Islam and evolution

[Joseph]

Yes, thank you. Personally, I am more committed to accepting the best scientific theories, not as the last word, as scientific knowledge is, of course, always evolving, but as the best scientific theories according to the current consensus of scientists and leading specialists.

That's the best any of us can do. Most scientists cannot keep current within their own subspecialty. Beyond this, we have to rely on expert consensus like everyone else.

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon posted #115. I quoted this post, broke it down into four parts, and responded to each part (post #120). There are contradictions to the principle of the harmony of science and religion in the statements of AbdulBaha and by his followers related to evolution, noted by Bahais themselves. I provided links to examples. This isn't adversarial. It's a statement of fact. In this thread, robrecht (posts #45 and #88) also notes Bahai resistance to evolution, mentioned by OingoBoingo, and that you refused to discuss it. I had hoped you were familiar with the disputes surrounding AbdulBaha's dismissal of transmutation, but apparently you aren't and haven't read Bahai papers on the topic.

Your post #115 failed to show any contemporary scientist or scholar did not believe that the contemporary scientific view of evolution is not accurate.

All scientists are not schooled in specialties beyond their own. Find a PhD and ask. Most will be honest and humble enough to admit this. Science is so specialized that many scientists are unfamiliar with subspecialties within their own discipline that they are not in a position to comment outside of their discipline. That you don't recognize the problems with physicist Friberg's statements suggests your understanding is no better. The point is there are those that recognize his statements represent gross errors and cannot be supported by modern biology, and I provided a link to support this.

You have failed to demonstrate that Friberg's knowledge on evolution is limited, nor that his statements represent gross errors and cannot be supported by modern biology.

A principle not practiced by one of the founders and his followers is meaningless. AbdulBaha could have referred those who asked questions about evolution to books or other experts but he didn't. He could have said he didn't know but he didn't. He repeatedly described a view inconsistent with how evolution was understood at the time. You seem to hold the mistaken belief (post #33) that "virtually the overwhelming majority, 99%+ of" Bahais "endorse the science of evolution without theological presuppositions," when evidence and links within the evolution section of the Wikipedia article on "Bahai Faith and science" refute this:

Abul'baha and Baha'u'llah were not educated in the western science of the time, nor did they have access to this in ancient Persia. There experience outside Persia was in prison and on the run in exile. This neglects the simple fact that Baha'i scripture stands, and the modern evolving knowledge of science must be accepted as the standard of the knowledge of the physical world.

It does not refute this it confirms this view. Contemporary Baha'is believe the scientific evolution is correct, and accepted today

Yes they believe they can be reconciled, that in now way demonstrates that they disagree with the contemporary science of evolution.

True, but this does not change the Baha'i view of the science of evolution must be accepted.

You seem to be unaware of Near Eastern history that there were books after French colonialism at the end of the 18th century, universities that taught science, Arabic popular science journals in the 19th century, and that evolution was discussed in Persian too. You haven't read what Bahai Keven Brown wrote.

Source: Source: [url

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%...th_and_science][/url]

© Copyright Original Source

No problem with this that Baha'is would in anyway question the modern science of evolution.

No Islam does not make this claim, as cited by Abdul'baha, He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science. IF you are making this claim, cite the Quran, where it makes this claim.

You seem to believe that religions and believers' beliefs are static and limited only to "ancient Revelations." Jews, Christians, Muslims have moved on. You can find statements on the compatibility of science and religion and of "true science" and "true religion" in 19th century English and Arabic periodicals and Arabic books. A number of Christian and Islamic philosophers hold the same today.[/quote]

Still waiting . . . now where in the Islamic scripture does it require that the Muslims must accept science as the knowledge of our physical existence as in the Baha'i Faith.

Adequate for you maybe, because you are already convinced Bahaism is exceptional compared to the "unfortunate weakness with ancient Revelations in relating to the modern world" (post #4), to the "lack of guidance in the Christian and Islamic Revelation concerning science that has lead to disunity and division on the issue evolution" (post #10), to the issue of theological preconditions and reservations (post #12), to "the belief of the primacy of the literal interpretation of the scripture" (post #33), without reviewing any of the links I provided, including to Bahai authors on the Wikipedia page, that demonstrate Bahai practice and belief affected by the very same.

False, you have failed to demonstrate this. You have failed to site any contemporary Baha'i scientists and scholars who question nor not accept the modern science of evolution. The authors you cited on the Wiki page did not remotely question the contemporary science of evolution, nor the contemporary knowledge of any other discipline of science.

[quote] You believe you "can argue effectively that Christianity and Islam fails to provide effective guidance for humanity in the world today in many areas including science, the subject of this thread, because they are basically old and out of date" (post #48). People who view Wikipedia's "Bahai Faith and science" and read Bahai authors think the same. What you say is applicable to every religion, including your own. Your Revelation is already more than a century old and Bahais are still debating about ether and whether humans are a branch of the ape family, no different than Islam (post #78) or intelligent design, which assumes humans were created separately. Bahai scripture rejects the bodily resurrection of Christ while accepting immaculate conception and virgin birth. Repeating the harmony principle resolves nothing. But there's always humanism which acknowledges science and spares us the endless debates and unresolved contentions, right? I see not endless debates nor unresolved contentions from the perspective of the Baha'i view. Repeating the harmony view and the fact of scripture states that science must be accepted as the standard of our knowledge of our physical existence.

What was significant about Darwin's 1859 Origin of Species was precisely the separation of scientific explanation from theology, regardless of his personal issues (post #79). It begs the question of what Bahai has to offer. Pancreasman (posts #72, #85, #89), robrecht (multiple posts), siam (post #75 and others) touched upon the lack of originality. What you offer (post #86 and #87) about the atom and universal education are easily dismissed. Mechanical philosophers developed atomism in the 17th century, followed by Antoine Lavoisier and Joseph Priestly in the 18th century, and John Dalton's atomic theory in 1803 and Amadeo Avogadro's hypothesis in 1811. The association of the atom with the sun goes back to Laplace's nebular hypothesis in the 18th century. A gaseous state was matter's primitive form. Gaseous atoms pervading space exploded producing a solar fire and forming the sun. Universal education existed in Switzerland (see Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi) after the end of the 18th century and spread to Germany. It was a popular topic in England in the 1820s.

The founders of the Baha'i Faith in Persia did not have access to this information. Nonetheless has no effect on the basic Baha'i Principle that science must be accepted as preeminent standard of the knowledge of our physical existence.



It is the issue they referred to the terms and knowledge of Persia at the time. Persia lacked any universities that taught modern western English.

[robrecht]

Shuny, please learn to use the quote tags correctly.

[Joseph]

Your post #115 failed to show any contemporary scientist or scholar did not believe that the contemporary scientific view of evolution is not accurate.

You have failed to demonstrate that Friberg's knowledge on evolution is limited, nor that his statements represent gross errors and cannot be supported by modern biology.

Your post is #115. Go back and reread the links in my post #120.

"pretty much every reference agrees that there is an apparent conflict" under "Revision as of 15:26, 4 August 2011." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=443028074

Friberg edits out, "a kind of parallel evolution that has a unique origin." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=610270633

I don't have time at the moment to spell out the (1) basics of evolutionary biology for you to comprehend the (2) conflicts, to revise the quote tag errors of your post #137, or to review the (3) place of Bahai in Middle East history to correct your errors. The harmony principle you are so focused on never appeared until after the start of the 20th century in the talks of AbdulBaha, as far as I know, or perhaps you can provide an example otherwise. In the meantime, to address these three points, please consider reading
(1) something on evolutionary biology, such as Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is http://ibi.cqupt.edu.cn/download/bio...olution_is.pdf or better yet, a college evolution textbook, but don't waste your time on the pop "science" of Dawkins.
(2) Oskooi's When Science and Religion Merge: A Modern Case Study http://bahai-library.com/oskooi_dish...ience_religionhttp://bahai-library.com/brown_evolution_bahai_belief and Juan Cole's Modernity and the Millennium

I don't mean to cut this off, but I had hoped you were already familiar with the conflict issues Oskooi and others recognize. I think I'll start a separate thread on Bahai and conflicts about evolution and come back and post a link to it. I am new to Theologyweb that I am not sure where to start a separate thread or how quote tags work, if someone would like to make suggestions.

[Pentecost]

Your post is #115. Go back and reread the links in my post #120.

"pretty much every reference agrees that there is an apparent conflict" under "Revision as of 15:26, 4 August 2011." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=443028074

Friberg edits out, "a kind of parallel evolution that has a unique origin." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=610270633

I don't have time at the moment to spell out the (1) basics of evolutionary biology for you to comprehend the (2) conflicts, to revise the quote tag errors of your post #137, or to review the (3) place of Bahai in Middle East history to correct your errors. The harmony principle you are so focused on never appeared until after the start of the 20th century in the talks of AbdulBaha, as far as I know, or perhaps you can provide an example otherwise. In the meantime, to address these three points, please consider reading
(1) something on evolutionary biology, such as Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is http://ibi.cqupt.edu.cn/download/bio...olution_is.pdf or better yet, a college evolution textbook, but don't waste your time on the pop "science" of Dawkins.
(2) Oskooi's When Science and Religion Merge: A Modern Case Study http://bahai-library.com/oskooi_dish...ience_religionhttp://bahai-library.com/brown_evolution_bahai_belief and Juan Cole's Modernity and the Millennium

I don't mean to cut this off, but I had hoped you were already familiar with the conflict issues Oskooi and others recognize. I think I'll start a separate thread on Bahai and conflicts about evolution and come back and post a link to it. I am new to Theologyweb that I am not sure where to start a separate thread or how quote tags work, if someone would like to make suggestions.

For your thread, probably either Comparative Religion, or if you want the hardcore atheist aspect of the site involved Nat Sci could work.

[Joseph]

For your thread, probably either Comparative Religion, or if you want the hardcore atheist aspect of the site involved Nat Sci could work.

I think Comparative Religion would be fine. I will go there and start. I hope shunyadragon and others here will come. Since shunyadragon doesn't think there is any problem between what's been written by Bahais and evolution, perhaps he could begin by explaining his view of evolution.

[shunyadragon]

Your post is #115. Go back and reread the links in my post #120.

"pretty much every reference agrees that there is an apparent conflict" under "Revision as of 15:26, 4 August 2011." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=443028074

Friberg edits out, "a kind of parallel evolution that has a unique origin." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=610270633

I don't have time at the moment to spell out the (1) basics of evolutionary biology for you to comprehend the (2) conflicts, to revise the quote tag errors of your post #137, or to review the (3) place of Bahai in Middle East history to correct your errors. The harmony principle you are so focused on never appeared until after the start of the 20th century in the talks of AbdulBaha, as far as I know, or perhaps you can provide an example otherwise. In the meantime, to address these three points, please consider reading
(1) something on evolutionary biology, such as Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is http://ibi.cqupt.edu.cn/download/bio...olution_is.pdf or better yet, a college evolution textbook, but don't waste your time on the pop "science" of Dawkins.
(2) Oskooi's When Science and Religion Merge: A Modern Case Study http://bahai-library.com/oskooi_dish...ience_religionhttp://bahai-library.com/brown_evolution_bahai_belief and Juan Cole's Modernity and the Millennium

I don't mean to cut this off, but I had hoped you were already familiar with the conflict issues Oskooi and others recognize. I think I'll start a separate thread on Bahai and conflicts about evolution and come back and post a link to it. I am new to Theologyweb that I am not sure where to start a separate thread or how quote tags work, if someone would like to make suggestions.

No problem. None of this indicates that Friberg nor any other Baha'i scientist or scholar has any problem accepting the science of evolution, nor any other discipline of science in the contemporary world of science.

Your references are good and accurate, but you missed the key issue. Do contemporary Baha'is accept the science of evolution and the other disciplines of science as preeminent concerning the physical nature of our existence? Contemporary articles and discussions on the problems of translation and literal interpretation of scripture does not remotely effect the simple fact that based on foundation principles and scripture that the knowledge of science MUST be accepted as preeminent over scripture.

Still waiting for Islamic scripture that supports that Muslims MUST accept contemporary science as you claimed.

From your references the conclusions here reflect how the Baha'is address the issue of the nature of Abdul'baha' writings concerning evolution.

[Joseph]

No problem. None of this indicates that Friberg nor any other Baha'i scientist or scholar has any problem accepting the science of evolution, nor any other discipline of science in the cotemporary world of science.

Yes, the links in post #120 show exactly that, and did you not read Oskooi http://bahai-library.com/oskooi_dish...ience_religion ? It isn't enough to say people accept science. We have to compare what they think science is to independent references. I understand ideally you believe "science MUST be accepted as preeminent over scripture," but in practice it is not.

Still waiting for Islamic scripture that supports that Muslims MUST accept contemporary science as you claimed.

That's not what I said. I said Christians and Muslims recognized belief in the compatibility of true religion and true science before Bahais. Christians and Muslims reached this conclusion centuries before Bahai, regardless of the age of their scripture. Think about Newton and Boyle.

Von Kitzing isn't right or there would not be other Bahais disagreeing, see Oskooi. If you can't see the contradictions, I'll identify them in the new thread under Comparative Religion, and you can tell me whether or not they are consistent with evolution. If you think they are consistent with evolution, then we can examine how views of evolution differ.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, the links in post #120 show exactly that, and did you not read Oskooi http://bahai-library.com/oskooi_dish...ience_religion ?

Yes I read it, I have made my view clear by what is mandated by scripture without equivocation that by scripture science must be accepted as preeminence concerning the physical nature of our existence.

There is not scripture that in either Christianity nor Islam to support this assertion. What you have is some believers do support science and some don't, and it breaks down about 50/50. You need to support that there is a motivation in the scripture that supports your assertion, and there is not.

It isn't enough to say people accept science. We have to compare what they think science is to independent references. I understand ideally you believe "science MUST be accepted as preeminent over scripture," but in practice it is not.

It is easy to document that science is not preeminent concerning the nature of our physical existence. I not only 'believe' science must be preeminent concerning the nature of our physical existence, it is specifically mandated in Baha'i scripture. This is lacking in Christianity and Islam so you end up with some do and some don't.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate that contemporary scientists and scholars do not accept science as preeminent and must be accepted as the interpreter of the Nature of our physical existence. All you have shown is articles and discussions of the problems of translation and interpretation of scripture in open healthy constructive dialogue. All this does not determine how Baha'is must accept science as preeminent over scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence.

[siam]

If one interprets the term "science" very broadly as knowledge then there are verses in the Quran that promote the pursuit of knowledge for example;---

[3:190-191 partial] Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day - there are indeed signs for men of understanding; Men who remember Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the creation of the heavens and the earth (with the thought)...."

[Joseph]

If one interprets the term "science" very broadly as knowledge then there are verses in the Quran that promote the pursuit of knowledge for example;---

[3:190-191 partial] Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day - there are indeed signs for men of understanding; Men who remember Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the creation of the heavens and the earth (with the thought)...."

Yes, I agree, and more importantly Islamic philosophers would concur, for example, http://www.cis-ca.org/muzaffar/muz-bion.htm

[Joseph]

Yes I read it, I have made my view clear by what is mandated by scripture without equivocation that by scripture science must be accepted as preeminence concerning the physical nature of our existence.

Then you missed the conflicts. The point of reading what Bahais have written is to understand that regardless of what you think scripture mandates, AbdulBaha did not understand evolution in a manner compatible with his time and Bahais who literally follow him now do not either. All I can do is cite specific examples and explain the conflicts.

There is not scripture that in either Christianity nor Islam to support this assertion. What you have is some believers do support science and some don't, and it breaks down about 50/50. You need to support that there is a motivation in the scripture that supports your assertion, and there is not.

Everyone knows the Bible and the Quran don't mention science explicitly. You started this thread claiming Bahai scripture accepts science and almost all Bahais accept evolution, as if this was something significantly different. Despite science not being mentioned in the Bible and the Quran, religious belief was not statically welded to a literal understanding of "ancient scripture." Christians and Muslims went on to accept the harmony of religion and science before AbdulBaha said anything. I can't find this principle in Bahaullah's scripture in English; it only seems to appear after the beginning of the 20th century in the talks of his son AbdulBaha.

It is easy to document that science is not preeminent concerning the nature of our physical existence. I not only 'believe' science must be preeminent concerning the nature of our physical existence, it is specifically mandated in Baha'i scripture. This is lacking in Christianity and Islam so you end up with some do and some don't.

Everyone recognizes a sizable percentage of Christians and Muslims do not accept evolution. Despite AbdulBaha mentioning the harmony principle, there remains considerable confusion and disparate views among Bahais who discuss evolution that it doesn't matter what AbdulBaha said. I am sure there are a number of Bahais who accept science, but it is remarkable that there are so many different views among Bahais and that these views contradict evolution now. Practically, Bahais struggle with reconciling religion with evolution, no different than Christians and Muslims.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate that contemporary scientists and scholars do not accept science as preeminent and must be accepted as the interpreter of the Nature of our physical existence. All you have shown is articles and discussions of the problems of translation and interpretation of scripture in open healthy constructive dialogue. All this does not determine how Baha'is must accept science as preeminent over scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence.

Someone doesn't accept science when they promote views at variance with scientific consensus. If Bahais accepted "science as preeminent over scripture," there wouldn't be so many contradictory papers and statements regarding evolution. I'll provide examples in the thread under World Religions, Comparative Religions, Bahai and Evolution.

[shunyadragon]

Then you missed the conflicts. The point of reading what Bahais have written is to understand that regardless of what you think scripture mandates, AbdulBaha did not understand evolution in a manner compatible with his time and Bahais who literally follow him now do not either. All I can do is cite specific examples and explain the conflicts.

If that is all you can do your argument is weak and in trouble.

Everyone knows the Bible and the Quran don't mention science explicitly. You started this thread claiming Bahai scriptures accepts science and almost all Bahais accept evolution, as if this was something significantly different. Despite science not being mentioned in the Bible and the Quran, religious belief was not statically welded to a literal understanding of "ancient scripture." Christians and Muslims went on to accept the harmony of religion and science before AbdulBaha said anything.

Only 'some' Christian and Islamic scientists accepted the harmony of science and religion, and virtually none accepted the preeminence of science.

I can't find this principle in Bahaullah's scripture in English; it only seems to appear after the beginning of the 20th century in the talks of his son AbdulBaha.

Everyone recognizes a sizable percentage of Christians and Muslims do not accept evolution. Despite AbdulBaha mentioning the harmony principle, there remains considerable confusion and disparate views among Bahais who discuss evolution that it doesn't matter what AbdulBaha said. I am sure there are a number of Bahais who accept science, but it is remarkable that there are so many different views among Bahais and that these views contradict evolution now. Practically, Bahais struggle with reconciling religion with evolution, no different than Christians and Muslims.

Your 'sure' . . . Oh wow, that and two dollars will get you a cup of coffee at MacDonald's. You have failed to document nor demonstrate any confusion, struggles at reconciling scripture and science. Science is accepted as the interpreter of our physical existence based on a mandate in scripture. I have traveled around the world and talked with many Baha'is, scientists and scholars, and find no problem accepting science as the standard.

Someone doesn't accept science when they promote views at variance with scientific consensus. If Bahais accepted "science as preeminent over scripture," there wouldn't be so many contradictory papers and statements regarding evolution. I'll provide examples in the thread under World Religions, Comparative Religions, Bahai and Evolution.

[shunyadragon]

For your thread, probably either Comparative Religion, or if you want the hardcore atheist aspect of the site involved Nat Sci could work.

I do not believe that Comparative Religion. As far as I know atheists are not allowed, but I will check. Natural Science is the only choice even for soft core atheists.

[shunyadragon]

That's the best any of us can do. Most scientists cannot keep current within their own subspecialty. Beyond this, we have to rely on expert consensus like everyone else.

It is not a matter of 'keeping up' with the advances in the science of evolution. It is simply a matter of basic knowledge, and I have no problem with De. Friberg, and virtually all scientists have this basic knowledge, which is taught in high school and college freshman biology.