Evolution Reloaded

[Khairan]

> let us agree that by the end of the discussion one of us will change our stance.

anajmi,

I don't understand the reason for making a specific agreement like this -- if one party or another in any debate is convinced by the arguments laid out, than it would seem clear that their stance would change. If what you are saying is to agree not to be held back by our own biases in fairly considering the arguments, then inshallah may it be so.

That said, let us approach the two proposed topics one at a time, and start here with the idea of evolution.

I'm throwing the ball in your court. As this topic was discussed previously to no conclusion, what direction does the discussion need to take in order for it to not meet the same standstill?

Awaiting thoughts...

salaam

[nausicaa]

And I thought both of you believed evolution was a lie.

Anyways, addressing the first line, it is pretty stupid to expect the peron you are arguing with to come onto your side. It happens, but extremely rarely. What you do achieve by argument in a public forum is pull people on the fence to your side. The person you are arguing with has an emotional investment in his position. It is a massive loss of ego to admit he were wrong so he is going to maintain he is right to the world even if he understands he is wrong. He is going to maintain this even in the face of direct evidence that he is wrong.

-N

[Khairan]

> And I thought both of you believed evolution was a lie.

Hmmmm....
not sure where you got this idea from. I did say that I don't buy Darwin's theory of evolution, but that's another diatribe altogether.

[Muslim First]

.

Please peruse following links on EVOLUTION

http://www.mostmerciful.com/repeated-creations.htm

http://www.mostmerciful.com/wiseweb.htm

http://www.mostmerciful.com/forgeries-evolution.htm

http://www.mostmerciful.com/molecular-evolution.htm

http://www.mostmerciful.com/fossil-interpretations.htm

http://www.mostmerciful.com/history-of-evolution.htm

Wasalaam

.

[nausicaa]

here are some more well-researched links on this debate.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-int ... ology.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mis ... html#proof

An extremely good resource here is the talk.origins FAQ. It answers every single question that creationists like to throw about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

-N

[Khairan]

Thanks to both of you for those links...

I particularly liked the discussion on random chance and entropy, as those directly address some of my specific problems with evolutionary theory.

Though I do believe in evolution, I definitely feel that the role of natural selection in evolution is overplayed.

One question that was raised by the entropy links, if anyone knows the answer - if one assumes that an evolving biological unit is a subsystem of a larger unit (whatever that larger unit is), then as it increases in order (i.e. the random mutations take on meaningful functions), what subsystem experiences an increase in disorder to balance out the ordered organism? Is the disorder in the form of heat given off by the organism's metabolic processes?

[porus]

Originally posted by Khairan:
One question that was raised by the entropy links, if anyone knows the answer - if one assumes that an evolving biological unit is a subsystem of a larger unit (whatever that larger unit is), then as it increases in order (i.e. the random mutations take on meaningful functions), what subsystem experiences an increase in disorder to balance out the ordered organism? Is the disorder in the form of heat given off by the organism's metabolic processes?

It might be instructive to investigate the work of Nobel Laureate, Ilya Prigogine, regarding 'dissipative structures'.

A subsystem is always a part of a comprising system. Both systems and sub-systems owe their existence as conceptual entities only. And they are identified (in fact, defined) by an investigator who draws arbitrary boundaries around the subsystem he finds of interest.

A subsystem exchanges energy and matter with its environment and, as a dissipative structure, homeostatically maintains equilibrium with its environment. If the input of energy and matter become too much for the subsystem, it is overwhelmed and will either collapse or reorganize to handle the input. This re-organization leads to higher form of order within the subsystem. The entropy is discharged to the environment. So higher order in subsystem leads to an increase in disorder in the larger system of which it is a part.

Evolution, then, is a susbsystem's successful response to handle increasing level of environmental input, by re-rganizing at higher level.

This idea can be applied to all subsystems, inorganic and organic. Eventually, entropy increases in the Universe, although parts of it evolve to higher order.

That is the current theory of evolution. There really is no evidence, and there is no way of knowing, if the entire universe increases in entropy. That it does is a scientific dogma.

Mystical view simply is that there is one energy that plays itself by creating order here and disorder there. One day it may decide to become all energy again and then again transmute itself into matter. These cycles go on and on....

[nausicaa]

One question that was raised by the entropy links, if anyone knows the answer - if one assumes that an evolving biological unit is a subsystem of a larger unit (whatever that larger unit is), then as it increases in order (i.e. the random mutations take on meaningful functions), what subsystem experiences an increase in disorder to balance out the ordered organism? Is the disorder in the form of heat given off by the organism's metabolic processes?

The earth is not a closed system, as we are continually receiving energy from the Sun. The Sun is what experiences an increase in entropy here. In the end, net entropy of the whole system still increases.

Evolution by natural selection is a kind of heat/information pump. It is way, way less efficient than the Carnot efficiency, which is the maximum efficiency given by the Second Law. It's even far less efficient than a refrigerator. The fact that it works is not surprising.

It's just that, in order to get one successful bit in the genome, many, many bits are destroyed. Consider all the bits you have destroyed by
eating. Your crap has higher entropy than what you eat, which is a good thing. Of course, some organisms might eat your crap because their crap
has even higher entropy. Eventually, plants eat that *and* low-entropy sunlight, and their crap is higher entropy than what they eat. But it all
works out because of the influx of low-entropy sunlight.

-N

[anajmi]

Here is my simple belief as far as evolution is concerned. Human beings did not evolve from apes. Adam was the first human being from whom came all of us. Everything else, entropy, random chance, survival of the fittest etc we can discuss till eternity and we won't get to any conclusion.

Do you, khairan, beleive that human beings evolved from apes or not?

[anajmi]

sorry about that, my above post may have been a bit abrupt, but the entire debate of evolution the evolutionists and the creationists have is centered around just one topic, did human beings evolve from apes. Everything else, entropy and all that, gets discussed only to find an answer to this question.

If believing in evolution implicitly means that one has to believe that human beings evolved from apes, then there is nothing in the quran or the hadith to support this belief. The quran and hadith state quite the contrary.

[nausicaa]

Anajmi,

Did you bother reading any of the links that I posted? Evolution does not say human beings evolved from apes, it says apes and human beings evolved from a common ancestor.

-N

[anajmi]

nausicaa,

I am not discussing what evolution says over here. I am discussing the quran and the hadith and what they say about evolution.

According to evolution ape and man may have evolved from chicken for all I care!!

[Khairan]

> I am not discussing what evolution says over here. I am discussing the quran and the hadith and what they say about evolution.

And the point that I was trying to make, which started off this whole conversation, is that people can look at exactly the same set of data and come up with wildly different interpretations. This was in response to your claim that "If a muslim can back up his claim from the quran or hadith, he does not need anything else."

In response to your question regarding whether I believe humans evolved from apes, no, I don't. I do believe what nausicaa has posted -- that humans are a form of ape (chimpanzee, if you want to get all phylogenetic), and along with other apes evolved from some other creature.

The Qur'an is not a book of natural science, and it is not meant to be read as such. Any science in it is meant as simply a confirmation of the book's verity, and from what I understand, scientific facts in the Qur'an were only understood (or identified, perhaps), after our scientific theory had already established these things independently.

Another thing is that the Qur'an challenges readers to authenticate it; it does not ask that we assume everything written in it is true. That being the case, I think it is taking the wrong approach to say that anything (particularly potentially objective material such as science) cannot be right unless it agrees with the Qur'an. Rather, we should be wondering, if something otherwise assumed to be true is not in line with Scripture, why isn't it? Note, this does not imply the counter-assumption that any scientific theory must necessarily be correct; obviously, many incorrect hypotheses have come and gone in the realm of scientific inquiry.

Given all this, I would posit that many Muslim scholars have spent over a millenium misinterpreting what the Qur'an has to say about man's creation, and it was not until evolutionary theory was developed that we had some basis for realizing this.

This, then, gets us back to my original question of whether the Qur'an is incompatible with the idea that man evolved and was not preformed. Personally, I don't think it is, though I doubt that I could lay down an argument solely on the basis of scripture that would be convincing enough to prove it.

salaam

[Abdulla]

Quran on Evolution:

We (Allah) created man from an essence of clay; then turned him into a sperm-drop in a safe place; then changed the sperm-drop into a clot of blood; and the clot into a piece of flesh; then turned the piece of flesh into bones; then clothed the bones with flesh; and then brought him forth as quite a different creation! So blessed is Allah, the best of all creators. Then after this you shall all die; then most surely you shall be raised up on the Day of Resurrection.

It is He (Allah) Who created you from clay and decreed a fixed term of life for you, and with Him there is another settled term also! Yet you have doubts thereof.



O mankind! Fear your Lord, Who created you of a single soul (Adam); and of the same created his mate (Hawwa); and from that pair spread countless men and women over the earth.

[Khairan]

In understanding the above-noted Scripture, we must also reconcile it with the various verses that say man and all other animals were made of water, that man was made of dust, raised up from the earth, and made in stages.

It is well-accepted that the first organic life began in water. Even now, multicellular organisms maintain an extracellular salinity of 0.9%, about equal to that of the sea. Further, scientists speculate that soil may have been the catalyst that brought all of the elements together which would form the first organic molecules. Another point is that clay is a type of soil that is particularly high in carbon content, and as we know carbon is the base element in organic molecules.

I have also seen the word "nafs" translated as "cell", which throws a different light on the idea of man being created from one "soul" and its mate. I don't know how viable this translation is, however.

We must also remember that the Arabs did not have the scientific language to talk about any of these concepts; they new neither of elemental carbon, of organic molecules, or of living cells. It is therefore natural that the language the Qur'an uses to discuss these ideas is descriptive rather than exact.

There is a further esoteric implication in these Qur'anic verses that man is a material as well as a spiritual creature; the soul that was breathed into his form completes him, but at least in this life is not separable from the body. I believe this implication is mirrored in other facets of Islam, such as the injunction against monasticism and the particular form our prayers take.

salaam

[anajmi]

Khairan,

I would like to thank Abdulla for pointing out the Ayah of the quran regarding the creation of man.

What began our discussion on the topic of evolution was this sentence from one of your posts

"For instance, you and I have disagreed on issues of human evolution and the status of non-Muslims in the hereafter. Both of us believe that scripture supports our opinions, and interpret the same information in completely different ways. Both of us are also Muslims."

I thought you said that you could support evolution based upon the scriptures.

and now you say this "This, then, gets us back to my original question of whether the Qur'an is incompatible with the idea that man evolved and was not preformed. Personally, I don't think it is, though I doubt that I could lay down an argument solely on the basis of scripture that would be convincing enough to prove it."

You could give me a million and one proofs of the evolution of man from one thing or the other and it does not matter. You give me one ayah from the quran about the evolution of man and I will accept it without questioning it. But as you said, you probably couldn't so I guess this discussion is over.

[anajmi]

"In understanding the above-noted Scripture, we must also reconcile it with the various verses that say man and all other animals were made of water, that man was made of dust, raised up from the earth, and made in stages."

Man was created in different stages, they keyword is "created". Living things are created out of water and dust. Again, created.

Now if you leave water, dust, sperm lying around for 4.5 billion years, may be they will evolve into man, but is that what the quran says?

[Khairan]

Al Araf (7:11)

"We initiated your creation, and then we shaped you..."

Creation is not synonymous with completion.

> they keyword is "created"

NO. The keyword is khalaqa, which is often defined as "create", but more fully bears the meaning "to create gradually in successive stages, each one being different from the previous."

Shifting notes slightly, has anyone ever heard of the "Mohammedan (nauzobillah) Theory of Evolution"? Western scientists used the term to refer to origin-of-life theory developed by Muslim scientists. I think this theory goes as far back as Ibn Sina, perhaps further...

[anajmi]

khairan,

I have a question for you. Does the quran talk about evolution or is it that since you believe in evolution, you are trying to find agreement for it in the quran? If you are, then you would be doing exactly what you blame others of doing with the quran.

As far as creation in stages is concerned, I agree with you 100%. a human being is created in stages and those stages have been mentioned in the quran

""We (Allah) created man from an essence of clay; then turned him into a sperm-drop in a safe place; then changed the sperm-drop into a clot of blood; and the clot into a piece of flesh; then turned the piece of flesh into bones; then clothed the bones with flesh; and then brought him forth as quite a different creation! So blessed is Allah, the best of all creators. Then after this you shall all die; then most surely you shall be raised up on the Day of Resurrection.""

If you believe this is evolution then no evolutionist will agree with you, however all creationists will, and I am the first one.

[anajmi]

v2:228
"And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for three menstrual periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allâh has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses, etc.) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect, etc.) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise."

3:47
"She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He said: "So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" and it is. "

3:59
"Verily, the likeness of 'Iesa (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was. "

[Khairan]

> Does the quran talk about evolution or is it that since you believe in evolution, you are trying to find agreement for it in the quran? If you are, then you would be doing exactly what you blame others of doing with the quran.

anajmi,

Everybody's biased. Period. That's why I object to your claim that Muslims are justified in their beliefs so long as they can support them through the Qur'an and the sunnah. I think this conversation has ably demonstrated that the same evidence can lead to opposite conclusions, and yes, I think that if someone really wants to believe in something, they will likely find a way.

Whether or not I'm guilty of this on the topic of evolution is impossible for me to say. I don't think so, but then again - I'm biased.

Nevertheless, I think it is a worthwhile issue to discuss, because it is certainly not as black and white, or as obvious, as some would have.

[Muddai]

I object to your claim that Muslims are justified in their beliefs so long as they can support them through the Qur'an and the sunnah.

Starting this topic was an exercise in futility. All religions justify their beliefs and claims through the Quran, Bible etc. If there was a "fact" that could be proven in a religious document, the world would follow one religion.

[anajmi]

khairan

I don't understand the reason for making a specific agreement like this -- if one party or another in any debate is convinced by the arguments laid out, than it would seem clear that their stance would change. If what you are saying is to agree not to be held back by our own biases in fairly considering the arguments, then inshallah may it be so.

Isn't this what you said? What kind of a bias are you talking about? I am not giving you any of my explanations/deductions/conclusions/interpretations of the versus of the quran. I have given you direct translations of the versus. If that is bias, then I guess just like evolution, I need to study the meaning of the word bias.

I think that if someone really wants to believe in something, they will likely find a way.

I am glad that you now consider yourself to be a part of that group. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe in something and then try to justify it from the quran as you may have noticed. I just believe in what is there in the quran.

muddai,

tyring to comennt on any tupic on yur pert is an ecsersise in phutility for you and for the uthers, reading the same becomes an ecsersise in phutility.

[anajmi]

khairan,

Whether or not I'm guilty of this on the topic of evolution is impossible for me to say. I don't think so, but then again - I'm biased.

Nevertheless, I think it is a worthwhile issue to discuss, because it is certainly not as black and white, or as obvious, as some would have.

If you think that everyone but you are biased, can you please give me the explanation of the versus that I quoted and show me that God is not a creator, but an "evolutor".

For me things mentioned in the quran (creation for one) are pretty black and white. Some things are not, but then we have unbiased people like yourself to explain it to us.

Also you said you could justify evolution from the quran, I am still waiting for that justification.

Also I take back my condition

let us agree that by the end of the discussion one of us will change our stance.

cause I know that not for all of us is this possible to do.

[anajmi]

khairan,

please ignore my last post, you already said that you were biased.

[Muddai]

As I mentioned earlier All religions justify their beliefs and claims through the Quran, Bible etc. If there was a "fact" that could be proven in a religious document, the world would follow one religion.

Subsequent post from Anajmi proves my point
I just believe in what is there in the quran.

A discussion of fact against belief is a no win situation.

please ignore my last post

Not a problem bro', we tend to do that anyway

[Khairan]

> Also you said you could justify evolution from the quran, I am still waiting for that justification.

I have already mentioned a couple of things about what the Qur'an says which I think justify my opinion. However, please refer to the essay "Qur'an and Human Evolution" by Ahmed Afzaal, published in volume 1, no. 3 of Qur'anic Horizons, for a far better explanation than I could possibly give you.

When I first posted on this topic a couple of months back, I was looking to find why the Qur'an was viewed as supporting Creationism, and whether evolutionism could be a possible interpretation. I have since done a fair amount of reading on the topic, (of which I knew nothing at the outset) and have become convinced that at the very least, the evolution interpretation was valid, if not obviously correct.

Much of the thinking about this subject centers around the idea that creation - khalaqa specifically - does not imply completion, but a work in progress, and that the passages concerning creation of man describe gradation. First form, then soul, etc. The passage on fetal development is a perfect example of this, and illustrates the essence of "khalaqa" perfectly.

Further, I have read an interpretation (by Muhammad Iqbal ?) that the "fall" is another of the Qur'an's parables, and represents a rise to consciousness by man, a breaking of the state of blissful ignorance and complete immersion in the Oneness of God that he previously was in, not a literal expulsion from Heaven.

I have also read attempts by Creationists at a scientific debunking of evolutionary theory, and none of these accounts have rung true, and from what I have seen have failed to successfully argue the rebuttals offered by evolutionists.

If Creationism is to stand as a viable alternative to evolutionism, it needs to provide answers about what we observe in the natural world to replace the ones offered by evolution. As of yet, I do not think Creationists have found a way to do this.

[anajmi]

Muddai,

See it is not that you want to ignore my posts, it is just that you do not have enough brains to comprehend it in anycase.

Just to prove this, my last post was not for you, but for khairan.

A discussion of fact against belief is a no win situation.

I've told you before that you are on the wrong board, but I guess since you ignore(!!) my posts, you probably didn't catch that hence we see you wasting your's and everybody else's time on this board.

[anajmi]

Khairan,

Another thing is that the Qur'an challenges readers to authenticate it; it does not ask that we assume everything written in it is true. That being the case, I think it is taking the wrong approach to say that anything (particularly potentially objective material such as science) cannot be right unless it agrees with the Qur'an. Rather, we should be wondering, if something otherwise assumed to be true is not in line with Scripture, why isn't it? Note, this does not imply the counter-assumption that any scientific theory must necessarily be correct; obviously, many incorrect hypotheses have come and gone in the realm of scientific inquiry.

This is what you said.

and then this is what you said

If Creationism is to stand as a viable alternative to evolutionism, it needs to provide answers about what we observe in the natural world to replace the ones offered by evolution. As of yet, I do not think Creationists have found a way to do this.

Now let's say we come to a conclusion that God is not the creator but the evolutor and that evolution has now been proven as a fact. So we now say that the quran always said that evolution is how man came into being. Then it so happens that

Note, this does not imply the counter-assumption that any scientific theory must necessarily be correct; obviously, many incorrect hypotheses have come and gone in the realm of scientific inquiry.

this theory is proven incorrect, then you will say, but the quran never said man evolved, it always said that man was created!!

There is no end to this.

You are talking about the works of Ahmed Afzaal and the works of Muhammad Iqbal(?). Now am I to assume that these guys are just as unbiased as you are?

Let us assume for a second that you are right, then please let me know what Ahmed Afzaal or Muhammad Iqbal have to say about

3:47
"She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He said: "So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" and it is. "

3:59
"Verily, the likeness of 'Iesa (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was. "

May be when Allah says "Be", it actually takes 4.5 billion years to "be"?

Much of the thinking about this subject centers around the idea that creation - khalaqa specifically - does not imply completion, but a work in progress, and that the passages concerning creation of man describe gradation. First form, then soul, etc. The passage on fetal development is a perfect example of this, and illustrates the essence of "khalaqa" perfectly.

May be I am dumb or something but I still do not understand how "khalaqa" fits in with the traditional meaning of evolution. Are you saying that "First form, then soul" is a part of evolution?

What you should do is (and I am serious about this) take the quran to an evolutionist and show it to him and ask him if what is mentioned in it aligns with the theory of evolution. I am sure his answer will help us out a lot.

[anajmi]

kharian,

I have some other questions for you.

If and when man evolved, did a woman also evolve with him? Did evolution bring about just one man and one woman in the beginning or were there many men and many women?