolution around the same time as Charles Darwin. Wallace points out a problem: If humans are so closely related to apes, why can they do so much more than apes? Not how, but why? Humans are capable of speaking, mathematics, writing, building, cleaning, sewing, and playing instruments. This is despite the fact that humans can survive in some climates just fine without these skills – just like other animals do, including apes. Why is it that humans developed all these extra skills that are not a matter of life and death? And if these skills are so advantageous to our survival, then why did only humans develop these traits?

Harari in his 'Sapiens' attempts to answer this by invoking the 'Cognitive Revolution', a sudden genetic mutation in proto-humans/hominid ancestors of the Cro Magnon man which enabled that kind of complex neuro-cerebral coordination. 

As to why and how that happened, his response is the standard 'we don't know'.