Islam and evolution

[shunyadragon]

Because I was speaking of Christian humanists and you alluded to data on all Christians, not Christian humanists.

Because I did not want you to misunderstand about Christian humanism.

Does not answer the question concerning the topic of the thread. My reference was clear and I clarified it further, concerning how and why people believe in evolution. Forty+ years of poll data, and increasing role and power of Fundamentalist Christianity in education and government brings the problem front and center.

Do not confuse all of modern science with the theory of evolution. If you want to try and better answer my questions about what you consider to be revelation, you can do so in the Revelation thread. It might also be pertinent for you to respond in more detail here to OingoBoingo's point about Baha'i resistance to full acceptance of the theory of revelation.

My thread and the topic is the problem of the nature of Revelation and the beliefs in science and more specifically evolution in Islam as opposed to the Revelation of the Baha'i Faith. The problem of the limits of Revelation in Christianity is relevant also so I allowed this here. The lack of guidance and limits in ancient religions remains a significant problem why many if not most Christians, and many Muslims, with increasing popularity, do not believe in evolution.

In fact I consider this only one of many problems which I bring up on occasion in this and other forums.

[robrecht]

Does not answer the question concerning the topic of the thread. ...

I answered the questions you just asked me and, I believe, every question you've asked me in this thread. I did not answer your question in your original post because I am not a Muslim, but I have on several occasions, here as well, tried to help you clarify your theology of revelation when it comes up.

[shunyadragon]

I agree that ignorance and/or distortion of science is problematic. I am ok with the figures that you posted but I think the conclusions drawn from that may be incomplete. It is true that the way evolution is presented by some Muslims is a distortion of science...but I think there is also a possibility that there are many Muslims who reject human evolution simply because they are ignorant of science---(and those that reject general evolution are also ignorant of scripture---because the Quran confirms that life came from water....). So it amy be that the figures also show that science education needs to be vastly improved....?.....

The claim of ignorance of science does not hold up based on the evidence. Turkey and some other countries have a relatively high educational level yet the rejection of evolution approaches 50%. The primary up front reason by the evidence for the acceptance of evolution remains religious affiliation, and the degree of strength of that affiliation. Where worldwide it remains an over whelming fact that the rejection of evolution is strongly correlated to Christianity and Islam, NOT ignorance due to level of education.

Both Humanism and Naturalism are not problematic philosophies in themselves---They become problematic when they engage in what in Islamic terms would be "deception"---in giving powers that belong to God alone to other objects thus making them into "gods". So Secular science is not a problem---its theories may be incomplete without God, but they are not false---they become false when God is denied to the extent that another entity---such as an abstract, all powerful "Nature" is substituted for God.

I understand, and share your objections to 'Philosophical Humanism (Metaphysical Naturalism), but that is not the point of my argument. Despite your objections to philosophical humanism, those that believe do pretty much get the science right 99%+ of the time. Based on the guidance of Baha'i scripture in Revelation the support for evolution is likewise 99%+. This is likewise true of many areas of modern society where Christianity and Islam remain divided and in conflict over how to deal with a modern world from an ancient perspective.

(God-given) knowledge is not limited to science, (or scripture)...there is philosophy, poetry and prose that use literary devices to show "truths", intuitive knowledge that comes from meditation and other spiritual methods....etc. I think that all forms of knowledge work better if God is considered and are somewhat incomplete otherwise.....again, this in itself is not a problem...Diversity is important for the human intellect. Knowledge can be abused and this abuse can arise from an incorrect understanding leading to an incorrect use of knowledge. For example, One might say that if only the Human is primary and no other life/creation is important---it can lead to a misuse/abuse of the earth and all her creatures.....

I have no problem with God-given knowledge has many aspects in human history and affairs. That is why I am a Baha'i. I believe and 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. They are divided, conflicted, and involved in violence on a large scale in the modern world. Ancient conflicts and violence between religions and within these religions dominate the world today. This does not reflect the needed Divine Guidance for humanity today. No wonder many turn to philosophical humanism for answers to today's problems.

[robrecht]

The claim of ignorance of science does not hold up based on the evidence. Turkey and some other countries have a relatively high educational level yet the rejection of evolution approaches 50%. The primary up front reason by the evidence for the acceptance of evolution remains religious affiliation, and the degree of strength of that affiliation. Where worldwide it remains an over whelming fact that the rejection of evolution is strongly correlated to Christianity and Islam, NOT ignorance due to level of education.

I understand, and share your objections to 'Philosophical Humanism (Metaphysical Naturalism), but that is not the point of my argument. Despite your objections to philosophical humanism, those that believe do pretty much get the science right 99%+ of the time. Based on the guidance of Baha'i scripture in Revelation the support for evolution is likewise 99%+. This is likewise true of many areas of modern society where Christianity and Islam remain divided and in conflict over how to deal with a modern world from an ancient perspective.

I have no problem with God-given knowledge has many aspects in human history and affairs. That is why I am a Baha'i. I believe and 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. They are divided, conflicted, and involved in violence on a large scale in the modern world. Ancient conflicts and violence between religions and within these religions dominate the world today. This does not reflect the needed Divine Guidance for humanity today. No wonder many turn to philosophical humanism for answers to today's problems.

Why do you think science needs to be guided by Divine Revelation? Do you know many scientists who would agree with this? Should a Baha'i holy man help draw up the science curriculum in our public schools? I would rather leave this task to scientists and all those who are unafraid of the humanist label, in dialogue with all humanity, religious and otherwise.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, especially the latter two, have all held political power, with all the violent and divisive trappings of such power. For a few hundred years, Christianity also did not seek political power, but eventually they took the opportunity to try and fashion a better world, with very mixed success. The Baha'i Faith may never have that opportunity thrust upon them, but, if they do, I suspect the results would be similarly mixed. In the meantime, the criticism of those who have never had such responsibility is a little hollow.

[siam]

The claim of ignorance of science does not hold up based on the evidence. Turkey and some other countries have a relatively high educational level yet the rejection of evolution approaches 50%. The primary up front reason by the evidence for the acceptance of evolution remains religious affiliation, and the degree of strength of that affiliation. Where worldwide it remains an over whelming fact that the rejection of evolution is strongly correlated to Christianity and Islam, NOT ignorance due to level of education.

I understand, and share your objections to 'Philosophical Humanism (Metaphysical Naturalism), but that is not the point of my argument. Despite your objections to philosophical humanism, those that believe do pretty much get the science right 99%+ of the time. Based on the guidance of Baha'i scripture in Revelation the support for evolution is likewise 99%+. This is likewise true of many areas of modern society where Christianity and Islam remain divided and in conflict over how to deal with a modern world from an ancient perspective.

I have no problem with God-given knowledge has many aspects in human history and affairs. That is why I am a Baha'i. I believe and 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. They are divided, conflicted, and involved in violence on a large scale in the modern world. Ancient conflicts and violence between religions and within these religions dominate the world today. This does not reflect the needed Divine Guidance for humanity today. No wonder many turn to philosophical humanism for answers to today's problems.

Ignorance---Perhaps it may be hasty to discard ignorance altogether. Some time back, there was a poll (from Pew or someplace) that asked countries in the East if they believed in "God". The majority reply from China was that they did not and it was concluded that the Chinese were overwhelmingly Atheists. But a Chinese speaking person looking at the question noticed that the word for "God" in Chinese was for the "Christian" God. Since very few Chinese are Christian---the majority would have replied no---had the poll used a different Chinese name/label for the word "God" the result may have been different. Numbers do give evidence---but our biases can also skew conclusions drawn from those numbers. Since (Human) Creationism is mostly pushed by a Turkish guy, it is probable that the Turkish people would be highly influenced...more so than people in other countries.....

Personally, I have respect for some ancient wisdom. Here in the East, "traditional medicine" is still used and often some of these remedies have less side effects and so give better results. Traditional medicine is also more wholistic, looking not only at the symptoms but also diet and lifestyle. This way of looking at human health is preventative. I think the Quran has much wisdom to offer us today because it also has a wholistic approach. It recognizes the micro and macro aspects of human beings/human nature.

However, you are also correct that Muslims have not implemented these Quranic wisdoms today. Most Muslim scholars have been debating on this issue since 1950's (I think---if not before....). In order to build a society...one needs to have the institutions to support it. The institutions in most of the Muslim-majority countries are remnants of colonialism...other regions are in chaos/power vacuums....
One might say---why not just graft "Islam" onto existing institutions?. But...philosophies that come from secularism, materialism, humanism...etc are incomplete or wrong and create problems themselves. If that is the case, then other opinions are that why not make an "Islamic system" from scratch....and that is where the discussion is at in the "Muslim world"......

I agree that the Quran does not provide "Guidance" on science---that is not its purpose---its is not a text about the correct methodologies to use for science or a science encyclopedia....Its Guidance is related to "Right Belief" and the ethico-moral principles that emanate from right belief. The Quran provides a path/way for using knowledge (ALL knowledge) correctly for the benefit of all God's creations and restraints on abusing it for harm.

In what way do your scriptures provide Guidance for science (or knowledge) today? What values does it bring, how are these values arrived at? What are your reservations/opinions about modernism/post modernism if any?

[shunyadragon]

Ignorance---Perhaps it may be hasty to discard ignorance altogether. Some time back, there was a poll (from Pew or someplace) that asked countries in the East if they believed in "God". The majority reply from China was that they did not and it was concluded that the Chinese were overwhelmingly Atheists. But a Chinese speaking person looking at the question noticed that the word for "God" in Chinese was for the "Christian" God. Since very few Chinese are Christian---the majority would have replied no---had the poll used a different Chinese name/label for the word "God" the result may have been different. Numbers do give evidence---but our biases can also skew conclusions drawn from those numbers. Since (Human) Creationism is mostly pushed by a Turkish guy, it is probable that the Turkish people would be highly influenced...more so than people in other countries.....

Ignorance remain absolutely not a factor in the polls in their native tongue, the people clearly indicated they knew the questions. There is no problem of the abstraction of the existence of God. Also the polls in the USA involving Christian beliefs concerning evolution follow the consistent same pattern. The stronger the commitment to belief, the more likely they reject evolution. Education is not a factor in these polls. In fact the very rural areas were education may be limited were underestimated in these polls.

I speak enough Chinese and lived in China for nine years and disagree with the above line of thought. It is true Chinese have a diversity of beliefs, some believe in God, but most traditional Chinese have alternate beliefs that do not include anything comparable to the Western view of God.

Personally, I have respect for some ancient wisdom. Here in the East, "traditional medicine" is still used and often some of these remedies have less side effects and so give better results. Traditional medicine is also more wholistic, looking not only at the symptoms but also diet and lifestyle. This way of looking at human health is preventative. I think the Quran has much wisdom to offer us today because it also has a wholistic approach. It recognizes the micro and macro aspects of human beings/human nature.

I acknowledge the wisdom of the Bible and the Quran as with the other scriptures of the world in the unity and universality of Revelation as believed in the Baha'i Faith. The more universal view of Revelation is not acknowledged by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, because they represent ancient scripture limited to their own cultural perspective.

However, you are also correct that Muslims have not implemented these Quranic wisdoms today. Most Muslim scholars have been debating on this issue since 1950's (I think---if not before....). In order to build a society...one needs to have the institutions to support it. The institutions in most of the Muslim-majority countries are remnants of colonialism...other regions are in chaos/power vacuums....
One might say---why not just graft "Islam" onto existing institutions?. But...philosophies that come from secularism, materialism, humanism...etc are incomplete or wrong and create problems themselves. If that is the case, then other opinions are that why not make an "Islamic system" from scratch....and that is where the discussion is at in the "Muslim world"......

I accept the wisdom of the Quran as well as all scriptures, but I do not believe in a synchronistic bringing together different religions, nor implementing ancient legal systems into modern law, they do not fit. You are unfortunately correct that the present governments are largely corrupt remnants of western colonial mongrels, leaving the Islamic world divided along artificial colonial boundaries.

I agree that the Quran does not provide "Guidance" on science---that is not its purpose---its is not a text about the correct methodologies to use for science or a science encyclopedia....Its Guidance is related to "Right Belief" and the ethico-moral principles that emanate from right belief. The Quran provides a path/way for using knowledge (ALL knowledge) correctly for the benefit of all God's creations and restraints on abusing it for harm.

I believe the Quran and the traditions provide some guidance and recognition of science, and contributed to the foundation of science, but this is not adequate for the modern world of today.

In what way do your scriptures provide Guidance for science (or knowledge) today? What values does it bring, how are these values arrived at? What are your reservations/opinions about modernism/post modernism if any?

The guidance of the Baha'i Faith for science is two fold: (1) religion provides the guidance for the application of science for the benefit of humanity. (2) Science should not be constrained theological presuppositions, and the scripture of ALL religions including the Baha'i scriptures must understood in the light of the progressive Revelation of scientific knowledge

[shunyadragon]

Why do you think science needs to be guided by Divine Revelation?

Wording of the question is an issue here. Actually the Baha'i Faith endorses accepts the basic sciences as form of Revelation of knowledge of our physical existence, and makes no attempt to guide science. The guidance for the applied sciences and technology is spiritual guidance that science should for the benefit of humanity.

Should a Baha'i holy man help draw up the science curriculum in our public schools?

No, that is what the Baha'i Faith opposes. This is what happens in fundamentalist Christian and many Islamic schools.

I would rather leave this task to scientists . . .

That is actually represents the Divine Guidance of the Baha'i Faith.

. . . and all those who are unafraid of the humanist label, in dialogue with all humanity, religious and otherwise.

Careful on your reference to the 'humanist label' and how I use humanism defined in different ways in this thread. Does this need to be clarified again??? The above reference to humanism applies to the second definition, which is not the topic of this thread. It is fundamentalist Christians, and many Muslims that fear humanism, not I nor the Baha'i Faith.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, especially the latter two, have all held political power, with all the violent and divisive trappings of such power. For a few hundred years, Christianity also did not seek political power, but eventually they took the opportunity to try and fashion a better world, with very mixed success. The Baha'i Faith may never have that opportunity thrust upon them, but, if they do, I suspect the results would be similarly mixed. In the meantime, the criticism of those who have never had such responsibility is a little hollow.

[robrecht]

Wording of the question is an issue here. Actually the Baha'i Faith endorses accepts the basic sciences as form of Revelation of knowledge of our physical existence, and makes no attempt to guide science. The guidance for the applied sciences and technology is spiritual guidance that science should for the benefit of humanity.

Please clarify. How does 'no attempt to guide science' square with 'guidance ... is spiritual guidance that science should [be] for the benefit of humanity'? Is it just a hollow platitude of scriptures with which no one would disagree? How do Baha'i exert this spiritual guidance?

Careful on your reference to the 'humanist label' and how I use humanism defined in different ways in this thread. Does this need to be clarified again???

I have already clarified that humanist philosophers, religious and otherwise, need not be restricted by your definitions of '-isms'. You seem to agree with some humanist philosophers who want to claim humanism as the domain for atheists and agnostics (and your inclusion of 'closet humanists') but this does not square with the larger history of the various humanist philosophies. But you are, of course, free to use or misuse the term however you please.

It may be off topic, but you brought it up, and I responded. At any rate, you seemed to have missed my point or purposefully avoided it. Likewise your claim that I am supposedly naive about this topic is unfounded but typical of your penchant for ad hominem argumentation.

[shunyadragon]

Please clarify. How does 'no attempt to guide science' square with 'guidance ... is spiritual guidance that science should [be] for the benefit of humanity'? Is it just a hollow platitude of scriptures with which no one would disagree? How do Baha'i exert this spiritual guidance?

Please reread my previous post and respond appropriately. This does not make sense.

I have already clarified that humanist philosophers, religious and otherwise, need not be restricted by your definitions of '-isms'. You seem to agree with some humanist philosophers who want to claim humanism as the domain for atheists and agnostics (and your inclusion of 'closet humanists') but this does not square with the larger history of the various humanist philosophies. But you are, of course, free to use or misuse the term however you please.

No you have not. This is insulting and does not reflect my posts.

It may be off topic, but you brought it up, and I responded. At any rate, you seemed to have missed my point or purposefully avoided it. Likewise your claim that I am supposedly naive about this topic is unfounded but typical of your penchant for ad hominem argumentation.

I DID NOT BRING THIS UP IN THIS Thread

[robrecht]

Please reread my previous post and respond appropriately. This does not make sense.

I have read your posts, and have responded to them. What don't you understand?

No you have not. This is insulting and does not reflect my posts.

No need for you to feel insulted; this is exactly your position:

"Christians and Muslims are NOT philosophical humanists. There, of course may be a few closet philosophical humanists (metaphysical naturalists) in Christianity and Islam.

Note: (Philosophical) Humanism-a philosophy that places primacy on the Human being and on Human agency. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Believers are primarily atheists, agnostics, and the dominant view of Unitarian Universalism."

I DID NOT BRING THIS UP IN THIS Thread

You need only look at your post to which I was responding: "They [Christianity and Islam] are divided, conflicted, and involved in violence on a large scale in the modern world. Ancient conflicts and violence between religions and within these religions dominate the world today."

By the way, you neglected to retract the unfounded ad hominem.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=robrecht;132583]I have read your posts, and have responded to them. What don't you understand?

No need for you to feel insulted; this is exactly your position:

"Christians and Muslims are NOT philosophical humanists. There, of course may be a few closet philosophical humanists (metaphysical naturalists) in Christianity and Islam.

Note: (Philosophical) Humanism-a philosophy that places primacy on the Human being and on Human agency. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Believers are primarily atheists, agnostics, and the dominant view of Unitarian Universalism."

You need only look at your post to which I was responding: "They [Christianity and Islam] are divided, conflicted, and involved in violence on a large scale in the modern world. Ancient conflicts and violence between religions and within these religions dominate the world today."

By the way, you neglected to retract the unfounded ad hominem.

There is no ad hominem to retract

True, what is the problem???? First definition: Philosophical Naturalism give primacy of human agency and reasoning only, and there is NO Theistic beliefs in Philosophical Humanism (Metaphysical Naturalism. You have brought up other uses of the term humanism, and I acknowledge them. You also acknowledged that these uses of humanism DO NOT justify the belief in evolution.

This in no way represents all expressions of humanism

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;132759]

I have read your posts, and have responded to them. What don't you understand?

No need for you to feel insulted; this is exactly your position:

There is no ad hominem to retract

True, what is the problem???? First definition: Philosophical Naturalism give primacy of human agency and reasoning only, and there is NO Theistic beliefs in Philosophical Humanism (Metaphysical Naturalism. You have brought up other uses of the term humanism, and I acknowledge them. You also acknowledged that these uses of humanism DO NOT justify the belief in evolution.

This in no way represents all expressions of humanism

Can you describe how Philosophical Humanism (Metaphysical Naturalism) is compatible with Christianity or Islam?

Source: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/humanism.htm#sthash.UuojFSdz.dpuf

Humanism: Some Thoughts from the Humanist Manifesto I
Humanism was “codified” by 34 of its leaders in 1933. Although many other versions of humanism have appeared before and since, here are some excerpts from the original Humanist Manifesto I:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process. THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected. FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture. FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method. EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion. NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being. TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural. FINAL PARAGRAPH: So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.

© Copyright Original Source

- See more at: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/hu....UuojFSdz.dpuf

[robrecht]

There is no ad hominem to retract

Your claim that I am naive is both unfounded and an ad hominem. Amazing that you do not recognize that.

True, what is the problem???? First definition: Philosophical Naturalism give primacy of human agency and reasoning only, and there is NO Theistic beliefs in Philosophical Humanism (Metaphysical Naturalism. You have brought up other uses of the term humanism, and I acknowledge them. You also acknowledged that these uses of humanism DO NOT justify the belief in evolution.

I have certainly not said that these uses of of humanism do not justify belief in evolution. They certainly do. I have said that they are not needed to justify belief in evolution and that my own belief in evolution was simply a matter of my early education in science in Catholic school, long before I ever studied philosophy. I also know from my study of Christian humanist philosophy that philosophical humanism need not exclude theistic beliefs.

This in no way represents all expressions of humanism

Can you describe how Philosophical Humanism (Metaphysical Naturalism) is compatible with Christianity or Islam?

Quite simple. Not all who hold to a form of philosphical humanism agree with you (and others) who equate philosophical humanism with metaphysical naturalism.

Source: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/humanism.htm#sthash.UuojFSdz.dpuf

Humanism: Some Thoughts from the Humanist Manifesto I
Humanism was “codified” by 34 of its leaders in 1933. Although many other versions of humanism have appeared before and since, here are some excerpts from the original Humanist Manifesto I:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process. THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected. FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture. FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method. EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion. NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being. TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural. FINAL PARAGRAPH: So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.

© Copyright Original Source

- See more at: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/hu....UuojFSdz.dpuf

Obviously, all philosophers do not all agree with this definition of humanism, as I already point out. I gave you two examples of modern philosophers: Jacques Maritan and Emmanuel Levinas.

[shunyadragon]

Your claim that I am naive is both unfounded and an ad hominem. Amazing that you do not recognize that.

I have certainly not said that these uses of of humanism do not justify belief in evolution. They certainly do. I have said that they are not needed to justify belief in evolution and that my own belief in evolution was simply a matter of my early education in science in Catholic school, long before I ever studied philosophy. I also know from my study of Christian humanist philosophy that philosophical humanism need not exclude theistic beliefs.

Quite simple. Not all who hold to a form of philosphical humanism agree with you (and others) who equate philosophical humanism with metaphysical naturalism.

Obviously, all philosophers do not all agree with this definition of humanism, as I already point out. I gave you two examples of modern philosophers: Jacques Maritan and Emmanuel Levinas.

. . . and I agreed. The problem is it is not a matter of agreeing with the definition above. I believe that Jacques Maritan and Emmanuel Levins agreed with the definition I gave for philosophical humanism as applied. It is a matter that there are more then one definition and use of the word humanism. Based on what you have posted so far, you either do not agree or you misunderstand the different standard uses of 'humanism' in philosophy and theology.

This is the problem post:

have already clarified that humanist philosophers, religious and otherwise, need not be restricted by your definitions of '-isms'. You seem to agree with some humanist philosophers who want to claim humanism as the domain for atheists and agnostics (and your inclusion of 'closet humanists') but this does not square with the larger history of the various humanist philosophies. But you are, of course, free to use or misuse the term however you please.

My definitions were never restrictive. I gave different definitions for different uses of humanism, and acknowledged your use of humanism as it applied. Please explain how I misused or restricted the definitions of humanism.

[siam]

...
I believe the Quran and the traditions provide some guidance and recognition of science, and contributed to the foundation of science, but this is not adequate for the modern world of today.

The guidance of the Baha'i Faith for science is two fold: (1) religion provides the guidance for the application of science for the benefit of humanity. (2) Science should not be constrained theological presuppositions, and the scripture of ALL religions including the Baha'i scriptures must understood in the light of the progressive Revelation of scientific knowledge

Apart from theological presuppositions, are there other ways, in your opinion, that the Quran may constrain science?

I am not sure theological presuppositions constrain science---if we assume that all knowledge is from God and God is purposeful, then, to pursue knowledge without a supposition of God makes it incomplete and including God makes it complete. A more complete/wholistic knowledge is better than an incomplete knowledge---not that there is anything wrong with incomplete knowledge---only that, of the two options, a more complete understanding is more beneficial than a less complete understanding....
At some point or another intelligent Scientists will have to acknowledge the Force/Divine or however they want to put it because if God is The Reality---then The Reality cannot be ignored forever....When science as knowledge limits itself only to the "seen" does it not limit human knowledge of the "unseen"? ....could one say that science constrains itself when it rejects theological presuppositions?

Theocracy/Theonomy and Sharia---I disagree---I think there is much more nuance and pragmatism in Islam than you give credit.......