Islams position on Evolution

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

Assalamu'alaikum,
Lamarck was actually the pioneer of evolutionism.

I apologise. Let me rephrase that sentence. Lamarck was actually the pioneer of modern evolutionism not evolutionaism itself.The theory of evolution is actually as old as antiquity. An ancient Greek philosopher by the name Anaximander for example postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal.

[Vajradhara]

Salaam Aidyl,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

The theory of evolution sir as propounded by Charles Darwin, is not a fact as some, well actually many may erronuously suggest.

you realize that we are using the Modern Synthesis, correct, not the original proposal by Darwin?

It's just a theory, not a FACT of science.

then i submit that you do not understand the term "theory" as it is used in a scientific context.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. it is a fact that allele frequencies change within a population over time. it is a theory that natural selection with mutations and modification by descent are the means by which these frequencies change.

Dr. Gould has a wonderful explanation of this:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libra...nd-theory.html

Hundreds of reknown scientists have produced many writings in refutation to Darwin's theory.

like who, for instance? do any of these hundreds of scientists have this published in a peer reviewed scientific journal of some sort?

Darwin himself knew there were many problems in the theory, especially that of natural selection. The whole conception of mankind evolving from an ape is preposterous.

as mentioned, we are using the Modern Synthesis. you can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis

further, the ToE does not say that humans evolved from an ape. it indicates that apes and humans shared a common ancestor.

The problem with this idea, is that NO transitional stages of change that can only be proven through our fossil records has ever been found.

i've a huge list of observed instances of speciation and transitionals. would you care to take a look?

here's a quick link you could check if you like:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0_0_0/lines_03

The reason why scientists today still cling strongly to this THEORY is because it's the best sounding scientific explanation there is of how man came into being in this world.

and it hasn't been falsified... but, yes... it is the best scientific theory for the variation in species that we find

it has nothing, however, to do with how life arose in the universe. that is a whole other subject called Abiogenesis.

metta,

~v

[Yaqinud Din]

Here is a good link.

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ATHEIST/evolution/index.htm

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Salaam Aidyl,

thank you for the post.



you realize that we are using the Modern Synthesis, correct, not the original proposal by Darwin?



then i submit that you do not understand the term "theory" as it is used in a scientific context.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. it is a fact that allele frequencies change within a population over time. it is a theory that natural selection with mutations and modification by descent are the means by which these frequencies change.

Dr. Gould has a wonderful explanation of this:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libra...nd-theory.html



like who, for instance? do any of these hundreds of scientists have this published in a peer reviewed scientific journal of some sort?



as mentioned, we are using the Modern Synthesis. you can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis

further, the ToE does not say that humans evolved from an ape. it indicates that apes and humans shared a common ancestor.



i've a huge list of observed instances of speciation and transitionals. would you care to take a look?

here's a quick link you could check if you like:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0_0_0/lines_03



and it hasn't been falsified... but, yes... it is the best scientific theory for the variation in species that we find

it has nothing, however, to do with how life arose in the universe. that is a whole other subject called Abiogenesis.

metta,

~v

Assalamu'alaikum,
lol I think the good Doctor does not know what he's talking about."Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty."

You said,"further, the ToE does not say that humans evolved from an ape. it indicates that apes and humans shared a common ancestor." What is the common ancestor? They term the common ancestor a homonoid. A homonoid belongs to the Hominoidea, a family of different species of apes that resemble man. So what are you arguing about? Further more, it is mathematically and scientifically impossible for the DNA of one species to transform into another.


THE 1966 PHILADELPHIA MEETING

It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists really began fighting among themselves in earnest. At Wistar, evolutionary theory was destroyed by mathematical facts.
"The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows. Let us not dally with the doubts of nineteenth-century critics, however; for the issue subsided. But it raised its ugly head again in a fairly dramatic form in 1967, when a handful of mathematicians and biologists were chattering over a picnic lunch organized by the physicist, Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. `A rather weird discussion' took place. The subject was evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the rift that they decided to organize a conference, which was called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. The conference was chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Noble prize and who, at the time, was director of the Medical Research Council's laboratories in North London. Not, you will understand, the kind of man to speak wildly or without careful thought. In opening the meeting, he said: `The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from several quarters."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 4.
A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:
"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.
A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.
For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.
*C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!
The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.
It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.
For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.
*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).
Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!
*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.
For more information on the 1966 Wistar Institute, we refer you to the book quoted above, by *Moorehead and *Kaplan. For much more on mathematical problems confronting evolutionary theory. (See DNA and Cells).

[Vajradhara]

Salaam Adiyl,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

Assalamu'alaikum,
lol I think the good Doctor does not know what he's talking about.

why is that?

What is the common ancestor? They term the common ancestor a homonoid. A homonoid belongs to the Hominoidea, a family of different species of apes that resemble man. So what are you arguing about?

that humans didn't come from apes, both apes and humans come from a common ancestor.

Further more, it is mathematically and scientifically impossible for the DNA of one species to transform into another.

those words do not really belong here... science doesn't really deal in absoluteist terms like "impossible". it may well be so improbable that it is virtually impossible, however, since science recognizes the limitations of the instruments, it cannot say "impossible".

however, i would be more than happy to have you explain how it is "scientifically" impossible, if you would care to.

THE 1966 PHILADELPHIA MEETING

you realize that we are using the Modern Synthesis, correct? using information from 1966 is going to be woefully out of date and inaccurate predicated upon the continuing discoveries in the various fields.

further, if you are going to cut and paste someone elses work, you need to properly attribute it to the author. please review the Code of Conduct on this forum for more details on this policy.

For much more on mathematical problems confronting evolutionary theory. (See DNA and Cells).

i'll check your link here, hopefully, it will have information that is more current.

i checked the link... have you read what they have to say regarding your faith at this site? i find it rather unusual that you would cite, as your evidence, a website that feels your religion is misguided, at best.

do you, perhaps, have something written by a scientist that has been peer reviewed and is published in a scientific journal or publication which substantiates your view? it would be really excellent if it was a bit more current than the mid 1960's.

metta,

~v

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Salaam Adiyl,

thank you for the post.



why is that?



that humans didn't come from apes, both apes and humans come from a common ancestor.



those words do not really belong here... science doesn't really deal in absoluteist terms like "impossible". it may well be so improbable that it is virtually impossible, however, since science recognizes the limitations of the instruments, it cannot say "impossible".

however, i would be more than happy to have you explain how it is "scientifically" impossible, if you would care to.



you realize that we are using the Modern Synthesis, correct? using information from 1966 is going to be woefully out of date and inaccurate predicated upon the continuing discoveries in the various fields.

further, if you are going to cut and paste someone elses work, you need to properly attribute it to the author. please review the Code of Conduct on this forum for more details on this policy.



i'll check your link here, hopefully, it will have information that is more current.

i checked the link... have you read what they have to say regarding your faith at this site? i find it rather unusual that you would cite, as your evidence, a website that feels your religion is misguided, at best.

do you, perhaps, have something written by a scientist that has been peer reviewed and is published in a scientific journal or publication which substantiates your view? it would be really excellent if it was a bit more current than the mid 1960's.

metta,

~v

I think you'd enjoy reading this


Life is as complex as the universe, and if the last chapter provided you with a dose of spiritual experience, this chapter will supply you with another dose. The factories, inside your 100 trillion cells, will bewilder you. The length of the DNA in your body, which exceeds the distance between the Earth and the Sun, is incomprehensible. The optimal structural design of the birds’ bones attests to an Omnipotent Creator. Yet the evolutionists want to convince everyone that we have gone from hydrogen to human! In doing that, they are introducing the following definition of the hydrogen gas:

"Hydrogen as an odorless, tasteless, flammable, invisible gas which, if given enough time (say 10 billion years), becomes people!"

Again, as you read this chapter, keep asking questions: Who, Why, and How, you will have only one logical answer: "God is the Mighty Creator and He made it His Way."
What exactly is life, and how and where did it begin. Scientists’ answers to these questions are changing as discussions and theories pour in from fields as diversified as oceanography and molecular biology, geochemistry and astronomy. Did life start as organic soup in a warm pond, or under the hellish skies of a planet, unknown to us, racked by volcanic eruption and threatened by comets and asteroids. Then the intruders from outer space may have delivered the raw material necessary for life. The basic concept of evolution is that life started spontaneously, here on Earth or on an unknown planet, and took a very slow process to evolve from atoms to amino acids to proteins, to cells, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, and finally to human. This idea is very similar to some monster like Frankenstein, pieced together from different dead elements and jolted into life by lightening bolts.
Proteins are the building blocks of living organisms. They make up much of the structure of all life forms. At the atomic level, a protein molecule consists almost entirely of a handful of elements - hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, and most importantly carbon. Because carbon easily forms multiple bonds with as many as four other atoms at once, it acts as a kind of glue cementing together the pieces of life’s complex molecules. The reason that carbon bonds so easily is that it has relatively few electrons. In a carbon atom, electrons orbit a nucleus in what may be thought as concentric shells. In all atoms, each shell may hold certain number of electrons. The inner shell accommodates as many as two, while the next one can hold eight electrons. But a carbon atom has only six electrons; two electrons in the inner shell and four in the next, leaving four vacancies in the outer shell.
Proteins are large complex organic compounds, made up of twenty different kinds of smaller compounds called amino acids. Large protein molecule consists of hundreds of thousands of amino acids. One protein differs from another in its number, sequence, kind, and arrangement of amino acids. A peptide is a two or more amino acids kept together by a chemical bond called the peptide bond. Hair and fingernails are proteins that differ because of amino acids. Hemoglobin is a blood protein made of 4 chains of amino acids. The twenty different kinds of the amino acids can form an almost endless number of proteins, 2.5E18 or 2.5 billion billion. It is estimated that the number of kinds of proteins in a human body ranges from 10,000 to 50,000.
It is hard to imagine that a human being starts as one single fertilized egg. It grows and develops inside its mother until birth. At birth, a baby is made up of over 60 trillion cells. As early as 1900, scientists knew that chromosomes were located inside the nucleus of a cell. They also knew that chromosomes carried hereditary information in complex molecule called DNA, short for deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA is named for the sugar deoxyribose, which it contains. However, the structure of the DNA was not known until 1953, when scientists suggested a model for DNA. That model looks like a twisted ladder with rungs, made up of four nitrogen bases. One molecule of DNA may contain 20,000 pairs of these bases.
When a cell is divided and replicates itself, by a process called mitosis, the DNA molecule must also make exact copies of them. First, the DNA molecule comes apart like a zipper being unzipped. The two halves of the DNA separate between the base pairs. Then new bases, from the contents of the nucleus, attach to each half like puzzle pieces. Thus two identical DNA molecules are formed. Like a biological librarian, DNA preserves the information needed to fashion the protein molecules. A similar compound called RNA, short for ribonucleic acid, helps turn these instructions into reality. No evolutionist can be sure how or when DNA and RNA first emerged on Earth. The key to the DNA-RNA partnership is a shared language, spelled out along the DNA strands in three-letter "words" called codons. A codon is made up of the bases of three successive DNA nucleotides. The most common codons simply specify a particular amino acid.
If codons are words, genes are the sentences they form, beginning with a special initiator codon and ending with a terminator. A gene’s message consists of a list of required amino acids, arranged in an order needed to make a particular protein. DNA’s genetic messages are readily duplicated by messenger RNA, a molecule that effectively assembles itself during the copying process. Incorporating DNA’s instructions in its own structure, the messenger RNA then travels out to the machinery of the outer cell, where it begins the manufacturing of a specific protein molecule by following the recipe it carries.
To translate genetic information into proteins, living organisms follow a complex manufacturing process. Work begins as a strand of messenger RNA enters the cell’s protein assembly area, carrying a genetic code for a particular protein. The messenger RNA goes on its way through the watery interior of the cell in search of a structure called the ribosome. Typically a millionth of an inch across, these sophisticated protein assembly machines are equipped both to read the messenger RNA’s orders and to carry them out.
Once the messenger RNA docks at a given ribosome, the ribosome looks for the beginning of the RNA message, then attaches there. Messenger RNA proceeds to wiggle through the ribosome, allowing it to read the RNA codons in sequence. For each codon, the ribosome chemically signals to the transfer RNA, a type of RNA, whose job is to deliver a single amino acid. When the transfer RNA arrives, carrying the required amino acid, it touches down just long enough to unload its amino acid. Then, the ribosome links the incoming amino acid to a growing peptide chain. This process is remarkably efficient even in a bacterium; one ribosome can attach twenty separate amino acids to a peptide chain every second!
After the final codon has been read and its message obeyed, the ribosome releases a finished peptide chain into the cell. The peptide’s electrochemical properties will quickly wrap it and other peptides into the folded arrangement that forms a particular protein molecule. The molecule’s work will depend on its identity: the protein known as collagen provides structural support in bone and ligaments, for example, while proteins called antibodies fight disease.
Assuming that all of the above was self-developed without the Hand of a Mighty Creator is analogous to believing that a monkey randomly throwing pieces of brick, iron, wood, and glass over a long span of time to make a magnificent high-rise building!
It is extremely hard to believe that a biology teacher explaining the above process without getting excited. This is not a simple process. Yet, this is a simple proof that God exists, and He is the Only One that can design this process.

Would you do yourself a favor? Read the above process again, and ask yourself who directed this step? It is inconceivable that nature could organize this process with such detail and efficiency.

http://www.usislam.org/30life.htm

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. it is a fact that allele frequencies change within a population over time. it is a theory that natural selection with mutations and modification by descent are the means by which these frequencies change.

Dr. Gould has a wonderful explanation of this:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

I replied to this by saying that the doctor doesn't know what he's talking about, because he's confusing simple words with his convoluted explanations on them. He continues on saying that facts does not mean absolute certainty...I tell you that this dude needs to consult a lexicologist. Is it not a fact of absolute certainty that the EARTH is SPHERICAL? can this fact ever take U-turns? IT is a FACT that human beings require oxygen to LIVE. Is this not a absolutely certain fact. Can this fact EVER change for us humans? It is a FACT that the basic cell, cytoplasm contains over 50% of H20. Can this fact ever change? It is a FACT that when you chop someone's head off, blood gushes out and the person is rendered DEAD. Is this not an ABSOLUTE CERTAIN fact? Will there be a day in the future when you cut or even slit someone's throat, he can still walk and talk? Why don't you refer to this site for more interesting ABSOLUTE FACTS about Science http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/fac...ctfile1_20.asp

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Further more, you seem rather intelligent. I would very much appreciate it if you could either by your own or with a group of PhD holder scientists to apply the MODERN SYNTHESIS approach to explain the articles on this website http://www.usislam.org/30life.htm .

[farhan]

Who made everything He has created good, and He began the creation of man from clay. Then He made his offspring from semen of worthless water . Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him the soul , and He gave you hearing , sight and hearts. Little is the thanks you give! (32:7-9) (Hilali/Mohsin)

(Asad says that in classical arabic the word af’idah a metonym for both "feelings" and "minds"; so he has translated it so).

Not going into the causality & effects of Darwinism , in the light of above mentioned verses , some scholars like Dr. Israr Ahmed & Javed Ahmed Ghamdi have concluded that there is a good possibility that this is a hint for evolution. The verses clesrly say that "the organism man" was created from clay ( or constituents of caly ) . Later on , it started reproducing sexually . Then God made him more manlike , & breathed his soul ( which can be considered as the abality to think & a lot of other things that differentiate animals from man ) into him . With the use of "thumma", the verse divides evolution of man into 3 phases .

1 . From non-living matter to living organism ( He began!!! )
2 . Asexually reproducing to sexually reproducing organism
3 . From sexually reproducing organism to thinking/feeling man

Although the scholars say that there is also a possibility of these verses being an allegorical representatin of something other than physical/genetic evolution .

In my personal view , Islam never says that evolution is impossible . There should be debates on this , which are hindered by the extreme anti-evolution views of muslims/most religious people , & fierce athiestic views of evolutionists . The problem here is not man or evolution , but the very exisence of God & thiesm . Man is either a product of coincidence ( darwinistic view ) or a creation of God ( creationistic view ) .

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Aidyl,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

I think you'd enjoy reading this

why would you think this?

Life is as complex as the universe, and if the last chapter provided you with a dose of spiritual experience, this chapter will supply you with another dose.

it did not.

The factories, inside your 100 trillion cells, will bewilder you.

they do not. they did before i had accurate knowledge of these things. now that i do, i am not bewildered by them. it is, however, awesome.

The optimal structural design of the birds’ bones attests to an Omnipotent Creator.

that does not follow. their design attests to Natural Selection and evolution as much as it attests to anything.

Yet the evolutionists want to convince everyone that we have gone from hydrogen to human!

nope. you misunderstand the position of Evolution. remember, Evolution starts with the basic assumption that "life exists" and seeks to explain the vast diversity of life forms.

you are talking about Abiogenesis, which is a different theory.

In doing that, they are introducing the following definition of the hydrogen gas:

"Hydrogen as an odorless, tasteless, flammable, invisible gas which, if given enough time (say 10 billion years), becomes people!"

you cannot find a single scientist that supports evolution that would make a false claim like this. if you can, please provide a cite so that i can cure my increduility.

What exactly is life, and how and where did it begin. Scientists’ answers to these questions are changing as discussions and theories pour in from fields as diversified as oceanography and molecular biology, geochemistry and astronomy.

are you suggesting that changing ones views based on new information is somehow not good?

Did life start as organic soup in a warm pond, or under the hellish skies of a planet, unknown to us, racked by volcanic eruption and threatened by comets and asteroids. Then the intruders from outer space may have delivered the raw material necessary for life.

different theory altogether. this is part and parcel of Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

Assuming that all of the above was self-developed without the Hand of a Mighty Creator is analogous to believing that a monkey randomly throwing pieces of brick, iron, wood, and glass over a long span of time to make a magnificent high-rise building!

no, it is not. that is emotive rhetorical nonesense.

It is extremely hard to believe that a biology teacher explaining the above process without getting excited. This is not a simple process. Yet, this is a simple proof that God exists, and He is the Only One that can design this process.

there is no method by which it can be determined that any of this is "designed" by any sort of being. until such a being can be demonstrated, this is simply a religious belief.

Would you do yourself a favor? Read the above process again, and ask yourself who directed this step? It is inconceivable that nature could organize this process with such detail and efficiency.

http://www.usislam.org/30life.htm

a "who" never enters into the equation for my world veiw. it is not inconceivable since that is the way things are. it is demonstrable

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Aidyl,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

I replied to this by saying that the doctor doesn't know what he's talking about, because he's confusing simple words with his convoluted explanations on them.

actually, what he is doing is explaining how the technical meaning of the term in scientific circles is different than the vernacular meaning of the term used by laypeople. in so doing, he is pointing out how laypeople misunderstand the technical use of the terms.

He continues on saying that facts does not mean absolute certainty...

that is absolutely correct. you have heard of the Uncertainty Principle?

Is it not a fact of absolute certainty that the EARTH is SPHERICAL?

we are talking of things below the scale of classical physics here, the Quantum scale.

here's a link to a good primer on this material:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/

metta,

~v