Islam and evolution

[Joseph]

@ 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.

I think I understand what you mean, but it seems to leave Muslims stuck in neither accepting evolution nor rejecting it. You might enjoy reading the following: Islam's Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science and An Illusion of Harmony: Science And Religion in Islam:

http://www.amazon.com/Islams-Quantum...1633365&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Harmo...ence+and+islam

I don't think there is anything in the Quran that conflicts with science. The issue is the possible conclusions that might be drawn from accepting science as you have discussed.

[siam]

@Joseph
I have not read the books but one of the link claims that evolution was accepted in the Golden Age period. I don't know how widely evolution was known among the average Muslim of the time but Muslim scholars did write about theories such as the survival of the fittest and evolution---some names are the Ikwan al-safa, Al Jahiz, and others... But then, from the Islamic perspective, Nature is an ayah(sign) from God just as the Quran is an ayah (verses of the Quran are called ayah). That is why the evidence of science cannot be dismissed. Because they are revelations---jumping to wild conclusions is not wise either for the Quran or for scientific evidence. God may reveal knowledge at his own pace and it is better for Muslims to be patient.
Some of the Surah of the Quran begin with letter combinations that to this day Muslims have not been able to figure out. Perhaps God will reveal knowledge of these letters when he sees fit. In the meantime there are several theories as to possible meanings or purposes of these mysterious letters...without evidence, these are only speculations.

Islam is a religion(way of life) as such its primary purpose is to give Guidance---that is, provide ethico-moral principles. Some areas such as abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research....etc require reflection on our understanding of what is "human"....As we progress in Knowledge there will be many instances where we will need to reflect on the ramifications of new knowledge on our understanding of ethical/moral principles...and if we are to fulfill our obligation to God as Trustees then it is important that we not err and cause harm....So, though Muslims may be neutral at the moment...I am confident we will eventually arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.....

[shunyadragon]

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.


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

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.

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 no 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.

This is a frustrating rambling response, and did not in reality address my post. You question willingness of dialogue, but this is not apparent in your post. You appear vey much entrenched in your adversarial position to make dialogue fruitful.

First, all scientists are schooled in sufficient biology including Dr. Friberg is competent to address tis issue. I am a Geologist with a good background in biology and evolution, and no problem with Dr' Friberg.

Second, the Baha'i principle of the Harmony of science and religion stand, it is not an individual interpretation that religion must accept the evolving progressive knowledge of science. It is based on the direct quote by Abdul'baha, as well as other citations in the writings. Yes, Abdul'baha was aware of Evolution, but spent most of his life in the Middle East where they did not have published books until the mid 1800's, no science education and only visited the west. The commentary in Baha'i writings reflect the knowledge of the Islamic world without any universities at that time that taught science. The principles of the Baha'i Faith are for the future evolving knowledge in the future.

Source: Source: [url

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

© Copyright Original Source

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.

My previous post was an adequate explanation, and if you wish to continue the dialogue, respond again to that post in a rational manner.

They obviously could not have used the technical terms applied for their description nowadays."

This is a good reference that indeed supports my view that Baha'is understand the problem of the description of linguistic issues of Arabic and Persian without the modern science. I do not believe you have bothered to read the whole reference to answer your own question, which is problematic of the the extreme adversarial approach you have in this dialogue. I may address this in a later post

[robrecht]

@ 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....?.....

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.

[robrecht]

Shuny's typical ad hominem argumentation:

This is a frustrating rambling response, and did not in reality address my post. You question willingness of dialogue, but this is not apparent in your post. You appear vey much entrenched in your adversarial position to make dialogue fruitful. ...

My previous post was an adequate explanation, and if you wish to continue the dialogue, respond again to that post in a rational manner. ...

I do not believe you have bothered to read the whole reference to answer your own question, which is problematic of the the extreme adversarial approach you have in this dialogue. ...

[Adrift]

Shuny's typical ad hominem argumentation:

Yeah, maybe it was frustrating for shunya because it posited issues he's not comfortable dealing with, and far from rambling it was quite cogent. Also, it directly addressed shunya's post, so the only reason I can assume that he's saying that it didn't is because he didn't like what he was reading. And speaking of people who appear entrenched in an adversarial position, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny's typical ad hominem argumentation:

Typical Airball with out responding to the post. I do not believe you know what Ad Hominum means. This an similar to Mr. Black's type argument, no dialogue, just flinging fallacies like a manure spreader.

I am Not attacking the person, in fact I do not know him. I am attacking his lack of response to my posts. and ah . . . your duck, bob and weaving likewise flinging falsies and not responding to the posts.

[Cerebrum123]

Typical Airball with out responding to the post. I do not believe you know what Ad Hominum means. This an similar to Mr. Black's type argument, no dialogue, just flinging fallacies like a manure spreader.

I am Not attacking the person, in fact I do not know him. I am attacking his lack of response to my posts. and ah . . . your duck, bob and weaving likewise flinging falsies and not responding to the posts.

I couldn't describe a shunyadragon post better than he describes robrecht's post.

[robrecht]

Typical Airball with out responding to the post. I do not believe you know what Ad Hominum means. This an similar to Mr. Black's type argument, no dialogue, just flinging fallacies like a manure spreader.

I am Not attacking the person, in fact I do not know him. I am attacking his lack of response to my posts. and ah . . . your duck, bob and weaving likewise flinging falsies and not responding to the posts.

There is no reason for me to respond to your post since it was not directed to me. As for knowing what ad hominem argumentation is, are you really incapable of recognizing your frequent use of such, eg, here questioning Joseph's willingness to dialogue, claiming that he is very much entrenched in his adversarial position so that he cannot make dialogue fruitful, claiming that he is not responding in a rational manner, and claiming that he has an extreme adversarial approach? If you do not call that ad hominem argumentation, then what do you call it? What's worse, none of your ad hominem claims are true, as is apparent to anyone reading his polite, calm, rational, attempts at friendly dialogue.

[Adrift]

I couldn't describe a shunyadragon post better than he describes robrecht's post.

Like 3 or 4 shunyanisms plugged into one post. Good stuff. I give it a 7 out of 10.

[siam]

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.

I agree...mostly....

[shunyadragon]

I agree...mostly....

How? . . . mostly?

[siam]

In science there is evidence/facts and then there is how these facts are understood, interpreted. For example, At first when Neanderthal bones were found, it was assumed that they were savage, ape-like...etc accordingly, the pictures represented them with this idea. Later as more was learned...it was found that they were intelligent, had culture,speech..etc so the later reconstructions of Neanderthals are blond, human-looking, white skinned....etc (see Gibralter Neanderthal child). It is not that the original facts/evidence changed...those bones are still the same....how we understand them has changed in light of other information......Gravity is another example...

So scientific theories (conclusions) are "best" according to whatever current consensus happens to be....and within the limitations of science itself....
But, to me, Scripture is also similar to some extent---the words of the Quran are unchanging, but they are interpreted within the spiritual and intellectual limits of human beings of the times....as we evolve spiritually and intellectually, our understanding and interpretation of the Quran must evolve. Al Gazzali (1056-1111) said "Doubt is to find truth---those who do not have doubt cannot think and those who cannot think cannot find truth". I think the desire to pursue truth underlies our endeavors in both science and scripture (or at least it should)

[pancreasman]

In science there is evidence/facts and then there is how these facts are understood, interpreted. For example, At first when Neanderthal bones were found, it was assumed that they were savage, ape-like...etc accordingly, the pictures represented them with this idea. Later as more was learned...it was found that they were intelligent, had culture,speech..etc so the later reconstructions of Neanderthals are blond, human-looking, white skinned....etc (see Gibralter Neanderthal child). It is not that the original facts/evidence changed...those bones are still the same....how we understand them has changed in light of other information......Gravity is another example...

So scientific theories (conclusions) are "best" according to whatever current consensus happens to be....and within the limitations of science itself....
But, to me, Scripture is also similar to some extent---the words of the Quran are unchanging, but they are interpreted within the spiritual and intellectual limits of human beings of the times....as we evolve spiritually and intellectually, our understanding and interpretation of the Quran must evolve. Al Gazzali (1056-1111) said "Doubt is to find truth---those who do not have doubt cannot think and those who cannot think cannot find truth". I think the desire to pursue truth underlies our endeavors in both science and scripture (or at least it should)

Ahhh, nuance feeds my soul.

[Joseph]

This is a frustrating rambling response, and did not in reality address my post. You question willingness of dialogue, but this is not apparent in your post. You appear vey much entrenched in your adversarial position to make dialogue fruitful.

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.

First, all scientists are schooled in sufficient biology including Dr. Friberg is competent to address tis issue. I am a Geologist with a good background in biology and evolution, and no problem with Dr' Friberg.

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.

Second, the Baha'i principle of the Harmony of science and religion stand, it is not an individual interpretation that religion must accept the evolving progressive knowledge of science. It is based on the direct quote by Abdul'baha, as well as other citations in the writings. Yes, Abdul'baha was aware of Evolution, but spent most of his life in the Middle East where they did not have published books until the mid 1800's, no science education and only visited the west. The commentary in Baha'i writings reflect the knowledge of the Islamic world without any universities at that time that taught science. The principles of the Baha'i Faith are for the future evolving knowledge in the future.

Source: Source: [url

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

© Copyright Original Source

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;146123]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.[/QUOT)E]

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.

My previous post was an adequate explanation, and if you wish to continue the dialogue, respond again to that post in a rational manner.

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.

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?

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.

This is a good reference that indeed supports my view that Baha'is understand the problem of the description of linguistic issues of Arabic and Persian without the modern science. I do not believe you have bothered to read the whole reference to answer your own question, which is problematic of the the extreme adversarial approach you have in this dialogue. I may address this in a later post