Islam and Evolution?

[JoaMei]

Well, the war on evolution by christian Fundamentalists is well known but Id like to hear what Muslims are saying or what they are teached how the world and species developed?

[Ezekiel25:17]

[Turhapuro]

Use Google.

[cmdrfire]

Most moderate muslims (including myself) believe in the scientific theory of evolution and reading of the Qur'an supports this. Of course, there are highly vocal nutjobs (as everywhere) who denounce the "Darwinism", but I've found these people to be the minority.

[Javehn]

Most moderate muslims (including myself) believe in the scientific theory of evolution and reading of the Qur'an supports this. Of course, there are highly vocal nutjobs (as everywhere) who denounce the "Darwinism", but I've found these people to be the minority.

I'm sorry , dude , but reading Quran and learning archeology for example doesn't work together at all . Specially when it talks about Mesopotamian era . But time tables in Quran are ****ed up during the later times as well . Unless you are going to say you can't take it all litterally .

I am not talking about the contradictions within . One times it says no , one times it says yes .... Not exactly given by god , more like written by different people .

[kineret]

I read that the Koran is not organized chronologically, but rather by how long each chapter is. so theres no real way of telling what happened when. but i could be wrong (probably)

[cmdrfire]

Javehn, I'm not going to go into any debates you wish to raise here. JoaMei asked a question, and I responded. Anything you want to take up, you can PM or email me and I'll be more than happy to respond.


I read that the Koran is not organized chronologically, but rather by how long each chapter is. so theres no real way of telling what happened when. but i could be wrong (probably)

As a point of record - the Quar'an is organised chronologically, and is divided into the chapters revealed at Medinah and those revealed at Makkah. However, it is not a history or historical record as such, and more a fairly practical guide to living. This does include advising in favour of the search for knowledge. Again, PM or email me if you're interested.

[Javehn]

I read that the Koran is not organized chronologically, but rather by how long each chapter is. so theres no real way of telling what happened when. but i could be wrong (probably)

Its organised by the length of each Sura . But it has within cronological order within the record .
I'm talking about the fact that it has some difficulties in time line . For example ,it has been said that the first mosque every build is the Masjid ul Haram (min Meqaa ) . The second is Masjid El Aksa . And the time difference between them is 40 years .

Well , according to Islamic tradition , Mecaa mosque was build by Abraham . How the hell Abraham got to Meqa from Chaldean Ur and to his (supposedly) way to Kenaan, we leave that question alone . We just ask , how on earth there are 40 years between Abraham and , ehm , when El Aqsa was build :D ?

Actually , if we look inside the bible (old testimony) , you can also find some contradiction in timeline . there are not much evidence that left on the kingdom era of the Mesopotamia . So , to fill the blanks, every king of Shumer or Akkad state cities recieves a fair gift in years .

[Inquisitor]

I don't take the Quran literally as it must not be taken literally but I like how it's said life originated from the water - something science has proved.The thing is the Quran proved this 1400 years ago :D

anyways Javehn I highly douby Abraham could have constructed a mosque in Mecca since...there was no mosque before Muhammed saws.

Btw I have no great and detailed knowledge about the Quran or in general about Islam in Abraham times so I could be easily wrong

[Ezekiel25:17]

I don't take the Quran literally as it must not be taken literally but I like how it's said life originated from the water - something science has proved.The thing is the Quran proved this 1400 years ago

not literal. more on that water is the giver of life and everyone needs it. JMO

[Hellfish]

I don't know that the Koran "proved" that humans came from water, but I can definately see how a desert dwelling, fairly nomadic society would think such a thing without even realizing the scientific merits behind it. Water is life in Arabia, so it's easy to draw a conclusion that all life comes from (and is a result of) water.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Most moderate muslims (including myself) believe in the scientific theory of evolution and reading of the Qur'an supports this. Of course, there are highly vocal nutjobs (as everywhere) who denounce the "Darwinism", but I've found these people to be the minority.

That sounds pretty close to the Christian view. Mainstream folks are quite likely to support evolution, but the fundamentalists come up with some really crazy interpretations of the new/old testament to make a square peg fit in a round hole. There was a Muslim dude in here last year who posted a bunch of nutty stuff that was every bit as entertaining as Adam & Eve riding around on dinosaurs with saddles on...:)

[cmdrfire]

That sounds pretty close to the Christian view. Mainstream folks are quite likely to support evolution, but the fundamentalists come up with some really crazy interpretations of the new/old testament to make a square peg fit in a round hole. There was a Muslim dude in here last year who posted a bunch of nutty stuff that was every bit as entertaining as Adam & Eve riding around on dinosaurs with saddles on...:)

You got it right. Yes, of course there are people who will spout on about how it is against God, etc... but I feel that the majority who are more sensible are likely to go along with the more sensible explanation.
I know a few said nutjobs, they're generally nice people if a bit wacko at times, but the majority of my muslim friends tend to be (as I say) a bit more sensible.

There are several sections of the Qur'an where evolution is strongly alluded to (it being said that God set things in motion, and the rest happened; similar things are said about physics, astronomy, ie., God set the universe in motion and the rest happened according to His design, as opposed to direct divine intervention which is what most Intelligent Design-ists tend to argue), but I don't have my translated copy with me.

[One]

Well , according to Islamic tradition , Mecaa mosque was build by Abraham .

Abraham did not build the first mosque he built the first house of worship, and that wouldn't be the mosjid al haram it would be the black covered structure in the middle. The mosque was built by muslims because before muslims it was just houses.




Here is something I found on evolution and Islam, it is a good read and it tells you how man was created and the world with support from verses.

http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/evolution_quran/index.asp

[Inquisitor]

I don't know that the Koran "proved" that humans came from water, but I can definately see how a desert dwelling, fairly nomadic society would think such a thing without even realizing the scientific merits behind it. Water is life in Arabia, so it's easy to draw a conclusion that all life comes from (and is a result of) water.

@ Ezekiel and Hellfish

no worries,I understand how just because it is written in the Quran,it can't be really true.

btw,just for you folks,I know some interpretaions of "miracles" are silly even for me but check it you may find something interesting ;)

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/

enjoy :D

[Ezekiel25:17]

I heard the Sacred rock that came from god is actually a meteor

[Inquisitor]

I guess if you don't open the Kaba (something you'd better try not to) you won't know.

btw,here a video for ya fellas http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/film.html

[One]

I guess if you don't open the Kaba (something you'd better try not to) you won't know.

btw,here a video for ya fellas http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/film.html


what are you talking about dude? The kaaba is opened by the King of Saudi arabia and he sweeps it himself. As for the rock he is talking about its not in mecca. He is talking about dome of the rock in jerusalem.

[Ezekiel25:17]

what are you talking about dude? The kaaba is opened by the King of Saudi arabia and he sweeps it himself. As for the rock he is talking about its not in mecca. He is talking about dome of the rock in jerusalem.

I mean the kaaba..sorry I didn't specify

[One]

I mean the kaaba..sorry I didn't specify

Ohhhhh!

You are talking about the black stone?



The stone existed before Muhammed. I have no idea how it got there it could be a meteor.

[Ezekiel25:17]

Ohhhhh!

You are talking about the black stone?



The stone existed before Muhammed. I have no idea how it got there it could be a meteor.

I was watching a show on National geographic and they think it's a meteor because the color.

[oldsoak]

Correct me if I am wrong doesnt the Qu'ran say that G*d created man from a blood clot ? ( probably got that way wrong )

[cmdrfire]

Correct me if I am wrong doesnt the Qu'ran say that G*d created man from a blood clot ? ( probably got that way wrong )

The Qur'an says that man is created by a "sperm-drop" which creates a "blood-clot" which grows into a human. This is given as an example of the miracles found in nature, that something so small can grow to become something so complicated. Reference to this can be found in Sura Ya-Sin, amongst others. I can find some more references if you'd like.

[One]

Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
After that, at length ye will die
Again, on the Day of Judgment, will ye be raised up.



Sura: Al-Mu'minun (The Believers) 23:12-15

[JoaMei]

See? No flamewar happened. :)

[Ezekiel25:17]

See? No flamewar happened. :)

And I soo thought it was going that way..sorry to doubt you and this fine thread

[cmdrfire]

Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
After that, at length ye will die
Again, on the Day of Judgment, will ye be raised up.



Sura: Al-Mu'minun (The Believers) 23:12-15

Thanks One - I knew it was mentioned in detail in a sura other than Ya-Sin (which touches only briefly on it) but unfortunately I don't have my Yusaf Ali translation with me.

And flamewars are not necessary may easily be averted p-) hope this has helped JoaMei

EDIT- oops, quoted the wrong thing. Corrected.

[JoaMei]

Thanks One - I knew it was mentioned in detail in a sura other than Ya-Sin (which touches only briefly on it) but unfortunately I don't have my Yusaf Ali translation with me.

And flamewars are not necessary may easily be averted p-) hope this has helped JoaMei

EDIT- oops, quoted the wrong thing. Corrected.

That was what I asked for, Thanks. :)

[khukuri]

interesting thread,,


about the stone i kaaba many people (even muslims like me thinks it was a meteoirit.

Muslim wise, the stone came from earth during ismail, it came white colored. Because the sins of people it became black. The black stone was a prestigious thing before islam in this area. The strongest tribe "took care of it".


Personally I belive neither in the islamic description of earth history nor the the very flawed big.gang theory. I just accept that our knowledge for the moment is limited and we will probably know more in the future.

Some people cant accept not having an answer. And some think just because the bigbgang became flawed it suddenly meant that bible/koran was more right.

[ed316]

interesting thread,,


about the stone i kaaba many people (even muslims like me thinks it was a meteoirit.

Muslim wise, the stone came from earth during ismail, it came white colored. Because the sins of people it became black. The black stone was a prestigious thing before islam in this area. The strongest tribe "took care of it".


Personally I belive neither in the islamic description of earth history nor the the very flawed big.gang theory. I just accept that our knowledge for the moment is limited and we will probably know more in the future.

Some people cant accept not having an answer. And some think just because the bigbgang became flawed it suddenly meant that bible/koran was more right.

It's always interesting to hear the story of creation..since I'm Buddhist

[khukuri]

It's always interesting to hear the story of creation..since I'm Buddhist

Didnt see that one coming!:)

[ed316]

Didnt see that one coming!:)

It's rare to run into us, but were here

[Ayura]

Abraham did not build the first mosque he built the first house of worship, and that wouldn't be the mosjid al haram it would be the black covered structure in the middle. The mosque was built by muslims because before muslims it was just houses.




Here is something I found on evolution and Islam, it is a good read and it tells you how man was created and the world with support from verses.

http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/evolution_quran/index.asp



Salam.


Alot of people make the simple mistake of thinking that mosque and masjid mean the same thing. A "Mosque" is an actual physical house/building. A "Masjid" is an area of worship (a grass field can be a masjid if people go there to pray).




Also, I would like to know what evolution has to do with Islam? Islam doesn't discuss any such issues, so proven of not proven, it doesn't matter really :)

[Ayura]

Most moderate muslims (including myself) believe in the scientific theory of evolution and reading of the Qur'an supports this. Of course, there are highly vocal nutjobs (as everywhere) who denounce the "Darwinism", but I've found these people to be the minority.



Salam.

Just out of interest, what verses support evolution :)

[shaheen]

Salam.

Just out of interest, what verses support evolution :)


by evolution you mean ape's becoming men not that fast of course

actully in the quran it clearly states that adam and eve were the first humans on earht and that adam was made of clay by the hands of god himself and eve was born from the ribs of adam ( im not clear on this yet)

and you guys know the rest of the story they lived in the heavens then adam and eve ate the forbiden apple..........

so were all related to each other

[One]

Salam.

Just out of interest, what verses support evolution :)

Man did not come from monkeys because mankind was created in the best image (thats the closest translation i could think of). But life did start in water etc...

why don't you click on the link http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/evolution_quran/index.asp and you will find out.

[Javehn]

Abraham did not build the first mosque he built the first house of worship, and that wouldn't be the mosjid al haram it would be the black covered structure in the middle. The mosque was built by muslims because before muslims it was just houses.




Here is something I found on evolution and Islam, it is a good read and it tells you how man was created and the world with support from verses.

http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/evolution_quran/index.asp



Hmm ...
"Masjid" is relative to hebrew word "Misgad" . In todays hebrew it means "mosque" , that's why I assumed that Masjid means mosque .
The root of the words Misgad thought is S.G.D. (three letters makes the root on hebrew , just like in Arabic) . The root means "worship" , "bow down" .

[LazyLob]

Two names:

Thales

Anaximander

Both predate the koran by about 1200 years. Google them.

Both from a culture that gave us the building blocks and richness of all of ours. Yet we seem to forget. Inclubing the word kybos.

There are many other cultural examples we can hash up and extrapolate a meaning about water.

[Enigma]

Wow Interesting topic! :)

For those of you interested in further reading on the subject of "Origin of life" (evolution vs. spontaneity) in the light of Islam. You should really take a look at this particular section of a book that I’ve just started reading:
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_5_section_1.html

The title of the book is “Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth” by Mirza Tahir Ahmad

You have to be a little patient while reading but its very enlightening.

[LazyLob]

.......You have to be a little patient while reading but its very enlightening.

Not at all. It also depends on your definition of enlightenment and your objectivity on the matter.

[Enigma]

^^^^^Hmmm.. You are pretty quick to judge a book, perhaps you did not care to take the time to read the text attentively. (whatever maybe the reason of your quick evaluation of the book you are entitled to your reasoning) Part V of the book is entirely dedicated to examining the designer and the design of organisms. It is subdivided (if you look to the left), I sincerely hope you get a chance to view the entire reading and if after you still feel unenlightened I suggest you read it again and if still you feel unfulfilled then read it a third time and if the third time you think it was a waste of time then I apologize and I thank you for making an effort to read it three time.

I’ve only randomly picked a few quotes (therefore they are not constructive but I think they are enough to make someone to proceed with the text) so please do not limit yourself to these:


It is a complete misunderstanding on the part of the naturalists that the divide between them and the creationists is the real contention. The religious clergy they often allude to is the extremist faction among the Christian scholars who deny evolution at all levels and believe in spontaneity instead. Spontaneity means that each animal was created separately in its finished form with all the organs it contains. This is certainly not the Quranic concept of creation which we have been explaining throughout the book. It is completely different from the creationist's view found among the Christians. As such we should not be misunderstood and confused with the creationist when we discuss the creation and development of organs.

HOW CAN IT be possible for evolution to continuously march forward in the direction of man while at each moment the possibilities of its taking the wrong steps backwards are overwhelmingly larger? The only possible solution to this otherwise insoluble dilemma would be to follow the backward escape route envisaged by a boy during a rainy day. Once, it is said, a boy reached his school very late. When severely reprimanded by his teacher, he offered the excuse that the road to school was so muddy and slippery that as he took one step forward in the direction of the school, he slipped back two steps.
'How on earth did you reach the school at all?' shouted the angry teacher.
'Excuse me, sir,' was the apologetic reply of the boy, 'It struck me rather late, that I should start walking in the direction of my house instead of that of the school. The moment I did it, I began to slide backwards towards the school at an even faster speed than I ordinarily maintain. And here I am sir, hitting the back of my head against the school wall, such was my haste to reach here, backwards all the way.'
The dilemma that life faces, if left entirely to the mercy of chance, is far more exasperating than the case of that boy. At each step forward, evolution driven by chance should have slipped a hundred thousand steps backwards. But for life with no prefixed direction, as some naturalists believe, the concept of a step forward simply does not arise. Forward in which direction and to what end, are the questions which can never be answered in relation to chance being its creator. Every step it took could be in any direction. Hence even turning the journey of life backwards could not resolve the problem. Man not being the ultimate goal of evolution, life would lose its bearing in the wilderness of chaos, squandering each quality it had gained, by chance, to the stormy aimless winds of annihilation. Whatever the mutative changes might have gained, they may lose by other leaps in wrong directions. Let us apply the same logic to the creation of eyes and examine how blind mutative changes could have succeeded in manufacturing even a most rudimentary eye which could see and transmit what it saw to the brain behind. It is far more likely for mutation, or gradual cellular development, to disorganize what it has created itself, than for it to organize the surrounding confusion with the passage of time. The haphazard mutative changes created only by chance could actually play havoc with the orderly shape and design of life. It could change, for instance, the positioning of the eye, the nose, the ear, the mouth, the tongue and their sensory buds. Maybe in a few subsequent generations some species could have eyes shifted to the back of their heads instead, or upon their stomachs, or one each under their armpits! Who can stay or discipline the hand of chance? Again, it is not unlikely that the ears could begin to see, the nose could talk and the tongue could hear, ankles could grow with buds of taste and smell! Different animals, at least some of them, should have exhibited such freaks of nature without a purpose to serve. But wherever in nature we find a shifting of the ear or the eye from their normally expected position, it is always done purposefully, being of advantage to the animal concerned rather than of disadvantage. But these are exceptions. The rule that governs millions of species dictates a universal design. When we observe chance at work it behaves differently; babies are born with congenital disorders, alas never to their advantage. Who knows? A game of chance is a game of chance.
…………..Unfortunately, the physical features of species as they evolve have been far more emphasized by naturalists than their sensory organs. However, mere physical changes in a certain direction are of no significance compared to the advancement of awareness and consciousness in the grand scheme of the evolutionary spiral. What is Life after all, if it is not awareness, as against the absolute unawareness of Death?
The most dramatic miracle does not take place on the plane of mere cellular changes and complexities of molecules at the level of proteins. The miracle of the origin of life lies in the sudden dawn of consciousness upon the horizon of the dead universe that preceded it. Ever since that happened it continues to grow from weakness to strength, from a lone beginning to diversity. The meaning of evolution can in no way be understood by confining oneself to the Darwinian principle of haphazard physical changes being selected and grouped together by the hand of natural selection. It can only be comprehended by gaining a better understanding of the five senses which ultimately evolved after the hazardous journey of life during its last billion years.
Man can look down from his vantage point at whatever lies behind him and below him. Only then will he realize the meaning of life and the meaning of evolution—bit by bit, nanometre by nanometre; the senses once born climbed through the spiralling path of endless evolution. The purpose and philosophy of evolution is doubtlessly the creation and promotion of the five senses. The creation of five senses, each of which in itself is a masterpiece of creative wonders, stands witness to a well-executed design at the grandest scale, where harmony rules supreme.

There is far more to it than we have briefly indicated. Each movement we make, each thought that crosses our mind bequeaths to our nervous system a waste residual of consumed energy which, if not immediately taken care of could cause instantaneous death. Hence, during every fraction of our living seconds we confront and survive death. This is the true meaning of the survival of the fittest. And this fitness is not a product of a mere game of chance.

Hence, in the course of the struggle for existence, a very large number of contestants had to be sacrificed for the sake of every small gain in the quality of life. Yet, once the threshold of death is crossed successfully, it is not the end at all. Every living moment of their lives, those who pass the test of survival once, continue to face death. It is this perpetually impending danger from which the Quran declares that the living are saved consciously at the command of God by the angels of life. Hence, neither death is accidental, nor life. They go side by side like night and day to weave the yarn of conscious existence. ……If God is removed from this intricate scheme of things the only identity which remains to be fixed is that of the Creator. Let alone the mysteries of the inanimate universe, the living wonders of the tiny planet Earth will cry out for the Hand that shaped them and filled their existence with fathomless intricacies. Rule God out and their cries will forever remain unheard, unanswered. Man can only be sure of one thing, that Life did not create itself, and Death could not create Life.


Finally, man appeared at the pinnacle of evolution. Between the animal kingdom and man the difference is so vast and varied that no scientist in truth can envision any bit by bit progressive changes which can fill this vastness. We are not talking of simple physical similarities of which Darwin has taken note of. The evolutionists talk of a missing link which may have been a chimpanzee according to some or a gorilla according to others. Of course a tail is missing in some species of apes, but for a tail to be or not to be is not the question. The question is how the great void can be explained between man and animals in their behavioural patterns and mental potentials? Which animal has learnt to read and write, and to express himself in languages as sophisticated as human languages? A comparison between humans and animals in all these fields will show that human potential is many billion times greater than that of the animals. This is a conservative estimate when we turn to the realities. Look at all the libraries of the world and what they contain. Can a scientist show even a tiny library of the most elementary things in the cave of a gorilla or the private home of a chimpanzee? Show us a page authored by either of the two, dearly preserved upon their library shelves and we shall admit that our statement was rather exaggerated. They talk of animal languages of course but they also talk of those languages as expressions not consciously created. They even talk of dolphins mimicking human language, even uttering a word or two, but nowhere in the animal kingdom can they demonstrate such languages as humans have coined with such immense variety.
Perhaps Dawkins' imaginary monkey could write a line of Shakespeare on Dawkins' computer by randomly pressing any keys on the board but the time needed for that chance single sentence of Shakespeare's drama is not only remote, it is impossible. It is incomprehensible why Dawkins should have employed a hypothetical monkey while real monkeys were easily available. He should have employed a real monkey for the task without training him to press the keys. All he should have done was to tie a monkey in the vicinity of the computer. Next morning if he had returned to watch what the computer had produced with the help of that monkey he would be far more likely to see the computer shattered into pieces instead of discovering a single word of Shakespeare. But we know the time is too short. Each day a new computer should have to be bought and left at his disposal, and on the day the monkey breathes his last, the room would have been turned into a junkyard of shattered computers with not a trace of Shakespeare to be found anywhere, not even over the body of the deceased. Still, time may be far too short if measured by Darwinian standards. But did the apes not exist and evolve for 5–8 million years before man? Is it not enough time for the bit by bit building of a Shakespeare among them? After all, the difference in brain between them and man is just a single, though long, leap.

Thus every avenue the scientists explore leads them to the same age-old dilemma. It seems as if a stone wall is obstructing the passage of research from any further development beyond it. Dickerson, however, has attempted to extricate himself out of this tight corner by suggesting that both must have developed in parallel. If so, then we shall have to envisage a scenario of eggs giving birth to eggs and chickens giving birth to chicks separately on parallel lines for millions of years. Thus they lived on without interdependence, when one fine morning the chicken thought of laying eggs instead, and the eggs decided to break open into chicks and so the story came to a mutually advantageous conclusion. Together they both lived happily ever after, producing each other!
We profoundly respect Dickerson for his tremendous service in the cause of science and laud him for his balanced unbiased attitude in resolving scientific problems. Yet for Dickerson to suggest this, leaves one absolutely astounded! Perhaps it was not a well-calculated conclusion of the scientist but merely a cry of an anguished soul that Dickerson possessed, frustrated by the impossibility of a situation which could only be resolved by paying homage to the existence of God.


Natural selection cannot be referred to as a creator, because it does not create but only works on whatever has already been created.

As for my opinion on the matter I support evolution at micro level (that is to say I still hold the Creator responsible for the selection and not just natural selection).

[LazyLob]

Religion will always look for areas of science that as yet are not fully understood to place their absolutes. As science advances certain religions will say that they always knew about that and will reinterpret their “scriptures” to adjust their theology. It is basic survival skills.

You quote:

“Thus every avenue the scientists explore leads them to the same age-old dilemma. It seems as if a stone wall is obstructing the passage of research from any further development beyond it.”

This is the perfect example. What was being “obstructed” scientifically in Arabia in 650 AD is not the same as what is being “obstructed” today. In a 100 years time that “wall” you refer to will be pushed even further back. So this wall you refer to does move.

What was beyond that wall, objectively speaking, is getting smaller. So the domain where your theology resides is getting smaller.

Your faith is absolute and finite, science is not. This lack of adaptability cannot be substituted by a “I knew it all along” after a breakthrough in science. Gate, horse and bolted come to mind. If your holy book predicts everything why is there nothing invented from it? Reverse engineer some invention so to speak.



You also quote:

“Natural selection cannot be referred to as a creator, because it does not create but only works on whatever has already been created”

This quote is a play on words. For some one to believe the author’s intention you have to have blind faith in your religion. But blind faith does not make that quote objectively true in its final intention.

Natural selection is a process which can and is applied to chemicals that created the primordial soup and even the interaction of basic sub atomic particles that gave rise to those chemicals. Science will carry on pushing back the boundaries unless stopped. But not by some divine power but by other humans.

The “wall” you quote is being pushed back. This process has been going on well before the Abrahamic faiths or even their progenitor, Zoroastrianism, existed.

The rest of this “book” is basically re-hashed science adapted to the author’s point of view. He pats scientists on the head saying what they did was good but that in the end they got it wrong and that he knows better.

[Enigma]

I see there is little use in debating with you as you already have this negative perception of science involving religion. The reinterpretations of “scriptures” to adjust their theology, is common in Christianity so I do not blame you for your stereotypical approach.


“Thus every avenue the scientists explore leads them to the same age-old dilemma. It seems as if a stone wall is obstructing the passage of research from any further development beyond it.”

This is the perfect example. What was being “obstructed” scientifically in Arabia in 650 AD is not the same as what is being “obstructed” today. In a 100 years time that “wall” you refer to will be pushed even further back. So this wall you refer to does move.
yet again you have failed to read the entire text and are using/understanding the quote out of context. Your evaluation is only based on the quotes that I just randomly added.
The dilemma they face is the question of who preceded whom—was it the chicken which laid the egg, or the egg which hatched the chicken?

The “wall” you keep referring to being pushed back; Last time I checked many scientists are still bewildered about whether it was the chicken that preceded the egg or the egg that hatched into the chicken. That’s the wall the author is referring to the wall being pushed the scientists unable to fashion human organs such as the ear/eye capable of hearing or seeing. Scientists unable to come to a conclusion of why and how things are being shaped at every step as evolution cannot and is not the only deity responsible for such change. Because
It is far more likely for mutation, or gradual cellular development, to disorganize what it has created itself, than for it to organize the surrounding confusion with the passage of time. Ask any scientist and he will agree that a mutation-a necessary ingredient for evolution to occur (evolution at the genetic level) is likely to lead to disorganized results rather then organized (favorable (back) mutation do occur but at very minute scale compared to forward mutation).


“Natural selection cannot be referred to as a creator, because it does not create but only works on whatever has already been created”

This quote is a play on words. For some one to believe the author’s intention you have to have blind faith in your religion. But blind faith does not make that quote objectively true in its final intention.

The quote is pretty self explanatory. The author is not asking the reader to have blind faith in religion (throughout Part V of the book the author has taken a scientific approach and has used it to create his argument and to further support his argument religion as an aide is applied. You are misleading yourself if you think the author is trying to justify religion in the light of science (he argues against blind evolution by using scientific evidence and also including religion). The author evaluates the work of Richard Dawkins “Blind Watchmaker” and finds his theories are irregular according to science and thus comes to a conclusion “Natural selection cannot be referred to as a creator [as decreed by Professor Dawkins], because it does not create but only works on whatever has already been created”. Evolution does not create a new genus but rather works on the already pre-existing species.


The rest of this “book” is basically re-hashed science adapted to the author’s point of view. He pats scientists on the head saying what they did was good but that in the end they got it wrong and that he knows better.

I find the author humble in his approach and no where does he so pompously regard himself as knowing everything as you have accused him of doing. His text is fair in evaluating and coming to his conclusions with the support of scientific evidence. Perhaps my action of randomly choosing quotes should have been more calculated because as it appears your evaluation is only based on what I copy and pasted and this is quite unfortunate because the quotes alone do not do justice to the entire text.

[LazyLob]

I see there is little use in debating with you as you already have this negative perception of science involving religion. The reinterpretations of “scriptures” to adjust their theology, is common in Christianity so I do not blame you for your stereotypical approach.

No, I do not have a negative perception of science, your words not mine. I have quite the opposite point of view. A pity you see little use in debating with some one who doesn't share your point of view. These are the real debates. Would you rather debate with some one who fully agrees you?

No. This survival instinct is practiced by all the Abrahamic faiths. The problem with people of a faith in cases like this is that they preach random scientific facts laced with falsehoods like this one you quote:


Last time I checked many scientists are still bewildered about whether it was the chicken that preceded the egg or the egg that hatched into the chicken. That’s the wall the author is referring to the wall being pushed the scientists unable to fashion human organs such as the ear/eye capable of hearing or seeing. Scientists unable to come to a conclusion of why and how things are being shaped at every step as evolution cannot and is not the only deity responsible for such change. Because…..


……Ask any scientist and he will agree that a mutation-a necessary ingredient for evolution to occur (evolution at the genetic level) is likely to lead to disorganized results rather then organized (favorable (back) mutation do occur but at very minute scale compared to forward mutation)………

I think most people know that already. Mutation is at the heart of Darwinism, otherwise evolution would not exist. You are stating nothing new. Then saying it’s at a genetic level is a redundancy. Mutation is always disorganized in all directions, the environment then decides if that particular mutation survives or not.

Now this fact is mixed with a falsehood and this is the one you have chosen, in a very creationist way I might add, by stating that scientists still do not know what came first the chicken or the egg. I cannot believe you are using it as a metaphor in this case.

I can tell you. It was the egg. But the first egg did not come from a chicken. Encapsulation started off much earlier. First in cells and then, which is the answer you want, amniotes. You are assuming chickens and eggs spontaneously formed at their current genetic level. By further saying that scientists assume the same thing is another falsehood. They do not, they know better.

The quote you use above also says scientists do not know how to fashion human organs. Well, maybe not yet but they are nearly there.

http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p1219.htm

Scientists don’t yet know why Mr. Spock’s ears are pointed either. Does that mean they never will? That is very defeatist. Imagine how little the human race would have progressed with that attitude.

I am sure this argument was made in Arabia in 650 A.D. about other aspects of science that have now been mastered. What would they say about that? Don’t bother answering that one, its rhetorical.

I have read other sections of the article. At one point he starts talking about prokaryotes and eukaryotes. He just states they exist but doesn’t link this fact into his argument anywhere. It just hangs there as a bewildering scientific add on with no explanation as to why.

Having to refute countless half truths is a futile exercise. We could go on ad-infinitum. You should already have enough back ground knowledge to realize that a lot of these quotes are pseudo science.

If you are such a firm believer in your faith you should not need science to back you up unless you have doubt.