Islam and evolution

[Joseph]

Shunyadragon wrote, "Baha'is you have nearly 99%+ accepting the science of evolution."

Please explain. I have found the opposite. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%...th_and_science

[Joseph]

Please explain about Bahais and evolution. I have found the opposite. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%...th_and_science

I do not think the evidence supports this. If you take Philosophical Humanists, and Baha'is you have nearly 99%+ accepting the science of evolution and an ancient physical existence billions of years old. For Christians and Muslims the acceptance of evolution and an ancient earth is variable and inconsistent. The polls for Christianity have been cited many times. In Islam the literal Creationist view is increasing, as siam stated, becoming more popular. The following are the most recent polls.

The disturbing factor of the polls in Islam is that like in the polls in the USA (greater church attendance) the increased degree of commitment to the belief system the greater the tendency to reject evolution and an ancient existence, in favor of a literal Genesis or other Creationist view.

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-science-and-popular-culture/

In countries surveyed in Southern and Eastern Europe, more religiously observant Muslims are less likely to believe in evolution. In Russia, for example, 41% of Muslims who pray several times a day believe in evolution, compared with 66% of those who pray less frequently. Significant gaps also appear between more and less devout Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina (-19 percentage points) and Kosovo (-14). Views on evolution do not differ significantly by religious commitment in the other regions surveyed.

© Copyright Original Source

[siam]

Being Muslim...I cannot elaborate on the Bahai perspective....but if I were to explain generally, differences between theistic philosophy and (Western) science have to do with definitions. In the case of science---the definition of what is human would be dealt with in terms of form and/or biochemistry---In Islamic terms---this would be termed as the "seen". Theistic philosophy deals not just with the seen but also the "unseen" (...physical/metaphysical). So that what is human is not defined just in terms of form or biochemistry but includes other things such as soul and/or spirit.

Because of the broader scope of Theistic philosophy, the concerns, conclusions, and strategies of (Western) science limit understanding only of the "seen" aspects of knowledge. In the West, science and philosophy have been separated....in my opinion, this leads to a fragmentation of knowledge. This was not always the case....science was a part of knowledge as a whole, as was philosophy, in ancient times as well as during the Islamic age. "Arche"(first principle) was used as the starting hypothesis for science---in Islamic times, it was substituted with Tawheed(Untiy).

If "human" is understood to have other components besides form and biochemistry---and these other components do not have either form or biochemistry then the premise on which scientific evolution is based (form/biochemistry) cannot apply.

On the other hand, if human is limited to only "anatomically modern Homo Sapiens"...then conclusions can be speculated upon on the changes that have occurred either in form or genetics.....

[Joseph]

Siam, I accept that your definition and understanding of human may be more inclusive (soul and/or spirit) than Western science. You seem to understand that Western science only deals with the physical aspect. Can you accept the scientific explanation--evolutionary biology--for the origin and development of the physical aspect of human? This says nothing about the soul and/or spirit aspect because science can only study the physical. Saying nothing is not the same as denying soul and/or spirit exist.

I ask this because if I understand typical Islamic and Bahai belief, it says that there are four separate kingdoms--mineral, plant, animal, and human--but no transmutations from one kingdom into another. There may be microevolution--variation and development within species of each kingdom--but no macroevolution--transmutation from one species into another. Humans were always separate from animals and this must be because humans have souls. I wonder if it is not possible to accept evolutionary biology--that humans descended from animals, that the human species transmutated from an animal--and yet still believe at some point humans possessed souls? To deny macroevolution is to essentially accept creationism in the sense that humans are a special creation and that other kingdom species were created separately. I wonder why it is not possible to accept soul/and or spirit, but not care, and leave it to science, as to how the physical form was brought into being and evolved.

Being Muslim...I cannot elaborate on the Bahai perspective....but if I were to explain generally, differences between theistic philosophy and (Western) science have to do with definitions. In the case of science---the definition of what is human would be dealt with in terms of form and/or biochemistry---In Islamic terms---this would be termed as the "seen". Theistic philosophy deals not just with the seen but also the "unseen" (...physical/metaphysical). So that what is human is not defined just in terms of form or biochemistry but includes other things such as soul and/or spirit.

Because of the broader scope of Theistic philosophy, the concerns, conclusions, and strategies of (Western) science limit understanding only of the "seen" aspects of knowledge. In the West, science and philosophy have been separated....in my opinion, this leads to a fragmentation of knowledge. This was not always the case....science was a part of knowledge as a whole, as was philosophy, in ancient times as well as during the Islamic age. "Arche"(first principle) was used as the starting hypothesis for science---in Islamic times, it was substituted with Tawheed(Untiy).

If "human" is understood to have other components besides form and biochemistry---and these other components do not have either form or biochemistry then the premise on which scientific evolution is based (form/biochemistry) cannot apply.

On the other hand, if human is limited to only "anatomically modern Homo Sapiens"...then conclusions can be speculated upon on the changes that have occurred either in form or genetics.....

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon wrote, "Baha'is you have nearly 99%+ accepting the science of evolution."

Please explain. I have found the opposite. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%...th_and_science

I am not certain what you mean by the opposite?!?!?! When I checked your reference it confirmed my statement.

Source: [url

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

© Copyright Original Source

The view that current scientific knowledge may not be correct is in conformity with the view that scientific knowledge evolves over time and changes. Yes, the Baha'i scripture does give precedence of the knowledge of science over scripture concerning the knowledge of our physical existence, and scripture must be understood in the light of the evolving changing knowledge of science concerning the nature of our physical existence.

[shunyadragon]

Being Muslim...I cannot elaborate on the Bahai perspective....but if I were to explain generally, differences between theistic philosophy and (Western) science have to do with definitions. In the case of science---the definition of what is human would be dealt with in terms of form and/or biochemistry---In Islamic terms---this would be termed as the "seen". Theistic philosophy deals not just with the seen but also the "unseen" (...physical/metaphysical). So that what is human is not defined just in terms of form or biochemistry but includes other things such as soul and/or spirit.

Because of the broader scope of Theistic philosophy, the concerns, conclusions, and strategies of (Western) science limit understanding only of the "seen" aspects of knowledge. In the West, science and philosophy have been separated....in my opinion, this leads to a fragmentation of knowledge. This was not always the case....science was a part of knowledge as a whole, as was philosophy, in ancient times as well as during the Islamic age. "Arche"(first principle) was used as the starting hypothesis for science---in Islamic times, it was substituted with Tawheed(Untiy).

If "human" is understood to have other components besides form and biochemistry---and these other components do not have either form or biochemistry then the premise on which scientific evolution is based (form/biochemistry) cannot apply.

On the other hand, if human is limited to only "anatomically modern Homo Sapiens"...then conclusions can be speculated upon on the changes that have occurred either in form or genetics.....

You are misunderstanding the western view of Methodological Naturalism in science, not just western science, but science the reality of modern science as truly international. The independence of science from religion does mean that concludes the our existence is only physical. It means that science only deals with the knowledge of our physical existence. The Baha'i Faith endorses the independence of science, and believes in the spiritual nature of humanity, and all od existence as well.

The problem remains the acceptance of the science of evolution, as well as the independence of science from religion to investigate our physical existence, and the physical nature of humanity.

As far as the Baha'i perspective it is described simply and specifically in the above citation. Understanding the views of others is important in understanding the world we live in and share.

[Joseph]

I am not certain what you mean by the opposite?!?!?! When I checked your reference it confirmed my statement.

Source: [url

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

© Copyright Original Source

The view that current scientific knowledge may not be correct is in conformity with the view that scientific knowledge evolves over time and changes. Yes, the Baha'i scripture does give precedence of the knowledge of science over scripture concerning the knowledge of our physical existence, and scripture must be understood in the light of the evolving changing knowledge of science concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Bahais and their literature repeatedly refer to the harmony of science and religion, but it's meaningless. Their books and papers conflict with understanding science, evolution, and physics. That religious adherents decide what scientific views are correct make claims about harmony meaningless. It makes as much sense as scientists deciding what religious views are accurate. Look at the papers under the evolution section of the Wikipedia article. All of the authors reject or don't understand evolutionary biology, except for Oskooi. Look at the section on ether. Bahai views are stuck before or in the 19th century. They think science is going to de-evolve back to before Darwin and then it will be right? Do you not see the contradictions in what you cited from Wikipedia? If I am mistaken or if I misunderstood, please clarify. Thank you.

[siam]

Siam, I accept that your definition and understanding of human may be more inclusive (soul and/or spirit) than Western science. You seem to understand that Western science only deals with the physical aspect. Can you accept the scientific explanation--evolutionary biology--for the origin and development of the physical aspect of human? This says nothing about the soul and/or spirit aspect because science can only study the physical. Saying nothing is not the same as denying soul and/or spirit exist.

I ask this because if I understand typical Islamic and Bahai belief, it says that there are four separate kingdoms--mineral, plant, animal, and human--but no transmutations from one kingdom into another. There may be microevolution--variation and development within species of each kingdom--but no macroevolution--transmutation from one species into another. Humans were always separate from animals and this must be because humans have souls. I wonder if it is not possible to accept evolutionary biology--that humans descended from animals, that the human species transmutated from an animal--and yet still believe at some point humans possessed souls? To deny macroevolution is to essentially accept creationism in the sense that humans are a special creation and that other kingdom species were created separately. I wonder why it is not possible to accept soul/and or spirit, but not care, and leave it to science, as to how the physical form was brought into being and evolved.

I agree that science does not deny soul/spirit.

There should be no problems in accepting evidences of changes in form or genetics (biochemistry)...but science itself does not say that Australopithecus are Homo sapiens...in fact it differentiates between these variations. So, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are said to have a particular historical trajectory which at some points overlaps with say---Homo Neanderthalis or Homo Erectus....etc. Various conclusions can be drawn from this...some prefer to conclude that humans "evolved" from apes.....accepting evidence does not always mean a particular conclusion must also be accepted.......?....knowledge in science progresses over time and conclusions may be deferred until later......

In the Islamic context...there are ramifications to the definition of the term "human" as opposed to "animal". To be human is to have a responsibility that animals do not have---this responsibility is to be a Khalifa (Trustee)...that is, to have right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations. Therefore, if we posit that Homo Sapiens Sapiens are "human" (Islamic definition) then so far we have failed miserably at our obligation/responsibility. We seem to have caused more harm than benefit.

Not only are humans responsible for fulfilling their obligations, but they will be held accountable for them too. The component that will be held accountable/judged is the human soul. The reason for this is that it is the soul that has (limited) free-will. (....otherwise "we"(body) is just a lump of biochemistry----Islam recognizes that there is a stage in human development where "we" are not "human" but only a lump of biochemistry.....). The human (body, soul/spirit) develops and once it becomes mature (is able to fully utilize its (limited) free-will) then from that point it will be held accountable (in other words...children are not held accountable....)

That is why....from the Islamic perspective....general evolution is not a gamechanger....and human evolution is only relevant in the context of the definition of "human" as it pertains to free-will and responsibility (Khalifa).......To re-define "us" as animals is to abdicate our responsibility to the earth and all of God's creations as well as our obligation to God.

[robrecht]

... Various conclusions can be drawn from this...some prefer to conclude that humans "evolved" from apes.....accepting evidence does not always mean a particular conclusion must also be accepted.......?....knowledge in science progresses over time and conclusions may be deferred until later......

Hi, siam.

Is this your conclusion? Or do you perhaps prefer not to draw a scientific or faith conclusion about this?

I would also like to hear Shuny's opinion on this question?

[shunyadragon]

Bahais and their literature repeatedly refer to the harmony of science and religion, but it's meaningless. Their books and papers conflict with understanding science, evolution, and physics. That religious adherents decide what scientific views are correct make claims about harmony meaningless. It makes as much sense as scientists deciding what religious views are accurate. Look at the papers under the evolution section of the Wikipedia article. All of the authors reject or don't understand evolutionary biology, except for Oskooi. Look at the section on ether. Bahai views are stuck before or in the 19th century. They think science is going to de-evolve back to before Darwin and then it will be right? Do you not see the contradictions in what you cited from Wikipedia? If I am mistaken or if I misunderstood, please clarify. Thank you.

Note highlighted.

False the principle that science represents progressive revelation and the interpreter of the nature of our physical existence, and not the materialism of Metaphysical Naturalism, as clearly cited in the writings remains at the heart of the Baha'i belief concerning knowledge of our physical existence. All scripture including the Baha'i scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence must be understood in the light of science. Religion must accept science as the interpreter of nature. In religions like Christianity and Islam the believer often cling to literal interpretations of scripture concerning the nature and history of our physical existence. It is recognized that the language and terminology of religion, particularly Arabic and Persian in this case, cannot be interpreted literally when they conflict with science.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%...th_and_science

He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.[3][4]

© Copyright Original Source

It must be realized that the founders of the Baha'i Faith only spoke Persian and Arabic and did not have the advantage any sort of modern western education and in fact realized this, and acknowledged that science is an evolving body of knowledge that religion must be willing to harmonize and understand this knowledge with spiritual teachings and scripture.

This article by a Baha'i physicist Stephen Friberg goes into more explanation.

[shunyadragon]

I agree that science does not deny soul/spirit.

OK, but that is not what you indicated in the previous post.

That is why....from the Islamic perspective....general evolution is not a gamechanger....and human evolution is only relevant in the context of the definition of "human" as it pertains to free-will and responsibility (Khalifa).......To re-define "us" as animals is to abdicate our responsibility to the earth and all of God's creations as well as our obligation to God.

Here lies the crux of the problem with Islam accepting the science of evolution without conditions as highlighted above. The failure to recognize that the science of evolution includes the physical nature of humanity, and cannot be separated from the general evolution, which would be an artificial distinction in conflict with science, by convenience of an ancient religious belief. The classification of humanity as a part of the animal kingdom physically does influence the soul and spiritual nature of humanity.

[siam]

@ shuny---The Quran itself advises that it should not be interpreted literally all the time (literal interpretations are fine when matters concern the law or principles...but in matters of the "unseen" one must understand them as similitudes/metaphors....also, the Quran was meant to be heard and so, it uses many literary devices to ensure the listeners attention and comprehension)
....as to your other point---it is very interesting---but I need to re-read your post and reflect before I answer...I ask for your patience.

@ robrecht---It is an interesting question. The scope of (Western) science is limited (compared to religion/Islam) so, with that understanding, accepting scientific evidence and scientific conclusions should not be a problem. Science is God-given knowledge as is all knowledge. The limited scope of (Western) science means that it can only answer the question "What is human" within its methodology....it cannot go any deeper than that. Therefore....the conclusions it draws also has limitations and this has to be taken into account. Nevertheless, the pursuit of all knowledge is important in a better and deeper understanding of scripture (Quran) and the Divine.

From what I understand, Science still has many questions with regards to the evolution of Homo Sapiens Sapiens so any theories or conclusions drawn for now can be understood as working theories that may or may not change as more is known. Scripture is unchanging---the words of the Quran cannot be changed to suit the whims of scientists (...or anyone else). But...its interpretation can be enhanced by advances in knowledge.......for example.....The Quran describes the various stages of human development from zygote to fetus in Surah 23 v12-15 but it does not use modern scientific terms. Nevertheless Muslims can use modern science and its terminology to better understand these verses. There is no need to change the words in the Quran into scientific terms.

IMO, Because "conclusions"/concepts from religion/Islam are drawn from both the "seen" and the "unseen", science (and conclusions from science) can only enhance the knowledge of the "seen" aspect and does not affect religious conclusions/concepts as a whole. Therefore, where scientific knowledge is still in a state of progress and definitive conclusions cannot yet be drawn...it is wiser to accept the evidence but to defer the conclusions (with regards to scriptural interpretation) until something more concrete can be established.

I hope I answered the Question....?.....

[Joseph]

The reason for this is that it is the soul that has (limited) free-will. (....otherwise "we"(body) is just a lump of biochemistry----Islam recognizes that there is a stage in human development where "we" are not "human" but only a lump of biochemistry.....). The human (body, soul/spirit) develops and once it becomes mature (is able to fully utilize its (limited) free-will) then from that point it will be held accountable (in other words...children are not held accountable....)

That is why....from the Islamic perspective....general evolution is not a gamechanger....and human evolution is only relevant in the context of the definition of "human" as it pertains to free-will and responsibility (Khalifa).......To re-define "us" as animals is to abdicate our responsibility to the earth and all of God's creations as well as our obligation to God.

I accept your explanation about the difference between animals and humans in terms of free will, responsibility, and accountability. In terms of evolution, were animals and humans always separate? Did they evolve in parallel separately or can you accept that at one time they shared a common ancestor, the latter view held by evolutionary biology? Can humans still be animals physically but spiritually distinct that compatibility with evolutionary biology and Islam is possible? If I read you right, you seem to say we shouldn't accept that humans evolved from apes? I wonder what difference it makes where we physically come from because it doesn't change our spiritual responsibility and accountability now.

[siam]

Here lies the crux of the problem with Islam accepting the science of evolution without conditions as highlighted above. The failure to recognize that the science of evolution includes the physical nature of humanity, and cannot be separated from the general evolution, which would be an artificial distinction in conflict with science, by convenience of an ancient religious belief. The classification of humanity as a part of the animal kingdom physically does influence the soul and spiritual nature of humanity.

Accepting knowledge without conditions----It is true that as a Muslim I cannot accept knowledge blindly....both scriptural and non-scriptural. The Quran does not promote blind faith.
How do you define and understand the term "knowledge"? what is its nature? (personal opinion or Bahai perspective, either is fine)

Scientific classifications---are based on their own understanding and definition of terms. These definitions may not necessarily be the same as the terms used for religious purposes. I do not see a problem or conflict with this.....the scope and purpose of religious and scientific knowledge is different......however, if a (limited) scientific definition is used to re-define a religious concept---then this can be problematic simply because religion uses a more wholistic/broader understanding of reality and science uses a limited one.

That the terms are different does not mean they are in conflict. Knowledge is God-Given and a mercy to humanity. For science to use the Islamic definition of "human" would be to go beyond its scope and for Islam to use the limited scientific definition of "human" would be incorrect. Science can be used to understand many things about human beings...such as behavior, anatomy, genetics, neuroscience, evolution, development.....etc. But science cannot be used to define the term "Human" for religious purposes...so the ramifications and limitations of scientific terms have to be understood when Muslims deal with religious concepts. In this area more discussions need to happen and more knowledge needs to be acquired. IMO, at this time, we cannot definitively conclude that Islam/Quran is at odds with Science. (though, as you mentioned, there are some Muslims who want the tide to turn against scientific human evolution)


(General evolution posits that life evolved from water...which is also the Quranic position. It is also the Quranic position that human beings develop (embryology).....)

@ Joseph
At the moment---the Islamic position is that body,soul,spirit are not separate entities---that is the term "human" encompasses all 3 components. To be human, the body (biochemistry/form) is an essential vessel and the spirit/ruh is the force that gives it life. If the essential components that define the term "human" are fragmented---then can what is left be termed "human"?
As we Muslims grapple with human evolution, some of these questions need to be answered.

There are Muslims who are against accepting that "humans" evolved from apes....My own position is that there are still a lot of questions that need to be grappled with both scientifically and religiously and we must proceed intelligently on both fronts.

What difference does it make?---Changing a definition can have ramifications and there is no need to rush to conclusions....It is more important that the conclusions that Muslims arrive at are correct than that they conform to existing conclusions which may or may not change in the future.

[Joseph]

False the principle that science represents progressive revelation and the interpreter of the nature of our physical existence, and not the materialism of Metaphysical Naturalism, as clearly cited in the writings remains at the heart of the Baha'i belief concerning knowledge of our physical existence.[/cite]

I don't understand what you mean here. What is false? Science represents progressive revelation? Science isn't religion. Yes, science is the interpreter of the nature of our physical existence, but that doesn't prevent AbdulBaha or Bahai followers from offering their own opinions.

All scripture including the Baha'i scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence must be understood in the light of science. Religion must accept science as the interpreter of nature. In religions like Christianity and Islam the believer often cling to literal interpretations of scripture concerning the nature and history of our physical existence. It is recognized that the language and terminology of religion, particularly Arabic and Persian in this case, cannot be interpreted literally when they conflict with science.[/cite]

AbdulBaha rejected that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. He rejected the missing link. He ridiculed European scientists as materialists for believing in evolution. He denied species transmutation in Some Answered Questions. He followed Plato and Aristotle and their ancient divisions of the world into mineral, plant, animal, and human kingdoms. His views are consistent with other theists of his time that translation isn't the issue. And Bahais who write about evolution follow him literally. For example:

http://nicholasjames19.blogspot.com/...evolution.htmlhttp://bahai-library.com/nadimi_evol...ithin_kingdomshttp://bahai-library.com/brown_abdul...iews_evolutionhttp://bahaiforums.com/beliefs/2193-...evolution.html
The comments by ewlabonte in this thread describe the problem: "Many Baha'is seem to think that just embracing the concept of physical evolution resolves the problem of a Baha'i belief which contradicts modern scientific theory. It doesn't. Even without bringing Darwin into the picture the idea that all individual species, including humans, have a common ancestor has been established scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt. At some point I think it might be necessary to admit that on this one scientific point, Abdul Baha got it wrong. He himself said that when science and religion disagree, religion is wrong. Did this claim exclude him?"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%...th_and_science

He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.[3][4]

© Copyright Original Source

Islam claims harmony too. Christians said the same before Bahai. All religions say true science and true religion can never be in conflict. It's frustrating to read these platitudes repeated when reviewing Bahai literature and adherents' writings. How can AbdulBaha's rejection of species transmutation and the European understanding of evolution be compatible with science then or now? Of course he wasn't a scientist, but his views did not conform to the science at the time and what his followers have written since doesn't either. The only author to acknowledge the problem is Oskooi: http://bahai-library.com/oskooi_dish...ience_religion

It must be realized that the founders of the Baha'i Faith only spoke Persian and Arabic and did not have the advantage any sort of modern western education and in fact realized this, and acknowledged that science is an evolving body of knowledge that religion must be willing to harmonize and understand this knowledge with spiritual teachings and scripture.[/cite]

Of course evolution was discussed and published in Persian and Arabic during AbdulBaha's lifetime, and he was well aware of the discussions or he couldn't have said what he did in Some Answered Questions.

This article by a Baha'i physicist Stephen Friberg goes into more explanation.

Unfortunately, this is no help. Physicists aren't schooled in biology and his popular misunderstanding of evolution bears no relation to the science. Evolution is not a creation narrative. It says nothing about the origins of life. Biologists do not believe humans evolved from either monkeys or orangutans. And thinking humans were once stones in the mineral kingdom is absurd: http://www.commongroundgroup.net/sci...#comment-47179

It isn't very bright to complain about the Enlightenment when someone is supposed to believe in the harmony of science and religion. Reason and evidence (or rationalism) are bad? The separation of church and state means people believe in materialism? Eugenics, racism, and communism are long since discredited. These outdated distortions are typical of Christian fundamentalists and the Discovery Institute. This kind of inflammatory rhetoric IS the problem.

The third item he mentions in the article is "Religion is needed to make scientific literacy universal." The last thing we need is religion involved with science literacy. What theist would want scientists involved with religious education?

I have come to know a number of Bahai students, and I was excited to learn about their belief in the harmony of science and religion until I read their sources and viewed web postings. These were bright students that seemed to have a blind spot when it came to those aspects of science that someone in their religion had written about. Oskooi's thesis addresses misinterpretations and the problem with taking scripture literally and infallibly in the case evolution, including Stephen Friberg as an example. I have yet to meet any Bahais willing to address these issues and I hope you will.