Theory of Evolution anyone ?

[Wakas]

peace uq, all,

With regard to mathematical possibility of evolution, I read a journal article which discussed this and suggested it was perfectly feasible. However, a response to that journal article, which also appeared in the journal, discredited much of it.

I have noted that evolutionists tend not to mention the mathematical practicalities/assumptions of their theory, which I have always found disappointing. I'm no expert in biology nor mathematics so I'm not sure what's possible.

[Taro Hiroshi]

Peace Wakas, all,

Thanks for sharing the findings about the mathematical possibility of evolution. The journal which discussed this and the response to this journal seems interesting. Can you share a link to these articles with with us?

When it comes to my thoughts about the theory of evolution, as far as I am concerned there are many good arguments both for and against this theory. Both those who support the theory of evolution and those who support the theory of intelligent design have good arguments, in my opinion. For example the author Richard Dawkins has some good arguments for evolution, in my opinion. And the author Richard Milton has some good arguments against evolution, in my opinion. Their books/videoes might be worth taking a look at.

There are also people who believe in both evolution and creation. For example the muslim author T.O. Shanavas seems to believe in both evolution and creation. His book "Islamic theory of evolution" might be worth taking a look at.

Many christian creationists claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. But in reality there is no evidence that supports this claim. Since this claim has no basis in reality, I think this claim is worthless.

Many people claim that it is import to read arguments both for and against evolution before making our mind up on the theory of evolution. I think it is important to question both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. It is not an intelligent decision to blindly accept evolution or blindly accept intelligent design.

A 300 million year old tooth has been found in Russian coal (see the link below). And Nasa images have found a 1.7 million year old man-made bridge (see the link below). If these findings are fantasy-based, then these findings are not a threat to the theory of evolution. But if these findings are factual/reality-based, then these findings suggests that our ape-like ancestors must have been very intelligent and must have been in possession of advanced technology.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/300-million-year-old-tooth-gear_n_2527424.html

http://www.industrytap.com/nasa-images-find-1-7-million-year-old-man-made-bridge/17310

Some people claim that either evolutionists are right and intelligent design supporters are wrong, or intelligent supporters are right and evolutionists are wrong. But this might be a false dichotomy. Because there is a possibility that there are more than two options (evolution or creation). There might be a third option as well.   

It seems that most people are either for evolution and against intelligent design, or for intelligent design and against evolution. In the past I used to have a "for-or-against approach" towards the theory of evolution. But then I decided to change my approach and not take a stance regarding this theory until I have examined it more thoroughly. I have decided to not be for or against the theory of evolution until I have studied this theory very deeply and examined the best evidence from both evolutionists and intelligent design supporters. If some evolutionists or some intelligent design supporters consider me a heretic for taking this approach, then so be it. I am not responsible for their petty and useless emotions. I would rather be a critical thinking heretic than a blind following sheep.

Quran 39:18 The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.   

[Wakas]

peace Taro,

It was this article. I can't find the response I read, but there are a few responses, e.g. this one.

[BobaFett]

Many christian creationists claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. But in reality there is no evidence that supports this claim. Since this claim has no basis in reality, I think this claim is worthless.

While I don't know if there is or is not evidence supporting the 6,000 year  belief, their is certainly strong evidence that the current methods used for dating the age of the Earth are very flawed.

I agree with what you say about evolution vs creation.

[BobaFett]

Selam bro.

What I mean by keeping "will of God" out of the equation - is refraining from explicitly mentioning "will of God" in science discourse - I am not meaning forgetting God. God IS always part of the "real" equation - but for the purpose of science we choose to keep this implicit.

I understand what you mean, I just disagree with it for a couple of reasons.

1. While this may be how you look at science, it is certainly not how the majority of modern scientists go about their business. God is not being kept implicit, and this is especially true in Darwinian evolution, God is being excluded.

2. I don't see how keeping God implicit serves science, I have asked you several times to enlighten me on this point.

In study of climatology or astronomy - do we deliberately keep the words "by will of God / by law of God" implicit or not? If you find an honest answer to that you should understand what I am saying.

I don't think you understand what modern science is mate.. The more accurate term is the "Natural sciences". It is the study of the natural world, what we can observe and measure, there is no room in it for the immaterial, the unobservable. Like I said before the will of God is not being kept implicit, it is being excluded. Every modern scientific theory attempts to explain our reality without resorting to the supernatural(God).

The key words are the ones highlighted in red - "physically /mechanically involved". I believe God sustains us somewhat like we sustain our imagination - He is way above physically /mechanically getting involved in this creation.

You are right, I misunderstood this since I took it for granted that we all agree God is immaterial. When you said physically/mechanically involved I thought you meant you didn't believe God was involved with the mechanics of creation. My apologies.

[Arman]

Salamu Alaika Brother BobaFett.

Alhamdulillah. I am feeling our understandings have now almost perfectly aligned. I agree that many of the (not most) modern scientists not only keep "God's will" explicit - rather they exclude it or believe they have sufficient proof to exclude it. And yes I do agree this is a problem - they themselves are confused and even worse they are spreading this confusion among others. In my view they probably do these because they, too, are confused about the purpose and scope of "materialistic viewpoint". And to address this problem only attacking theory of evolution is not justified - rather we need to have dialogue with the scientists on what science really is and what it is not.

Furthermore - the scientists who exclude God are barely the "most" in number. Even Einstein is known for having faith in a supreme power/entity who controls the universe beyond the understanding and perception of humans. He categorically rejected being termed as Atheist. A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. (Ref: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/). While this % is low compared to faith in general public in the US - it shows it is still premature to say scientists are unanimous in excluding "God". So, how do you think those scientists who do believe in God or a higher authority get along with their day to day business? I believe, like I explained before, they keep the issue of "God's will" implicit in their research - in other words they adopt a "materialistic viewpoint".

I am proposing that a clear understanding of this "materialistic viewpoint" will help us in 2 ways - 1) it will help us to scrutinize theories like evolution from a more objective view point - we will have clear understanding when we are answering the "How" question and when we are answering the "Why" question. and 2) it will help debunk the "myth" that accepting scientific argument and logic automatically renders a person atheist.

May Allah guide us to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

[huruf]

From the Qur'an we know that if God didn't exist nothing would exist the creation would cease to exist and that if God did not sustain his cretation it would cease to exist, nothing would exist. But God has made his creation with his sunna, his laws. It is a creation in which is imprinted God's "talents" his way of doing things. We are marked by our creator, we cannot behave, nothing can behave in non conformity with Gods imprinted laws. Law of selfpreservation, for instance.

Any evolution has to be according to God laws. We do not need to state everytime this is according to God's laws. Like I do not have to say everytime I talk to my mother in the presence of those who know her, this is my mother, because that is not the question. The question may be is what is this law or this mechanism that makes things happen this way and not another way? Evolution exists, that is, as far as I can judge, a certainty.

BUT what kind of evolution is it? how does it operate? Trhough randomness? As far as I can  judge that is not nonsense, no that is nothing. It does not teach us anything or reveal anything. Randomness does nto exist as a cause of anything. Randomness is another way of saying "I do not know". When people do not know how something came to happen, they say hasard, randomness, destiny, whatever. That is their state of mind or their perplexity, but it does not explain anything. It is the same thing with "natural selection", before that called "survival of the fittest". It has been a cosmetic improvement of vocabulary. "The fittest" smacked of not very charitable consideration of the weakest. So the terms were made less "inocuous, but the fact is that again, natural selection, rests a lot on randomness, that is on ignorance. The fact that you name something instead of ignorance something else, does not make you less ignorant.

Darwinian evolution fell most soundly with the discovery of genetics by Mendel. It was subsequently rearranged to fit genetics in the equation, but is is still upholding something of mystical Choiceness so, so much akin to the "chosen" people concept. That is as if nature selected the surviving ones over the non surviving ones. That you say that "God who selects" or that it "nature selects", the blank is knowledge is the same but you introduce a "moral" or existential principle of things that exist beause they have been chosen by... Call it whatever, you are already setting ategories of things, of people by way of attributing to them the merits of having been chosen. That science is rotten science, sloppy rotten science that rests on the root idea of some being discarded of higher authority and others being chosen of higher authority, and of course that whole concept managed by the gurus of "selection".

Science is inert, it is not a being, it is a concept, and that concept is never independent of the basic mentality that takes hold of it. And when the basic mentality is the one basec on the survival of the fittest (the most powerful) it is lasted and cannot be very objective.

A scientist as anybody who undertakes a labour in which he or she will put all their strengths and endeavours, must purify her or himself. Thy cannot go into it burdened by all the preconceptions, prejudices, and "battles". Scientifical battles are nto nbattles of science but of things straneous to it.

Of course, for as long as we are human we will not be 100% but we should strive for it. If from the start we are already committed to an idea or an ideollogy and connot make it an outside element while we are engaged inside the scientific question, then no good science will come of it.

Darwin is in everybody's mouth. Mendel who did a real discovery far worthier than Darwin's (who as far as I know did not discover anything that wasn't discovered before him) is not mentionned even one tenth of the times Darwin's is mentionned. Why is that? Of course no injustice to Mendel, those who know know who he is and it is sure he didn't discover anything seeking glory or popularity, but it does show where we are concenring science and how we make of it a battleground, where it should be an exsercise in humility and perseverance. Of course with big monies in the strife, things are likely to worsen and not to improve.

Salaam

[Man of Faith]

Peace,

I think no intelligent person would reject the notion that there is a creator to all this. Einsten was a person who delved into his own mind quite much and philosophized upon things.

The problem is that it is the clergy that causes people to discard established faith because they give such a pathetic impression with rituals and stuff. It is the lesser intelligent people who often mess with religion and turn it into something reminding more of Pagan worship.

They may know about academic and sophisticated methods, but what makes one truly intelligent is the ability to think "outside the box". If you use the brain only to store what others indoctrinate you to know of knowledge then it will avail you nothing in terms of intelligence.

I suppose Einstein refrained from affiliate himself with any of the sects because he was simply too intelligent to see any of them as right. Because none of them are right not even today 2014.

But on a bottom line; I cannot speak more for Einstein because I did not know him or what went on in his mind and the judgment rests with God. If he had faith in the creator entity and kept himself from bad deeds he may have stood a chance.

Have faith

[Jafar]

The problem is that it is the clergy that causes people to discard established faith because they give such a pathetic impression with rituals and stuff. It is the lesser intelligent people who often mess with religion and turn it into something reminding more of Pagan worship.

The religion of Paganism (Arabic paganism, Greek paganism, Roman paganism, Canaan paganism etc..)
consists of 100% rites and 0% morality code.

Spiritualism & Philosophical & Social welfare / justice movement (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism, Abolitionism) consists of 100% morality code and 0% rites.

In between there are; Ancient Egyptianism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianism, Islamism, Hinduism which contains a mixed of morality and rites.

However... from the Tanakh, unlike paganistic gods, YHVH loves justice and good deeds much more than ritual observance..

"To do what is right and just is more acceptable to YHVH than sacrifice."
Proverbs 21:3

"When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow."
Isaiah 1:16

I suppose Einstein refrained from affiliate himself with any of the sects because he was simply too intelligent to see any of them as right. Because none of them are right not even today 2014.

Einstein is not religious and/or a holy-bookist.. or in other words, he didn't idolized any books.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me to) change this."
-- A. Einstein

Definitely he's an infidel of Judaism:
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions, And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
-- A. Einstein

Yet he's still believe in a God, although it's not a 'personal God'.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God."
-- A. Einstein

And similar to Abe Lincoln, he's a determinist..
?God does not play dice with the universe.?
"You believe in a God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice game, although I am well aware that some of our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility."
-- A. Einstein

And he believes a 'dogmatic organized religion, instilling a set of belief through force' will soon face it's demise.
"In my opinion, an autocratic system of coercion soon degenerates; force attracts men of low morality"
-- A. Einstein

In summary this is his religion, upholding morality as the highest priority, following what YHVH has ordered:
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance ? but for us, not for God.
-- A. Einstein

I shared many common views with Einstein, not because "Einstein did said so", but my own summary based on my own observations 'coincidentally' inline with his view.

Salam / Peace

[Man of Faith]

Peace Jafar,

But what remains of the teaching (torah), Gospel or a book called Quran in themselves teach no rituals. It is the sects evolving from interpreting them who have made the rituals and attributing them to God and said "God told us to do so"

The book called Quran is a very different book if you put yourself into it beneath all that crap they assign to the words. You can write a book in elaboration to what they say about the trilateral s - l - w despite it being an innocent word that cannot imply too much on its own.

Have faith