Islam & Evolution, were we wrong ?

[Kayenneh]

[CapnAwesome]

I think the basic problem is that the thread starter is starting the Qu'ran and assuming it is true, then trying to fit the evidence in. You need to clear your mind and just look at the evidence, I'll tell you one thing it sure as fuck isn't going to lead to the Qu'ran.

[Cato]

At least take some time to read the topic & think about it in a serious way -_-"

Ok, i did this and here's my conclusion:

Allah knows fuck all about evolution.

That said, I must give you credit for creativity. Although I think your theories are baseless, the idea of single or multi-molecular panspermia at the time of the K-T extinction is something I have never heard before.

Look, if you have some personal psychological need to shoehorn the fact of evolution into the Quran, have at it. Please note that I used 'psychological', not 'psychotic'. This means of reconciling reality with the basis of cherished beliefs is often much more palatable than immediately jettisoning the original belief. I wish you luck.

[Confused Ape]

Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation.

People with this world view regard evolution as being the way God did it so they accept everything that science has to say on the subject.

As I'm an atheist I don't accept Theistic Evolution myself but I don't see this belief as being any stranger than
EriwnSchrödinger having

a lifelong interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, which influenced his speculations at the close of What is Life? about the possibility that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe.

[Zone]

There's no evolution in the Quran, you have Adam and Eve and Noahs Ark that's what you've got in there. Also Allah created the Earth before creating the heavens. It's not very scientific at all but written in the 7th century you wouldn't expect it to be.

[Cyberman]

I think the answer to the question in the thread title, then, is a resounding "yes".

[WinterHold]

I think the basic problem is that the thread starter is starting the Qu'ran and assuming it is true, then trying to fit the evidence in. You need to clear your mind and just look at the evidence, I'll tell you one thing it sure as fuck isn't going to lead to the Qu'ran.

In many scientific books, you'll find that sometimes, theories are pushed as if they were true facts which we hold with our hands.

Gravity is a mere theory, yet a lot of applications are built on it, so would we simply demolish those applications, because (the makers assumed that gravity is a true fact) ?

Darwin also, built all his research upon a theory of his own creation. So would we demolish everything he did, because it was built on (what darwin assumed to be true) ?

This is not a valid argument ; at least in the context.

Because the context here is "an islamic section", contains "muslims who truly believe in the Quran being right".

Thus, from this perspective, I presented a theory based on a religious book, which I formally believe in as true.

Which also includes anybody (who write anything) on an idea that he thinks about as "a true fact".

[Cyberman]

Gravity, evolution and the like are "mere theories" in exactly the same way that a revolutionary new medical breakthrough might be "merely" a cure for cancer, or that the world's top athletes are "merely" Olympic gold medalists. The fact that "a lot of applications are built on" them is a pretty big clue that they work and that they are, indeed, fact. Thus, from any perspective, what you presented is purely interpretation based on and calculated to confirm a holy book.

[Zone]

Theory in science near enough means "proven fact" a scientific hypothesis is more what we would think of as a theory. So theory of evolution means near enough proven fact of evolution. Darwin didn't just create a theory he looked at the evidence he could see and figured something out that held up to scrutiny. You can't observe evolution directly but you can see the related trends in physical forms over geograophic areas, you can see the fossil records over time and you can see the genetic relationships between species demonstrating common ancestry.

[Cyberman]

Just to clarify:

Gravity (for instance) is an observable, measurable force acting upon bodies.

The Theory of Gravity describes how that force operates in any given situation.

Belittling such scientific theories as not being facts is rather akin to criticising bananas for not being elephants.