Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Article on Islam and Evolution

YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 11:35:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 11:13:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
http://www.al-bab.com...

Any thoughts or ideas?

I was asked previously about Evolution & Islam on this Forum, so I'll just repeat what I said:

- The birth of Evolution (in its modern sense) was in fact during the Islamic Golden Age, starting by al-Jahiz who remarked on the changes of body forms based on the natural conditions, & then Ibn Maskawayh, Ikhwan as-Safa... who developed the concept even further (it was Ibn Maskawayh that first suggested the origin of men to come from apes), to the polymath Nasr ad-Dine at-Tusi who made his Classification of Species based on natural selection. . etc.
- It should noted that the people that proposed such models were Mu'tazila, which is to be expected since the Mu'tazila believe in the infallibility of the Law of Causality (undisruption of the Laws of Nature), & so, they (some of them) believed that Adam had a natural cause of existence which they tried to figure out, & they came up with evolution: from water to human, & they even brought evidence from scripture. . . long story.
[ The books of these muslims were translated in Britain in the early 19th century which begs the question: why such coincidence?! These infos can be found on any Encyclopedia on the history of Evolution.]

- If Evolution (as a pure scientific theory, not as the pseudo-religion it is today) was indeed true, it would not be incompatible with anything in the Islamic Tradition. Because:
> There is nothing in the Qur'an or the Hadith that directly contradicts it.
> The two major Theological Schools of Thought: Ash'aria & Mu'tazila wouldn't encounter any difficulties with Evolution. The latter are inherently fine with it, for they came up with it in the first place ; the former (Ash'aria) hold the position that God (Allah) is the direct efficient Cause of the Universe, & that the Law of Causality is just a Habit (Sunnah) & not an infallible necessity, & in that World View: God 'recreates' the Universe indefinitely each instance of change. << in that respect, the Habit of God may change occasionally to accommodate to the Will of God, such as creating Adam (or miracles). . .etc.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 12:58:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 11:35:42 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/26/2015 11:13:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
http://www.al-bab.com...

Any thoughts or ideas?

I was asked previously about Evolution & Islam on this Forum, so I'll just repeat what I said:

- The birth of Evolution (in its modern sense) was in fact during the Islamic Golden Age, starting by al-Jahiz who remarked on the changes of body forms based on the natural conditions, & then Ibn Maskawayh, Ikhwan as-Safa... who developed the concept even further (it was Ibn Maskawayh that first suggested the origin of men to come from apes), to the polymath Nasr ad-Dine at-Tusi who made his Classification of Species based on natural selection. . etc.
- It should noted that the people that proposed such models were Mu'tazila, which is to be expected since the Mu'tazila believe in the infallibility of the Law of Causality (undisruption of the Laws of Nature), & so, they (some of them) believed that Adam had a natural cause of existence which they tried to figure out, & they came up with evolution: from water to human, & they even brought evidence from scripture. . . long story.
[ The books of these muslims were translated in Britain in the early 19th century which begs the question: why such coincidence?! These infos can be found on any Encyclopedia on the history of Evolution.]

- If Evolution (as a pure scientific theory, not as the pseudo-religion it is today) was indeed true, it would not be incompatible with anything in the Islamic Tradition. Because:
> There is nothing in the Qur'an or the Hadith that directly contradicts it.
> The two major Theological Schools of Thought: Ash'aria & Mu'tazila wouldn't encounter any difficulties with Evolution. The latter are inherently fine with it, for they came up with it in the first place ; the former (Ash'aria) hold the position that God (Allah) is the direct efficient Cause of the Universe, & that the Law of Causality is just a Habit (Sunnah) & not an infallible necessity, & in that World View: God 'recreates' the Universe indefinitely each instance of change. << in that respect, the Habit of God may change occasionally to accommodate to the Will of God, such as creating Adam (or miracles). . .etc.

So you accept evolution as a process guided by Allah?
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 2:13:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 12:58:55 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So you accept evolution as a process guided by Allah?

- We muslims believe in absolute predestination. Plus, I think that the idea of God of the gaps is fundamentally absurd.

- God, according to Islam, creates, initiates, designs, sustains, originates, dominates, determines, predestines, decrees Everything. Us knowing more about the apparent Habit of God in this World does not affect in any way His Habit, that would be absurd! So the idea that if we can't explain it then God did it, as if in case we can explain it then God might not have done it, is just monumentally absurd!

=> Point being: Everything is under the immediate act of God, & thus any understanding of the World we might get helps us understand the act of God, so, saying: "a process guided by Allah' insinuates that this or other processes may not be under the act of God! We use our Reasoning & explore the World according to what's ethical & we do it with the belief that God is its Originator, without resorting to "God did it, so it must be mysterious & we can't explain it, so we don't have to" Or "We can explain it, though it should've been mysterious, because God did it" . . . <<< these are just stupid irrational ways of seeing things.

- As for your question, I am not a big fan of the Theory of Evolution, not for religious reasons, but for scientific ones. Some of it is really good & some of it is just junk. I do Fundamental Physics, & thus our standards of Scientific Theory is worlds apart from the standards that Biologists require, & thus I see the Theory of Evolution as a soft theory that, if it was indeed True, it has a very long way to go, i.e. I wouldn't consider the Theory of Evolution a serious one, until they can come up with a Universal Equation, analogue to those in Physics.

- My main issues with the Theory of Evolution are:
> It is built on a Classical Paradigm, i.e. it sees life forms as complex (mechanical) machines, & that's it. In contrast, we have much more developed ways of looking at the World, namely Quantum & Relativist Physics.
> Its fundamental core idea of Random Selection, I am not about to guess what kind of process takes place in Evolution, but I highly doubt Random Selection is the answer. & I think, Scientists should start looking at new ways of doing things, maybe by integrating Quantum Theory into Biology or something.
> The false value it is given. If there was a similar theory in Physics (with the same standards of evidence & proof), it will be discarded immediately: a comparison between Quantum Theory & Evolution Theory will make anyone realise how freaking weak the latter is compared to the former. So, I am really uncomfortable about the image Evolution has compared to its actual scientific value; the only thing the Theory of Evolution is good at is Classification of Life Forms. So, let's keep it that way, & let's not turn Science into a Religion.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 3:28:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 2:13:13 AM, YassineB wrote:
- We muslims believe in absolute predestination
Making it an absolute absurdity to convert people.
If they are to be muslims they will be without your or anybody's influence.
Game over.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 7:32:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 11:35:42 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/26/2015 11:13:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
http://www.al-bab.com...

Any thoughts or ideas?

I was asked previously about Evolution & Islam on this Forum, so I'll just repeat what I said:

- The birth of Evolution (in its modern sense) was in fact during the Islamic Golden Age, starting by al-Jahiz who remarked on the changes of body forms based on the natural conditions, & then Ibn Maskawayh, Ikhwan as-Safa... who developed the concept even further (it was Ibn Maskawayh that first suggested the origin of men to come from apes), to the polymath Nasr ad-Dine at-Tusi who made his Classification of Species based on natural selection. . etc.

LOL. Once again, Muslim propagandists claim other Muslims came up with evolution, first. Did they come up with sliced bread, too? Maybe, they also sent a Imam to the moon?

- It should noted that the people that proposed such models were Mu'tazila, which is to be expected since the Mu'tazila believe in the infallibility of the Law of Causality (undisruption of the Laws of Nature), & so, they (some of them) believed that Adam had a natural cause of existence which they tried to figure out, & they came up with evolution: from water to human, & they even brought evidence from scripture. . . long story.

What a bunch of bs. Long story, indeed, fairy tale, to be more exact.

[ The books of these muslims were translated in Britain in the early 19th century which begs the question: why such coincidence?! These infos can be found on any Encyclopedia on the history of Evolution.]

- If Evolution (as a pure scientific theory, not as the pseudo-religion it is today) was indeed true, it would not be incompatible with anything in the Islamic Tradition. Because:
> There is nothing in the Qur'an or the Hadith that directly contradicts it.

Except, Islamic creations stories.

> The two major Theological Schools of Thought: Ash'aria & Mu'tazila wouldn't encounter any difficulties with Evolution. The latter are inherently fine with it, for they came up with it in the first place ; the former (Ash'aria) hold the position that God (Allah) is the direct efficient Cause of the Universe, & that the Law of Causality is just a Habit (Sunnah) & not an infallible necessity, & in that World View: God 'recreates' the Universe indefinitely each instance of change. << in that respect, the Habit of God may change occasionally to accommodate to the Will of God, such as creating Adam (or miracles). . .etc.

Nothing to do with evolution. Nice try, Mr. Propaganda. LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 7:37:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 2:13:13 AM, YassineB wrote:

- As for your question, I am not a big fan of the Theory of Evolution, not for religious reasons, but for scientific ones. Some of it is really good & some of it is just junk. I do Fundamental Physics, & thus our standards of Scientific Theory is worlds apart from the standards that Biologists require, & thus I see the Theory of Evolution as a soft theory that, if it was indeed True, it has a very long way to go, i.e. I wouldn't consider the Theory of Evolution a serious one, until they can come up with a Universal Equation, analogue to those in Physics.

LOL. Obviously, you know nothing about evolution or physics.


- My main issues with the Theory of Evolution are:
> It is built on a Classical Paradigm, i.e. it sees life forms as complex (mechanical) machines, & that's it. In contrast, we have much more developed ways of looking at the World, namely Quantum & Relativist Physics.

LOL. No, that's not what evolution says,

> Its fundamental core idea of Random Selection, I am not about to guess what kind of process takes place in Evolution, but I highly doubt Random Selection is the answer. & I think, Scientists should start looking at new ways of doing things, maybe by integrating Quantum Theory into Biology or something.

LOL, It's called Natural Selection, bozo. Quantum field mechanics is not the same thing at all.

> The false value it is given. If there was a similar theory in Physics (with the same standards of evidence & proof), it will be discarded immediately: a comparison between Quantum Theory & Evolution Theory will make anyone realise how freaking weak the latter is compared to the former. So, I am really uncomfortable about the image Evolution has compared to its actual scientific value; the only thing the Theory of Evolution is good at is Classification of Life Forms. So, let's keep it that way, & let's not turn Science into a Religion.

Hilarious, you don't even know what a theory is.

Well, done, Mr. Propaganda. You showed us how little you know and how low you'll go to defend Islam.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 8:15:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
- As for your question, I am not a big fan of the Theory of Evolution, not for religious reasons, but for scientific ones. Some of it is really good & some of it is just junk. I do Fundamental Physics, & thus our standards of Scientific Theory is worlds apart from the standards that Biologists require, & thus I see the Theory of Evolution as a soft theory that, if it was indeed True, it has a very long way to go, i.e. I wouldn't consider the Theory of Evolution a serious one, until they can come up with a Universal Equation, analogue to those in Physics.

No theory of biology is ever going to be representable by an equation. They are representable by theories, strong generalised principles, but never an equation, the world is far too messy on the macroscopic scale to be able to do that. I should know, given I have computed the behavior of molecular systems, to model anything much larger than a few hundred atoms is nigh impossible via. Pure first-principle physics.

They simply work with very different data sets, and must treat them differently to get useful results. Evolutiom has it's own data set, physical laws have their own data sets. Apples and oranges.


- My main issues with the Theory of Evolution are:
> It is built on a Classical Paradigm, i.e. it sees life forms as complex (mechanical) machines, & that's it. In contrast, we have much more developed ways of looking at the World, namely Quantum & Relativist Physics.

How so? This is pretty absurd in the face of it. Life at it's most fundemental is something that adaptively self-replicates, that's about it. We have a whole spectrum of things that fit into that category.

> Its fundamental core idea of Random Selection, I am not about to guess what kind of process takes place in Evolution, but I highly doubt Random Selection is the answer. & I think, Scientists should start looking at new ways of doing things, maybe by integrating Quantum Theory into Biology or something.

"Random mutations & natural selection", not "random selection", this entire paragraph strongly implies you should stick to Islamic topics :-p. Your ignorance of the field is showing.

> The false value it is given. If there was a similar theory in Physics (with the same standards of evidence & proof), it will be discarded immediately: a comparison between Quantum Theory & Evolution Theory will make anyone realise how freaking weak the latter is compared to the former. So, I am really uncomfortable about the image Evolution has compared to its actual scientific value; the only thing the Theory of Evolution is good at is Classification of Life Forms. So, let's keep it that way, & let's not turn Science into a Religion.

Alright, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. The explanatory power of random mutations and natural selection is rediculous, all the way from phylogeny, gene transfer, the distribution of genes, pseudogenes, ERV sequences, paleontology, adaptive radiation observations, sexual selection, etc. Etc. Etc. Evolution is arguably *the* best established theory in science, ahead of GR and QM. The dataset is so huge. The explanatory power is exquisite for the data it works with as well.

I am sorry, but you Attack me for my ignorance of Islam, but this level of ignorance of evolution is absurd. Maybe you are trying to make lobster from poop!
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 8:40:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 8:15:23 AM, Envisage wrote:
No theory of biology is ever going to be representable by an equation. They are representable by theories, strong generalised principles, but never an equation, the world is far too messy on the macroscopic scale to be able to do that. I should know, given I have computed the behavior of molecular systems, to model anything much larger than a few hundred atoms is nigh impossible via. Pure first-principle physics.

- The same thing can be said about Physics 2,000 years ago, & yet here we are with our Principals & Universal Equations, predicting stuff down to tens of digits of accuracy.

They simply work with very different data sets, and must treat them differently to get useful results. Evolutiom has it's own data set, physical laws have their own data sets. Apples and oranges.

- The Principal of Sensory Experience (literal translation, I don't know what they call it in English) formulated by Avicenna states that empirical particulars, if compounded, may be formulate into abstract universals. The idea here is that the nature of Abductive Reasoning requires a considerable amount of previous knowledge. Making a hypothesis is essentially picking few plausible explanations from an initially unlimited possible explanations. So, probabilistically speaking, the act of coming up with a hypothesis for a particular phenomenon is extremely unlikely. Fortunately, with the commutative knowledge of Humans throughout the ages, the plausible explanations become more & more constrained, & thus easier to guess. So, Biology, if studied at this current rate, will certainly one day come up with an Equation, similar to what Physics have done, why not?!

- My main issues with the Theory of Evolution are:
> It is built on a Classical Paradigm, i.e. it sees life forms as complex (mechanical) machines, & that's it. In contrast, we have much more developed ways of looking at the World, namely Quantum & Relativist Physics.

How so? This is pretty absurd in the face of it. Life at it's most fundemental is something that adaptively self-replicates, that's about it. We have a whole spectrum of things that fit into that category.

- I know, but the model we are working with is mechanical, & I think we can do much better if we introduce a more universal model. The Quantum Model is IMO the way to go, because it's counter intuitive, & that might help us think differently about how we perceive Evolution, instead of sticking to something that clearly isn't working as it should, far from it.

> Its fundamental core idea of Random Selection, I am not about to guess what kind of process takes place in Evolution, but I highly doubt Random Selection is the answer. & I think, Scientists should start looking at new ways of doing things, maybe by integrating Quantum Theory into Biology or something.

"Random mutations & natural selection", not "random selection", this entire paragraph strongly implies you should stick to Islamic topics :-p. Your ignorance of the field is showing.

- Mathematically speaking it is "random selection", & obviously my issue here is probabilistic.
- LoL, who doesn't know Evolution, very funny.

Alright, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. The explanatory power of random mutations and natural selection is rediculous, all the way from phylogeny, gene transfer, the distribution of genes, pseudogenes, ERV sequences, paleontology, adaptive radiation observations, sexual selection, etc. Etc. Etc. Evolution is arguably *the* best established theory in science, ahead of GR and QM. The dataset is so huge. The explanatory power is exquisite for the data it works with as well.

- Correction: the explanatory power of Evolution is ridiculous, & it has always been the best idea ever in classifying Life Forms, not just in modern times. But, the Theory that formulates what Evolution is ("Random Selection") is a bad one, it has as many solutions as problems, & its formulation is changing constantly for the last 150 years. << this is rarely the case in Physics: when the core Principal of a field in Physics is set in place, well, that's about it, it stays that way ; I can't even remotely see this in Evolution.
- & don't even begin to compare Evolution to QM or GR, that is the definition of absurdity itself.

I am sorry, but you Attack me for my ignorance of Islam, but this level of ignorance of evolution is absurd. Maybe you are trying to make lobster from poop!

- Says the guy who thinks Evolution is a better theory than QM, laughable.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:19:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 8:40:48 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:15:23 AM, Envisage wrote:
No theory of biology is ever going to be representable by an equation. They are representable by theories, strong generalised principles, but never an equation, the world is far too messy on the macroscopic scale to be able to do that. I should know, given I have computed the behavior of molecular systems, to model anything much larger than a few hundred atoms is nigh impossible via. Pure first-principle physics.

- The same thing can be said about Physics 2,000 years ago, & yet here we are with our Principals & Universal Equations, predicting stuff down to tens of digits of accuracy.

They simply work with very different data sets, and must treat them differently to get useful results. Evolutiom has it's own data set, physical laws have their own data sets. Apples and oranges.

- The Principal of Sensory Experience (literal translation, I don't know what they call it in English) formulated by Avicenna states that empirical particulars, if compounded, may be formulate into abstract universals. The idea here is that the nature of Abductive Reasoning requires a considerable amount of previous knowledge. Making a hypothesis is essentially picking few plausible explanations from an initially unlimited possible explanations. So, probabilistically speaking, the act of coming up with a hypothesis for a particular phenomenon is extremely unlikely. Fortunately, with the commutative knowledge of Humans throughout the ages, the plausible explanations become more & more constrained, & thus easier to guess. So, Biology, if studied at this current rate, will certainly one day come up with an Equation, similar to what Physics have done, why not?!

- My main issues with the Theory of Evolution are:
> It is built on a Classical Paradigm, i.e. it sees life forms as complex (mechanical) machines, & that's it. In contrast, we have much more developed ways of looking at the World, namely Quantum & Relativist Physics.

How so? This is pretty absurd in the face of it. Life at it's most fundemental is something that adaptively self-replicates, that's about it. We have a whole spectrum of things that fit into that category.

- I know, but the model we are working with is mechanical, & I think we can do much better if we introduce a more universal model. The Quantum Model is IMO the way to go, because it's counter intuitive, & that might help us think differently about how we perceive Evolution, instead of sticking to something that clearly isn't working as it should, far from it.

> Its fundamental core idea of Random Selection, I am not about to guess what kind of process takes place in Evolution, but I highly doubt Random Selection is the answer. & I think, Scientists should start looking at new ways of doing things, maybe by integrating Quantum Theory into Biology or something.

"Random mutations & natural selection", not "random selection", this entire paragraph strongly implies you should stick to Islamic topics :-p. Your ignorance of the field is showing.

- Mathematically speaking it is "random selection", & obviously my issue here is probabilistic.
- LoL, who doesn't know Evolution, very funny.

Alright, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. The explanatory power of random mutations and natural selection is rediculous, all the way from phylogeny, gene transfer, the distribution of genes, pseudogenes, ERV sequences, paleontology, adaptive radiation observations, sexual selection, etc. Etc. Etc. Evolution is arguably *the* best established theory in science, ahead of GR and QM. The dataset is so huge. The explanatory power is exquisite for the data it works with as well.

- Correction: the explanatory power of Evolution is ridiculous, & it has always been the best idea ever in classifying Life Forms, not just in modern times. But, the Theory that formulates what Evolution is ("Random Selection") is a bad one, it has as many solutions as problems, & its formulation is changing constantly for the last 150 years. << this is rarely the case in Physics: when the core Principal of a field in Physics is set in place, well, that's about it, it stays that way ; I can't even remotely see this in Evolution.
- & don't even begin to compare Evolution to QM or GR, that is the definition of absurdity itself.

I am sorry, but you Attack me for my ignorance of Islam, but this level of ignorance of evolution is absurd. Maybe you are trying to make lobster from poop!

- Says the guy who thinks Evolution is a better theory than QM, laughable.

There are 800 million Muslim illiterates out of 1.4 billion. Islam does more than create illiterates. It also dulls the minds of semi-illiterate Muslims and barely coping borderline educated Muslims.

If you were looking for a mathematical equivalent in biology to match what is found in physics, you would have found it if you looked.

"Mathematical and theoretical biology is an interdisciplinary scientific research field with a range of applications in biology, biotechnology, and medicine.[1] The field may be referred to as mathematical biology or biomathematics to stress the mathematical side, or as theoretical biology to stress the biological side.[2] Mathematical biology aims at the mathematical representation, treatment and modeling of biological processes, using a variety of applied mathematical techniques and tools. It has both theoretical and practical applications in biological, biomedical and biotechnology research. For example, in cell biology, protein interactions are often represented as "cartoon" models, which, although easy to visualize, do not accurately describe the systems studied. In order to do this, precise mathematical models are required. By describing the systems in a quantitative manner, their behavior can be better simulated, and hence properties can be predicted that might not be evident to the experimenter.

Such mathematical areas as calculus, probability theory, statistics, linear algebra, abstract algebra, graph theory, combinatorics, algebraic geometry, topology, dynamical systems, differential equations and coding theory are now being applied in biology.[3] Some mathematical areas, such as certain methodologies in statistics, were developed as tools during the conduct of research into mathematical biology."

Muslim countries invest the least in education and supplement their education by praying 5 times to Allah to bridge the gap. What place does QM have in the busy life of an Islamist? There is more engineering and mathematics built into drones than the entire aspirations of an Islamic state.