Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
|[MADRASA] Islamic Standpoint on Evolution?|
|07/10/01 at 00:37:03|
I was wondering what is the exact Islamic standpoint on evolution? Are there any parts of the theory of natural selection that are in harmony with Islam? What about the idea tht only the fit survive, while the weak die out... and with mutations helping out?
I have heard this idea that rather than man resulting from the evolution of monkeys, monkeys may have resulted from man when Allah (AWJ) punished a people by turning them into monkeys.
All comments would be appreciated.
|10/23/00 at 23:43:34|
1-The evolution theory has been written by a jewish scientist,it is completely wrong,Allah subhanahu wataala has created Adam and from him Eve,so where does evolution come in?
2-No the monkeys that were originally people (jews...surprise!!),lived only for three days and then died,they neither ate nor slept nor had nuptial relations for the three days they existed as monkeys.
wa-Allah subhanhu wataala a'alam.
|10/24/00 at 06:19:13|
I see. But, what about mutations, where a change in the DNA of a sequence take place and the organism's characteristics change?... Sometimes these mutations can be favorable and allow an organism to adapt in a more favorable way towards its environment and therefore survive while the others die out. Many diseases in humans are also caused by mutations. Are we as Muslims allowed to believe in mutations and therefore, in natural selection?
Also, is it in the Qur'an that the monkeys lived for only three days or did you get it from a hadith. I would really appreciate a reference.
Jazzak-Allahu Khairan for your time.
|10/24/00 at 09:14:08|
|Check out a book called "The Evolution Deceit" by Harun Yahya. It really opens your eyes to the idea of positive mutations (like, just HOW probable is it for beneficial mutations to occur?).|
Allah knows best but I don't see that adaptation to one's immediate environment has anything to do with evolution. The theory (yes, only a theory) of evolution puts forward a view that all living matter evolved from a common source. We believe that all species were created as they are now. This is not at odds with the idea that those organisms that are best suited to their environments will survive: because all the properties that make them better suited to that environment were there when Allah created them. The old chestnut of the moths in Manchester that evolutionists wheel out to support their theory is just a smokescreen. The elements that made the moths suited to the pre- or post- industrial revolution environments were already present. That was no "evolution": just simple mathematics!
Allah knows best.
|10/24/00 at 13:26:45|
|Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem.|
Assalam alaikum wa rahmatullah.
Though the book 'Evolution Deceit' is okay, and has gained much popularity, there are some questionable aspects in certain chapters; specifically the section on *thought*. If you can be wary of this section, assuming your familiarity with the notion of fikr [thought] in Islam, then the actual arguments he forwards against macro-evolution are reasonably sound, though maybe not foolproof.
However, the best work I have seen on this subject, by way of refutation, is by a non-Muslim creationist by the name of Michael Behe. His book 'Darwin's Black Box,' contains a much more powerful analysis of the whole issue, and a solid rebuttal. I have yet to see any evolutionists handle his argument (not that I am any kind of expert). Fundamentally he suggests an idea known as *irreducible complexity,* by which he explains that certain organs in our bodies have components which by their very nature are not evolvable. Such as the eye, which is one example he breaks down.
This relates to macro-evolution, which is not the same as variation within a species; the latter sometimes causing confusion to us when it is referred to as micro-evolution, for many don't appreciate the difference.
Now, though he is not Muslim, the argument is not one which one necessarily has to be Muslim to appreciate, for it is employing objective reasoning at it's heart. The same way, for example, you don't have to carry the Islamic aqeedah to come up with the idea, say, of a faster chip than the latest Intel pentium.
I would also direct you to an article on the question by Sheikh Nuh, at:
It is quite good. What it manages to show is that all these issues need not require an intimate familiarity with the actual subject itself. Rather, if one can achieve a good grasp of the subject of *methodology of thought,* which contains within it the ability to discern sound reasoning from weak, and how to in/validate people's arguments for this and that, then it is enough to be able to deal with such ideas like evolution, which need not be as troublesome as many of us think they are.
Many is the time some kaffir has thrown at me some question concerning science and an apparent perceived contradiction with Islam. Or not even science, but just some aspect of the kufr fikr, and even if I did not know the subject they raised, it was enough to be able to dissect their mode of reasoning to destroy their argument.
Of course, none of this is achievable without the tawfeeq granted by Allah (swt), and we should all be mindful that it is not our own ability, but the Favour of our Lord (awj) upon us that facilitates the overcoming of batil [falsehood] by Haqq [truth]. For that, we should all, always be grateful, alhamdulillah.
The 'abd [slave] in need of Allah (swt),
|10/24/00 at 12:55:55|
I was going to mention the same book that Abu Khalid has mentioned. Also this, "What is the Origin of Man?" (1983) Seghers, Paris. I have yet to read it, but I heard its good and useful.
And this, if you find this book, or anyone, please let me know. I have been seraching for it high and low. Its out of print. "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" (1992) Corgi Books, London. Its by Richard Milton.
Did you know that Darwin wrote to a friend saying that he doesn't really believe in Evolution, that he just uses it to explain natural selection. I have the source somewhere, if i come across it i will post it here inshalah. I am sure you can find it in the library or something, some really good, big library. You will have to do a lot of serach though, because its something that the scientists don't like for the people to know.
|10/24/00 at 15:23:02|
Some of the best information I found on this subject matter was by a Muslim, Harun Yahya. Here is his book, the Evolution Deceit:
[url] http://www.harunyahya.org/Eng/EvolDec/e1.html [/url]
|10/26/00 at 08:17:19|
I would go along the recommendations made by Abu Khaled and Saleema.
The book by Harun Yahya is very good for those not very familiar with the subject in itself because of diagrams and illustrations.
However I would caution everybody regarding the last chapters of the book - those dealing with the reality of matter. The issues that Harun Yahya covers are heavy and if not understood properly can lead one's aqeedah astray. I urge everybody to ignore the last chapters of the book and consult a scholar regarding the issue for clarrification. This would be my only criticism levelled at the book only because I deem it as a grave error.
Harun Yahya seems to have written the same thing in all his books and no one seems to have said anything regarding it so far but personally after reading it I found certain things to be blatently contrary to the Qur'an.
I would end by saying once again that Harun Yahyas book is good for understanding evolution and its fallacies so long as you do not read the last few chapters (the ones which come after the WARNING heading) dealing with reality.
|10/26/00 at 17:33:57|
|OK, here's my two cents worth. This is all my personal opinion.|
1. The idea that man was created by chance as part of "evolution" implies that man is NOT any different from an animal. The Quran clearly states that man and jinn are the only creation of Allah to be given free will; this then implies the idea of the day of account, and the hereafter. By taking this fact away, evolution is implying that man is not acountable for his deeds.
2. If you look deeply into the mechamism of evolution, at the genetic level, one BIG question remains unanswered. Even if some kind of evolution took place, how did the mechanism for it to take place evolve ? I remember my genetics lecturer at university referring to "the great biochemits in the sky" when he couldn't explain how any cellualr genetic mechanism took place. In other words, there MUST be a creator who set the whole chain of "evolution" into motion.
3. Let is leave the Christians out of this, and NOT take up the arguments they have come up with. Christians and science do NOT mix. If anyone needs proof of this, I once a man on a plane who used to be a Christian, but gave it up and became a Hindu because of the clash between Chrisianity and science.
4. It is obvious to any muslim that man did not "evolve" from an ape; this clashes with the Quranic viewpoint on several counts. However, other kinds of evolution may have occured, wallahu alim. The line is drawn where theroies clash with the truth as stated in the Quran; any theories that do not clash with it may be true.
5. Let us never forget that the muslims were the forefathers of the modern science we see today, while the west was groping for light.
|10/26/00 at 17:54:50|
|4. It is obvious to any muslim that man did not "evolve" from an ape; this clashes with the Quranic viewpoint on several counts. However, other kinds of evolution may have occured, wallahu alim. The line is drawn where theroies clash with the truth as stated in the Quran; any theories that do not clash with it may be true.|
what I want someone to answer is: If humans evolved from apes then why didnt *all* of the apes evolve? How come some evolved and the other didnt?
|10/26/00 at 19:55:33|
Good point Saleema! :-)
My MSc project was in the area of biochemistry where I studied the structure of a protein abundant in the eye lens of ducks (protein called delta crystallin). The reason why we were interested in this protein was not because we cared much about ducks, rather because this protein is ~80% identical to a human enzyme (called arginosuccinate lyase). Mutations in this human enzyme result in a non-fatal, yet serious conginatal disorder, and this is why we carried out the project since we were affiliated with a pediatrics hospital.
So the point there is that yes there are many similarites between human proteins/genes and those of other species. But we don't quack like ducks, non-intentionally that is, do we? :D
The theory of evolution is based on these observations of parallels. The erroneous nature of this theory lies in the conclusions drawn from these observations in that it never gave consideration to "creation". Subhanah Allah, for you could easily use these very same observations to prove that all these species -and all of them have some level of homology/similarity- to *prove* that they were all *created* by the same god; Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.
Widad- I disagree with your reasoning. We don't simply reject other theories just because Jewish scientists came up with them. There are many wrong theories by non-jews as well. Muslims are more objective than that as we are supposed to look at the underlying logic. Essentially, the theory of evolution is very hard to swallow for many non-religious scientists, because of its many "holes" mentioned previously.
Yet, sometimes things are beyond our human ability to rationalize and then we'll have to leave them alone.
|10/27/00 at 07:06:12|
I didn't reject it because the scientist is a yahoodi,I said that it is a theory by a jew,meaning it was an especially tailored theory to cover up for their(the jews) shame when Allah got angry with their forefathers and turned them into monkeys and pigs.
|10/27/00 at 09:46:29|
Accoridng to Encyclopaeida Britannica, Darwin was originally Church Of England i.e Christian. Also, an alim (who also had a Masters in genetics) once gave us a talk on evolution, and said that one of the reasons for creating this "theory" was to allow the Christian church to officially say that the black man was of a lower evolutionary variety than the white man.
|10/27/00 at 14:45:32|
Humble Muslim, you are absolutely correct!! That is one of the reasons. Befor WWII started, the olympics were being held in Germany, a black runner from the US was a participant, the fastest runner in the world! Htiler didnt shake his hand cuz he was black and he bear the German runner and Hitler wanted the German to win. anyway, the media made a big deal out of it, and of course it was a big deal. So the next day, this awesome athlete gets a newpaper clipping saying that blacks came from apes and that sceince proves it. He just threw it away, and the German athlete that the US atlete beat cried and apologized for the way the Germans were treatin him.
At first the Evolution theory was used as a put down for the blacks. And i would to point to my previous post where I wrote that Darwin really didn't believe in the evolution theory, he said that he just used it to explain natural selection.
|11/14/00 at 19:38:36|
darwin didn't invent the theory of evolution , he invented the theory of evolution through natural selection. where did he get this idea from? the pc version is the finches at galapagos islands in chile...the real version is he saw the native people in tiera del fuego who used oil to protect their bodies and wore animal skins ..darwin the victorian (who believed in clean clothes but not bathing *lol*) thought they were oily because they were dirty ...what he didn't know was that the oil was a survival mechanism because it protected them from the cold...this is the origin of natural selection...darwin though did suggest that they be wiped out..and happily for this genocidal maniac and his latter day followers who've emerged from the woodwork they were...the immigrant italians and spanish paying in silver for each pair of ears...which makes it even more strange that these descendents of murderers and bandits should be demanding that the falklands should belong to them.
The next stage of the evolution saga was the idea of mutations contributing to natural selection ..since only the mutant with a certain ability would stay alive in changed circumstances...this coincided with the belief in genetics as making people superior eg that whites had a natural propensity to work hard because they lived in a cold climate whereas asiatics (lol) and africans were lazy because they got it on a plate...hence the mutation that allowed white people to live in cold climates also made them the most able to survive in any climate...we've ignored the eskimo's of course...(lol)..so then we get to Hitlers era and the English belief in Britons (by which they mean the Anglo-Saxons and not the Celts...something that really gets the Scots mad...:) ) never being slaves...did anybody mention the romans in england...the best answer to this nonsense is Swifts 'the true born englishman)....
And in Hitlers era of course we had the WW2 and the darwinists crawled into the woodwork only to re-emerge in the 1960's along with the rise of Neo-fascism in Germany funded by certain agencies to combat the Commies...
ok questions to confuse are a darwinist are
1) Is evolution the result of a few very large catastrophes or a few small ones
2) Explain how the blood system evolved
3) To mr dawkins have you ever heard the term 'statistical fallacy' when you wrote your book on the evolution of the eye?
4) A person witha genetic mutation is generally
less able to use the rest of his body true or false?...eg a lizard with abnormal bones as precurser to wings would be less likely to be able to outrun or climb a tree than a normal lizard
5) did birds evolve from lizards?..
6) why did neanderthal man die out?..eg he buried his dead and created musical instruments..anmd we didn't have darwinists trying to start a race war then...so what exactly happened
theres of course lots more questions ...
|11/14/00 at 19:50:41|
Something else i forgot to mention
Darwinism to Europeans at the time because they believed in Negative liberalism that is the belief that you win or you die..the same philosophy of Reaganomics and Thatcherism and Wall Street Yuppies in the Eighties...of course this wasn't backed up by observation ...darwinists assumed that in nature when to males competed one was killed oddly this isn't the case. Why did this belief arise?..well possibly because they were venturing into unfamiliar areas like jungles etc..most whites must have been terrified . Every sound must have felt like they were todays snack for a python or a jaguar...hence the feeling that in nature it was everyone for himself..of course when they discovered co-operative animals they explained it away as the genetics of helping cousins because your own genes would survive (if genes mutate whats the point? *lol*)..then when they had to explain religions with matyr's they createda word 'meme' and thought that naming a thing explains it..of course now they are back into entirely familiar territory of tribalism as in the prophets time..eg murder is justified, genocide is justified everything is justified so long as YOUR genes survive..thus they reduce man to his animal brain
|11/17/00 at 21:30:06|
good site on darwin. i think. Just found it. haven't checked out its contents yet. will later inshallah.
|11/17/00 at 21:43:08|
This appeared today in one of Toronto's newspapers, The Globe and Mail. It mentiones Michael Behe who br. Abu-Khaled referred to. It is a good read, I promise.
In defence of creationism
Don't be quick to condemn Stockwell Day for his belief
in creationism, says JONATHAN WELLS. There's lots of
evidence of an intelligent hand at work
Friday, November 17, 2000
Until recently, many people thought the debate over Darwinian evolution was confined mainly to the Bible belt of the United States. But on Wednesday, Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day remarked that, "There is scientific support for both creationism and evolution." He and other Alliance members have supported teaching alternatives to Darwinism in Canadian schools. There has been a predictable knee-jerk public and media backlash, but instead of rushing to condemn Mr. Day, Canadians should be having an open discussion about alternatives to Darwinism.
According to the prevailing view, Darwin's theory is supported by overwhelming evidence and accepted by all knowledgeable biologists. It is opposed only by ignorant fundamentalists, who prefer a literal interpretation of Genesis to the clear findings of modern science.
This stereotype is seriously misleading. The truth is that Darwinian evolution is in deep trouble with the scientific community, and a growing number of scientists now consider it inadequate as an explanation for the origin and history of life.
Darwin's theory is that all living things are related by descent from a common ancestor. The differences among them, according to the theory, were produced by natural selection (survival of the fittest), acting on random variations. High school students are taught that the first part of this theory (common ancestry) is a scientific fact, while the second part (natural selection acting on random variations) is a well-supported theory.
But most biology textbooks neglect to inform students that all the major groups of animals appeared at about the same time, in a geological period known as the Cambrian, rather than diverging from a common ancestor, as evolution implies. Darwin knew about this, and considered it a "serious" problem for his theory, but he thought that the problem would go away as more fossils were found. Yet continued fossil collecting has only made the problem worse, and most experts now think the "Cambrian explosion" was even more dramatic than Darwin realized. Some call it biology's "big bang."
Considering this, it seems reasonable to conclude that the common ancestry of all living things is not necessarily a fact. It doesn't even look like a well-supported hypothesis.
As for Darwin's mechanism of natural selection acting on random variations: No one doubts that this occurs, though its observed effects are trivial. The classic textbook example involves light- and dark-coloured moths. Students are taught that since well-camouflaged moths are less likely to be eaten by predatory birds, dark moths become more plentiful in polluted woodlands where tree trunks have been darkened by soot.
Even if this is true, a growing number of biologists question whether it can account for the major changes we see in the history of life.
At the very least, our students deserve to be taught the truth about the so-called "evidence" for Darwinian evolution. They also deserve to hear about alternative theories.
Despite the stereotype that the only alternative to Darwinian evolution is a literal interpretation of Genesis, there are other options -- including what many U.S. scientists refer to as "intelligent-design theory."
According to intelligent-design theory, some features of living things cannot be explained as products of law and chance, but could have been produced only by an intelligent designer.
Baylor University mathematician William Dembski has formalized this argument in a 1998 book, The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press. Mr. Dembski argues that we always infer design when we encounter "specified complexity" -- by which he means something that is very unlikely (complex) that also conforms to an independent pattern (specification).
For example, suppose that a person drops a handful of small stones on the ground. The arrangement formed by those stones will be quite complex -- it is very unlikely that the same pattern would result if the action were repeated.
Yet the complexity would not lead to an inference that the pattern was designed. On the other hand, if those same stones were arranged on the ground in letters and words, spelling out a Shakespearean sonnet, a person would reasonably infer design.
Mr. Dembski argues that when this concept of specified complexity is applied to living things, it leads to the inference that some aspects of them are designed. He stresses that this is not natural theology -- that is, he is not arguing that design tells us what we may want to know about the designer, much less that the designer is the God of the Bible. Instead, Mr. Dembski argues, the design inference merely opens a door to possible theological interpretations -- a door that Mr. Day is comfortable opening.
In a slightly different approach, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe lists features of cells, such as the whip-like flagellum that propels a bacterium through a fluid, which he calls "irreducibly complex." Mr. Behe argues that such features could not be assembled piecemeal through Darwinian natural selection, because they are made of constituents that have no function until they are all present in the finished product.
Whether or not intelligent-design theory -- or some other alternative -- will replace Darwinian evolution remains to be seen. But the controversy is unlikely to go away -- particularly when so much of the "evidence" for Darwinian evolution is missing.
Should we so quickly dismiss Mr. Day's beliefs? Should Canadian students continue to be indoctrinated in Darwin's theory by textbooks that ignore or distort the scientific evidence? Or should they be taught the truth about the evidence, and permitted to consider alternative theories? These questions deserve the thoughtful attention of all Canadians interested in the quality of science education.
[i]Jonathan Wells has a PhD in biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He is the author of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?[/i]
|Re: [MADRASA] Islamic Standpoint on Evolution?|
|12/14/01 at 00:23:25|
as salaamu alaykum,
email I received recently...
Here are some websites that are along the same vein:
One is really not going to find an Islamic perspective in the above sites. Nevertheless, they should be of great help to one investigating this issue at a more involved level.
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.The rest © Jannah.Org