Islams position on Evolution

[madina]

Before discussing any scientific theory from a Muslim perspective, a basic axiom of the Muslim attitude toward knowledge should be understood. The same God Who created the physical universe also revealed scripture as a guidance for human beings. Although the main purpose of revelation is not to describe the physical universe, it uses such descriptions to develop arguments about the existence and attributes of God and life after death. Since God is the Creator of the physical universe and the source of revelation, there should be no contradiction between the two. If there appears to be, then we are either misinterpreting physical reality or misinterpreting revelation.

The Theory of Evolution, as proposed by Darwin and refined with insights derived from genetics, is objectionable from a Muslim point of view because it elevates ‘chance’ to the level of a deity. An example of this point of view is summed up in the title of Richard Dawson’s book, The Blind Watchmaker. In The Meaning of Evolution, George Gaylord Simpson repeats the “official” dogma of the contemporary scientific guild: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”

The evolutionary process is, according to them, controlled by two basic principles. The creative process is a matter of chance. Genes are randomly distributed when chromosomes unzip to form reproductive cells. A new combination is created in the union of sperm and egg. Occasional copying errors and mutations introduce new information. “Nature” then edits the creative process by causing weaker members of a species to die before reproducing, a process known as ‘natural selection.’ According to Darwin, gradual changes accumulate by this process until the descendants of the original organism become so different from their ancestor that they constitute a different species.

A. D. Eddington, a proponent of evolution from the early twentieth century, appealed to the creative power of chance by stating that if you chained a bunch of monkeys to typewriters and gave them enough time, they would eventually type out the collected works of Shakespeare. But if one gives this thought problem more than the most cursory thought, the absurdity of his proposition is glaringly clear. Let’s say you check in on the monkeys after an hour. You see something like this:

Qqqqe jjjlllll ljcvcvdf dfidof jffjf fjdmvivoirr j4 rofjvc v if [
‘‘’vvskjgfqpjp apsif askfdf ldkf’fa’’’q3409344lmvmvlsdjgfu3pqfklamdsc’paiefp
0t pejlmdvliajrgpqcm,c,m

Occasionally you will find a word embedded in a string of characters. More occasionally you will find a word standing alone. Very rarely you might find a pair of words. To find a sentence would be astonishing. To find a sentence free of spelling and grammatical errors would be more improbable. After years of gibberish, one day you find the following:

Egeon
Proceed, Solinus, to procure my fall,
And by the doom of death end woes and all.

Duke
Merchant of Syracusa, plead no more.
I am not partial to infringe our laws…

And for page after page you find the entire Comedy of Errors, followed by several hundred pages of Shakespeare’s other plays. If you determined that the monkeys really did type it without visible outside help, would it not be logical to conclude that some unseen intelligence was guiding the monkeys’ hands?

Consider the amount of genetic information in the body of one human being. At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead. Yet, it contains information equivalent to about six billion “chemical letters.” This is enough information to fill 1000 books, each 500 pages thick. A computer operating system would represent only a fraction of that amount of information. Consider the impact of random change on the operating system of your computer. How likely would it be to cause an improvement in the system?

At a conference of evolutionary biologists and mathematicians, the mathematicians infuriated the biologists by pointing out that there simply would not be enough time in the universe for life to evolve by chance. The analogy given by one scientist critical of the theory is that of a tornado passing through a junkyard and leaving a jet fighter assembled in its wake.

Proponents of blind chance as a creative force also have a major difficulty dealing with a “chicken and egg” problem associated with the parallel development of DNA and the mechanisms for translating this information into actual proteins. Consider a compact disk digitally encoded with a song. For you to convert that information to music you would need some sophisticated electronic equipment. If you don’t have it, the CD is not good for much more than an ornament dangling from your rearview mirror. Likewise, the information encoded in DNA is useless without the sophisticated cellular machinery that reads it and converts it into the proteins necessary for the body’s functioning. How did the information system and the decoding machinery both evolve independently by chance?

Darwin mentioned two major tests for the feasibility of his theory. The first was the fossil record. He stated that because only a handful of fossils had been discovered at the time that he proposed his theory, the intermediate forms that would indicate gradual evolution remained to be found. By the 1970’s Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Etheridge, two Young Turks in the biological science establishment, admitted that the fossil record was characterized by the sudden appearance of species and their continuation unchanged for eons, followed by their abrupt disappearance. Intermediate forms were far too scarce in the fossil record to validate Darwin’s theory as originally proposed. To answer the objections raised by this fact they proposed the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. According to them, evolutionary change occurs when a small population of a species becomes isolated from the main branch. Cataclysmic environmental stress then radically selects for new traits in the isolated gene pool, driving change in a virtual blink of the eye in geological time. According to them, the fossils that would record such change will not be found because of the nature of the process. The time is too short and the number of individuals involved is too small. This ingenious solution moves the Theory of Evolution out of the realm of science, which declares that a theory must be falsifiable in order to be subject to objective verification. ‘Falsifiability’ means that one must be able to propose certain detectable facts, which, if they are found, would cause one to conclude that the theory one has proposed is false. If one proposes that the process took place in a way that would leave no traces, then the theory is not falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is also not scientifically verifiable. Those who believe in it do so by taking a leap of faith.

A second test of falsifiability that Darwin proposed was related to the gradual evolution of organs. In The Origin of Species, p.154, Darwin stated: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” The problem with Darwin’s theory is that every slight modification of an organism has to give that organism a selective advantage over creatures that don’t have the modification. Organs are like machines that carry out specific functions an organism needs to stay alive. Consider a mousetrap, a rather simple machine. To work, it needs a base, a spring, a means of attaching the spring to the base, a trigger mechanism and other parts. Unless all the parts are present the mousetrap will not catch mice. Michael Behe [Reference] has demonstrated that on the molecular level, even the simplest organs, such as the flagellum, the whiplike tail that allows certain single-celled organisms to move through water, are more complex than a mousetrap. How could such mechanisms develop gradually when all the parts must be present for the organ to fulfill its function?

Although Muslims reject Darwinian evolution, it is worth noting that we also differ from Christian proponents of Creationism on a number of points. Creationists uphold a literal interpretation of Biblical accounts of early events in the history of the earth. Therefore, they propose that the earth is roughly six thousand years old. The texts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah do not mention or imply any figures for the age of the earth. Creationists also believe that every animal alive today is descended from animals aboard Noah’s ark. Although Muslims believe that Noah existed and that he carried animals aboard his ship to escape a flood, there is no evidence I am aware of in the authentic Islamic texts that would make us conclude that that flood covered the entire earth.

A major conflict between Islamic texts and Darwinian orthodoxy is over the evolution of human beings. The Qur’an tells the story of Adam and Eve and their fall from Paradise in a number of passages. It states: “O Children of Adam, do not let Satan seduce you as he caused your two parents to go forth from the Garden…” The Qur’an also refers repeatedly to the fact that humanity was created from a single soul and that Allah then created its mate from that soul: “O mankind, be careful of your duty to your Lord, Who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the two of them has spread forth a multitude of men and women.”Prophet Muhammad ( pbuh) also stated, “All of you are Children of Adam, and Adam was created from dust.” Although these statements could possibly be construed to carry metaphorical meanings, the basic rule for interpreting speech is that it should be understood according to the obvious meaning unless evidence arises to indicate that the obvious meaning was not intended.

In discussing the physical evidence upon which the theories of anthropology rest, it is important to distinguish between the physical facts and the explanations people devised for those facts. No one denies the existence of primate fossils such as the finds of the Leakeys in Olduvai Gorge, etc. The question is: what do we make of these remains? Do they represent transitional forms between a common ancestor of apes and human beings, or are they extinct ape species or, in some cases, extinct races of human beings? Proving that these specimens eventually developed into human beings will be very difficult except for those who are already convinced. As one man said, “I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it.”

[lunamoth]

Hello, madina.

A well-written post and sure to stimulate a great discussion. Is this your own essay? Also, I'm wondering if you could say which specific conference between mathmaticians and biologists that was.

At a conference of evolutionary biologists and mathematicians, the mathematicians infuriated the biologists by pointing out that there simply would not be enough time in the universe for life to evolve by chance. The analogy given by one scientist critical of the theory is that of a tornado passing through a junkyard and leaving a jet fighter assembled in its wake.

[bloodnf]

I think too many muslims fall into the Christian rights arguments against evolution. Allah created man with the ability to reason and ponder his creation. We are not required to deny science nor physical evidence.

The Theory of Evolution does not specify chance as a cause of species differentiation. The theory of Evolution does not postulate that a species transforms into another. When I read arguments of this nature I feel that the poster does not understand the science of evolution and so the poster is arguing against his own fallacies.

[truthseeker]

What is the problem with accepting the Theory of Evolution, anyhow? Why is it so impossible that we have evolved into the form of man that we understand today? Maybe not so much as an ape, but I think we have come from a lesser form of upright, reasoning man. Mankind is still evolving today. A babe does not jump out of the womb after three days and run from the mother explaining why. There is a process of maturity - physically, mentally and emotionally that one much achieve. I don't see why all the species of man should not have come this far in that manner as well.

Adam: the first upright, reasoning man that was able to tell of his experience with God to be passed down from generation to generation. As the climate of the Earth has changed, so has man's ability to adapt; hence, the changes man has had to undergo to survive. It isn't impossible to incorporate science and religion.

[madina]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

It isn't impossible to incorporate science and religion.

i apologize if my article seemed misleading. it was an article i found online and thought it was interesting.

from a muslims point of view..it isnt impossible at all to incorporate science and religion. we believe all things in nature and science obey the commands of God. Islam is very scientific.

Harun Yayha, who happens to be one of my favorite scientists and religious scholars has some excellent books and works available to read free, online.
i like him because he has this way of just blowing your mind. i 'll provide the link to where you can read his essay/book on darwanism refuted. actually this link has several books and articles on this topic and related issues and also movies you can watch. check out the whole site. good stuff!

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php

[Vajradhara]

Salaam Madina,

welcome to CR, enjoy your stay.

Originally Posted by madina

Harun Yayha, who happens to be one of my favorite scientists and religious scholars has some excellent books and works available to read free, online.
i like him because he has this way of just blowing your mind. i 'll provide the link to where you can read his essay/book on darwanism refuted. actually this link has several books and articles on this topic and related issues and also movies you can watch. check out the whole site. good stuff!

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php

Harun Yahya doesn't have a single relevant degree to make any sort of scientific claims one way or the other. his studies were in literature, not science.

further, if you read the article and have an understanding of the actual Modern Synthesis, you'll quickly note that Mr. Yahya comits several fallacies, not least of which is the infamous "strawman" which is evidence in the article that you cite in the opening post.

for instance, his opening states:

"The first is "creation," the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design."

CreationISM and Intelligent Design are two, seperate and distinct, theories.

suffice it to say that, within the realm of science, the only type of refutation that matters, falsification, has not falsified the Modern Synthesis, as such, it remains one of the most successful of all scientific theories.

though, this isn't all that unusual for him. i've sent him a few emails regarding the misinformation that he's posted about Buddhism... as of today, he's not changed his website to reflect the correct explanation of our teachings. i leave it to the discerning reader to determine why a being would continue to promote falsehood when they have been repeatedly corrected.

though its' inaccurate and fairly repulsive, you can read his incorrect notions and ideas regarding our tradition here: http://www.harunyahya.com/buddhism03.php

[truthseeker]

your article wasn't misleading, madina. I just threw my one penny more than two cents in it. No disrespect intended.

[tufail]

The following review was published in Minerat, the magazine of Islamic Center of Southern California, after a glowing book review about Yahya's Evolution Deceit, in Minerat's earlier edition. The real name of Yahya is Adnan Oktar. Unfortunately, most Muslims who pomote Yahya's book have very little knowledge about the theory of evolution and science in general.
Tufail

Book Review by T.O.Shanavas.

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT: A FUNDAMENALIST CHRISTIAN DECEPTION



The book review titled “The Evolution Deceit Reveals Holes in Theory” by an anonymous author in Minaret [vol. 22: 8] is misleading and deceptive. The Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya is a fundamentalist Christian deception under the cover of Islamic veil. This book misleads those innocent Muslims who lack overall knowledge of theory of evolution and biology. The author of the book review states: the book “gives necessary answers to the evolutionist propaganda.” The author adds: the book “displays the fraudulence and distortions [by] evolutionist scientists.” NO!!! In fact his book Yahya distorts the honest mainstream scientists by fraudulently manipulating their statements.

This book is a classic carbon copy of fundamentalist Christian arguments of Institute for Creation Research (ICR), San Diego, CA. Yahya cunningly launches the ICR arguments to Muslim community with frequent references to Allah and the Qur’an. Behaving like a good student of the ICR, he transcribed into his book all ICR arguments such as lack of transitional fossils, the impossibility of functioning intermediate forms, the fraud of human evolutions, the unreliability of the dating methods, and the statistical improbability of evolution at the molecular levels.

Following the ICR’s modus operandi, Yahya uses psuedoscience to promote his interpretation of the Qur’an. The references from scientific journals that he cites in the book usually support and defend evolution. But he takes just one sentence out of the article that he thinks might seem to support his arguments and use it as his scientific reference. Like the ICR, he generally distorts a single news item from popular journals to “prove” his conclusion. He conveniently ignores the fact that the rest of the article or other articles in the same issue of the journal that defend and support evolution, even though the Qur’an commands, “…Conceal not evidence…” [Qur’an 2: 283].



These tactics and strategies of Yahya in the book are borrowed from and instructed by his fundamentalist Christian mentors from the ICR such as Duane Gish, Henry Morris, John Morris, etc. Yahya and his organization, Bilim Arastirma Vakfi [BAV]-Scientific Research Foundation, has a long history of association with the ICR since 1992 including receiving assistance from it. Yahya became well acquainted with Duane Gish and Henry Morris during their numerous trips to Turkey in search of Noah’s Ark [Ref: Acts & Facts 1998a, 1998b]. Duane Gish and Henry Morris were participants in a conference on creationism organized by Yahya and BAV in 1992. Then later in April and July 1998 Yahya and BAV organized three “international” conferences in collaboration with the ICR with a theme of “The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution: The Fact of Creation.” Gish and Morris were invited main speakers in the conferences.



After the conference Morris described the presence of the ICR in the conferences in Turkey as an “effort to bring Turks to Christ.” [Ref: ICR publication, Impact # 318 December 1999]. In another article, titled, “Creation, Christmas, and the Qur’an” Henry Morris hopes, “the Muslims influenced by the ICR will come to know Christ.” [Ref: ICR publication: “Back to Genesis” December 1998, page 120]. Similar hope is expressed by John Morris, the current director of the ICR, in an article titled “creationist Evangelism.” [Ref: the ICR publication: “Acts & Facts” 1998, 27:9].



In page 222 of Yahya’s book, he presents Duane Gish as “World-renowned evolution expert.” This is another fraudulent claim by Yahya. There is not a single article published by Gish in any of the known peer-reviewed journals in the last 25 years. Of course, he has published many articles in Christian publications. Gish is one of the founding fathers of Christian Fundamentalist organization, the ICR. Gish is a biochemist who has done no paleo-anthropological research himself. One of Gish's tactics is to malign the credibility of the anthropologists in general who study human evolution by citing examples of their mistakes, especially misidentified fossils. One of the protocols of a good scientist is that a person who makes a claim bears the burden of documenting it. But Yahya’s “World-renowned” Gish refuses to follow this protocol after he made a statement that humans are closer to frogs based upon data for amino acid sequence in some proteins in frogs and human. [Ref: PBS science program Nova in 1982]. Gish repeatedly promised to produce the documentation of his claim, but did not. He violated the protocol of a good scientist when he said it was the evolutionists’ job to ferret out the information. [Ref: Eve, Raymond A. & Harrold, Francis B.1990. “The Creationist Movement in America” Boston: Twayne Publishers. Page 83]. Duane Gish’s conduct in this instance shows that he does not fit the mold of a “world-renowned scientist.”

Who are Harun Yahya's other mentors? Henry Morris and John Morris! The father-son combination!! Henry Morris is not a biologist or paleontologist. He is a hydraulic engineer. The best way to introduce him is by his own words so that the readers can make their own judgments. His opinion about science: “It is precisely because Bible revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the testimony as that of Scripture. There is not a slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible.”[Ref: Morris, Henry M., ed. 1974. “Scientific creationism” (public school edition). San Diego: Creation-Life Pubs.].



Henry Morris states about the age of the earth: “In the Bible, which is the Word of God, He has told us everything we need to know about the Creation and earth’s primeval history.”[Ref: Morris, Henry., 1967. “Evolution and the Modern Christian.” Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co.]

"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is from God to tell us what it is. And Since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions terrestrial chronology."

[Ref: The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth by Henry Morris. Minneapolis, Minn.

Dimension Books.1972. page.94.]. Henry Morris states again in another publication “that the earth almost certainly was created less than 10,000 years ago.”[Ref: Morris, Henry., 1977. “The scientific Case for Creationism.” San Diego: Creation-Life Pub.].



Finally, Henry M. Morris--John Morris's father, Duane Gish's boss, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research--apparently suspects Muhammed [pbuh] of trafficking with the devil? I quote: "Muhammed himself, with his presumed visions and revelations, was something of a mystic, and there is legitimate reason to wonder whether or not his 'angelic' revelations were really from God...The 'revelations' received by Mohammed from his visiting spiritual entities, while stressing the supremacy of Allah, presented a vastly different portrait of God's character and purposes than those inspired by the Holy Spirit through the prophets and apostles of both Old and New Testaments. It is all but impossible that they could have been from the same source." (Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House 1989, pp. 229-30).

John Morris holds same opinion as his father regarding the age of the earth and probably about Prophet [pbuh]. Otherwise, he would not be the director of the ICR. Anyone holding such views regarding the age of the earth cannot be called "famous geologist" as Yahya venerate him. He can be recognized as a "geologist of the Bible or a biblical scholar" but definitely not as “famous geologist.”

John Morris, current director of ICR, is a geological engineer, not geologist, who is not engaged currently in geological work. John Morris, Yahya's mentor, after attending the conferences organized by BAV and Harun Yahya, wrote: "As a group [BAV of Turkey], they have access to more than adequate financial resources, as well as to the media, are able to blanket the country with creation information. They choose to invite international creationists for their publicity value, but especially welcome Christian creationists in the ICR mold rather than those who those who hold merely an anti-Darwinian stance."

[Ref: Morris, John. "Creationist Evangelism in Turkey." Acts & Facts 1998; 27:9.]

To conclude, Yahya’s mentors are fundamentalist Christians. Yahya’s tactics and strategies are those practiced by the fundamentalist Christians. Yahya even fraudulently venerate Duane Gish, Morris, etc., as “World-renowned” scientists and evolution experts. Therefore,

Yahya’s book, The Evolution Deceit, is a fundamentalist Christian fraud, under the cover of Islamic veil, that misrepresents Islam and the Qur’an. Those Muslims, that promote Yahya’s book as savior of Muslims from the theory of evolution, must look for some other source than Yahya’s book.

[Amica]

Salaam/Peace!
A very, very good post!

I personally believe the Truth in the Noble Qur'an and do not believe in the Darwin theory.

The other day I read the Noble Qur'an and found an ayah (verse) that mentioned a punishment from Almighty God towards SOME humans. It stated that the punishment was turning the people into monkeys! Very interesting verse. I have to find it and post it here. I was reading an English translation of the interpretation of the Noble Qur'an since I do not understand Arabic language.

[I, Brian]

What I find odd about the Islamic position towards evolution is that I remember the Qur'an specifically instructs that knowledge and learning are great pursuits - yet when a major branch of learning (science) postulates on how life changes and develops over millions of years, it is rubbished not because of any rational scientific argument, but instead by argument that the Qur'an is right.

However, if both science and the Qur'an appear to be right, then surely they are correct in different ways, and the resolution is one that embraces both sides??

[AhmedKassem]

Well i think when allah created the earth in 7 days,7 days meant a metophor for 7 longer periods of time.

Remember when your Lord said to the angels: 'Verily, I am going to place mankind generations after generations on earth.' They said: 'Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks (exalted be You above all that they associate with You as partners) and sanctify You.' Allah said: 'I know that which you do not know.'

I was always wondring how the angels knew that mankind will make mischief therein and shed blood,was their something inhabiting earth before mankind??

[n4h1z]

Peace to all...and salam to AhmadKasseem

I was always wondring how the angels knew that mankind will make mischief therein and shed blood,was their something inhabiting earth before mankind??

I've heard a discussion on this matter before, but i already forgot where and when. Basically it is something like this...When Allah told the angels that He wanted to create a man, the Angels ask Him..why would He want to create a being which will kill among themselves and do mischief on earth. The question here...How did the angels had the notion of this "killing tendency" amongst other creations on earth. In my opinion the earth at that time is already inhabit by creatures. e.g. animals. The angels thought that this new creation of God will behave similarly like the creatures on earth because God said that He was going to place mankind on earth. Thus God answered the angels... "Allah said: 'I know that which you do not know."
Just a thought....

Peace....

[n4h1z]

Peace to Brian....

What I find odd about the Islamic position towards evolution is that I remember the Qur'an specifically instructs that knowledge and learning are great pursuits - yet when a major branch of learning (science) postulates on how life changes and develops over millions of years, it is rubbished not because of any rational scientific argument, but instead by argument that the Qur'an is right.

However, if both science and the Qur'an appear to be right, then surely they are correct in different ways, and the resolution is one that embraces both sides??

Yes...you are right. The Quran encourages the believers to seek knowledge and use it to benefit others. The Quran is not a science text book but it points to the direction of scientific facts. The ToE is very much doubtfull especially in this new age where scientific discoveries very much contradicts the fundamentals of ToE. The way i see it, ToE is just a theory which is widely accepted in the 19th century because of its' fascinating xplanation on the origin of life. But the scientific advancement at that time was very primitive. Through decades ToE itself "evolved" and accepted as a scientific "fact", which today still remains not more than just a theory. Nevertheless ToE has become a breeding gorund for scientific discoveries itself which later on proves the fallacy of ToE. It's like the movie of a Kung Fu student who kills his own Kung Fu master/teacher once he developed greater strength and skills.... It is not just the Quran that contradicts ToE but scientific facts itself proves this. I'am not against evolutionist for they also contribute very much to the expansion of science knowledge....but i'am totally against the ToE as it is a deception widely accepted nowadays.

Peace....

[DT Strain]

"The Theory of Evolution, as proposed by Darwin and refined with insights derived from genetics, is objectionable from a Muslim point of view because it elevates ‘chance’ to the level of a deity."

This is a misunderstanding. It comes from the lack of appreciation that there are two ways to talk about chance. One is in the sense that the results are something we cannot compute in principle, and the other is in the sense that something is truly random.

Scientists do say that chance plays a role in evolution, but they are describing the physical operation of a system, in the same way that one might describe how the mathematics of probability work when you roll dice or play games of chance.

In fact, consider evolution working much like a game of chance. But also consider this: would any religious person in their right mind consider discussion of the laws of probability in regards to poker, a lost machine, or a dice game to be contrary to their beliefs about the power of God?

The reason they wouldn't is because it is understood that an all-powerful deity could intervene in the course of otherwise random events. Yet, when we discuss probability we speak of these games of chance as though they were random. The possibility of divine intervention, even undetectable divine intervention, is assumed for believers. We can easily imagine God affecting the course of a game of dice so as to make His will become manifest and affect the future course of events from there.

When we talk about the evolution of life on earth, we're talking about changes in the genome based on which offspring survive to produce more of their kind, and which die more frequently. These multitudes of events control the direction that genome takes. This can be described as a series of random events, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that an all-powerful entity couldn't have affected events so as to direct the course of evolution.

Similarly, when a person prays for something they don't usually expect a shaft of light to come down from the heavens and abruptly change things. They expect events to come together in more subtle ways to fulfill God's will in their lives, in the lives of others, etc. This same process could be playing out over the course of history of life on earth.

This wouldn't change the fact that the basic mechanism behind evolution can be described in terms of chance, just as we describe the chances of getting a royal flush or the chances of getting a good job. In the end, science can never prove or disprove God because it is limited to physical evidence and God is believed to exist outside the physical realm. But we can describe the normal operation of physical processes such as dice, poker, large scale events like the odds of asteroids, and evolution. The degree to which a god might intervene in these various systems has always been a matter of faith. So, really, evolution is nothing any different than how we have always viewed our world.

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

What I find odd about the Islamic position towards evolution is that I remember the Qur'an specifically instructs that knowledge and learning are great pursuits - yet when a major branch of learning (science) postulates on how life changes and develops over millions of years, it is rubbished not because of any rational scientific argument, but instead by argument that the Qur'an is right.

However, if both science and the Qur'an appear to be right, then surely they are correct in different ways, and the resolution is one that embraces both sides??

Assalamu'alaikum,
The theory of evolution sir as propounded by Charles Darwin, is not a fact as some, well actually many may erronuously suggest. It's just a theory, not a FACT of science. Lamarck was actually the pioneer of evolutionism. He said that traits acquired by parents during their lifetime could be passed on to their offspring. But Darwin was the one who popularised it through his idea of natural selection. He introduced his theory of evolutiuon and natural selection when he was studying the wildlife of Galapagos Islands. In one of his letters to a friend, he said that he came up with the theory not because he believed in it but rather it helped him classify and explain the observations he made on the animals of Galapagos Island. Hundreds of reknown scientists have produced many writings in refutation to Darwin's theory. 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. The possibility of the DNA of an ape( from one of the nine hominids) evolving or changing to that of man is virtually 0 negligible. His proposition was that acestral forms gradually diverge over time, making new species. E.g. Bird = half-bird and half-land animal(transitional stage) = complete new species or more scientifically
B1 ------>B2 --------> B3 -----------> B4
Species A ---/-----> C1-------> C2 --------> C3 ------> C4. 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. 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.

Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."

-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.