Islam & Evolution, were we wrong ?

[Ryantology]

Gravity and evolution are not revelations. They are theories formed by way of experimentation and observation. We assume them to be accurate because the very men who crafted the theories did so on the basis of observing evidence and accepted them only after attempting to find flaws in them which would render them fundamentally inaccurate. There was never the assumption that their ideas were truth, there has only been verification that they are very likely true. Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution out of nowhere and then simply luck out that evidence existed to support it.

You have the assumption, right from the start, that the teachings of your faith are completely accurate, and this is proven by the fact that you are only willing to accept evolution only after you thought you found a way to reconcile the theory with the teachings of Islam. It seems as though, to you, no scientific theory is of any value if it contradicts what is written in your holy crap napkin.

[Minimalist]

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

In scientific books those theories are supported by evidence in those books. Not by some absurd bullshit story of an angel talking to some guy sleeping in a fucking cave and if you deny it some other asshole threatens to cut your head off.

Small difference, pal.

[Confused Ape]

I thought I'd see if I could find more religious scientists out of curiosity. So far there's the list of presidents for the UK organisation Christians In Science and the British geneticist R.J.Berry who

has spoken out in favour of evolutionary creationism

I'm guessing that scientists who are Christians and who have accepted evolution found a way of interpreting the Bible so they could reconcile their religion and science.

[Simon Moon]

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) ?

It's laughable that you are trying to refute science, yet you have no idea what science is. Nor do you understand what a theory is in the context of science.

Theories don't 'grow up' to be facts. In science, theories are the pinnacle of achievement. Facts are very easy to come by, all it takes is observation. Theories explain a set of observed facts.

Gravity is an observed fact, The theory of gravity is an explanation for the observed facts.

Maybe you should read a book on basic scientific method, then come on back.

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) ?

No he didn't. He based the theory of evolution on OBSERVED FACTS. He wasn't the first to observe these facts, he was the first to come up with a theory that explained them.

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.

You didn't present a theory. You presented conjecture.

One does not start with a conclusion, then try to fit the facts into it.

When one does that, they fail...well...sort of like you've been doing on this thread.

[Zone]

I'm guessing that scientists who are Christians and who have accepted evolution found a way of interpreting the Bible so they could reconcile their religion and science.

The idea is that God used evolution as a directional process toward creating humanity. Though that is not the current generally accepted model of evolution at all. There isn't meant to be any kind of direction or design involved. While it's possible that the current model is wrong you really would need a new theory of evolution based some kind of real observable evidence to overturn it. We're talking about an area that is well within scientific study not unfalsible or miracles that happened in the ancient past or out of view somewhere we don't get to see but a direct overlap and conflict.

[Kayenneh]

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) ?

Jump off a 10 story building and you'll see first hand just how gravity is merely a theory.

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) ?

Darwin was born 1809, so yes, new evidence have been gathered to improve the theory. And I 'd like to see you try and deny DNA.

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

You present an idea (I cannot even call it a hypothesis) based upon a fictional book. You might believe, we with proper education know.

And for the record, here's some definitions for you:

(Scientific) Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

not: a nontechnical name for hypothesis.

Hypothesis: An assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition or a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

[Confused Ape]

The idea is that God used evolution as a directional process toward creating humanity. Though that is not the current generally accepted model of evolution at all. There isn't meant to be any kind of direction or design involved. While it's possible that the current model is wrong you really would need a new theory of evolution based some kind of real observable evidence to overturn it. We're talking about an area that is well within scientific study not unfalsible or miracles that happened in the ancient past or out of view somewhere we don't get to see but a direct overlap and conflict.

It looks like this is only the generally accepted model of evolution for atheists. Religious people who go for evolution seem to have their own generally accepted model of evolution.

It's not my fault that there are scientists who believe in theistic evolution. I'm just been doing a bit of googling to find some.

[Cyberman]

What matters is which of any competing models best fits the observable facts. Belief shouldn't factor into it.

[Zone]

It's not my fault that there are scientists who believe in theistic evolution. I'm just been doing a bit of googling to find some.

But evolution is a purely scientific field which describes the process of natural selection and this process is initated by random mutations which provide the basis for this selection over time. If God or any other supernatural factor is involved at all then our understanding of evolution is wrong to say the least. As it stands to say that evolution was directed toward humans with large brains is the equivalent of saying that evolution was directed toward elephants with long trunks the long neck of a giraffe. These are all just physical adaptations to physical selection pressures and our own evolution fits with any other animal. You could have a deistic God who created the laws of physics that potentially would allow something like humans to evolve somewhere in the universe by pure chance but that isn't the Biblical or Islamic God.

[Confused Ape]

You could have a deistic God who created the laws of physics that potentially would allow something like humans to evolve somewhere in the universe by pure chance but that isn't the Biblical or Islamic God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_ev...ite_note-1

According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.[1]

From Religious Tolerance org

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi1.htm

Very liberal Christians consider the Bible as one among many of the world's important religious texts. It was written by a number of men, and perhaps one or more women. They attempted to describe their personal religious beliefs, and those of their faith group, to their readers. But "many parts of the Bible cannot be taken literally, either as historically factual or as expressing the will of God." 2 Liberals take what might be called a "bottom-up" approach: the Bible is a "human response to God." 3 The Bible was written by members of the Jewish, Jewish Christian and Pauline Christian faith groups over about a 1000 year interval, circa 900 BCE to 150 CE. Its original purpose was to allow the authors to disseminate their religious and spiritual thoughts among their fellow believers. Thus, a passage from one of Paul's epistles is a description of how Paul interpreted the will of God. It may or may not actually reflect God's actual will.

As far as Christianity is concerned, then, the God of the Bible is whatever different groups of Christians decide he is.

PS: If people think theistic evolution is a daft idea how about this one?

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-l...121216.htm

The popular film trilogy, The Matrix, presented a cyberuniverse where humans live in a simulated reality created by sentient machines.

Now, a philosopher and team of physicists imagine that we might really be living inside a computer-generated universe that you could call The Lattice. What’s more, we may be able to detect it.