Islam, Quran and Evolution

[Katelis]

Hi guys,
I wanted to know your thoughts about the Quran and its combatibility with evolution. I really think this a strange topic because there are Muslims like Zakir Naik who are totally against evolution or Harun Yahya who is convinced that the Quran refutes and contradicts evolution. But on the other hand there are people who think that in the Quran there are hints to evolution which could not be known to Muhammad and are therefore proof of the Quran's divine origin, for example like these two:
"And Allah hath caused you to grow as a plant from the earth" (71:17)
and
"He is the One who perfected everything He created, and started the creation of the human from clay. Then He continued his reproduction through a certain lowly liquid." (32:7-8)
I think that the second is rather stupid because he probably just meant that Adam, the "first human" was created from clay and nothing else. But I don't really know what the first one is supposed to mean.
What do you think about all this? I really do not want to believe that the Quran is the word of god because there are so many horrable and inhuman things in it.
I would be glad for any opinions.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Humans definitely do not grow like plants from the earth.

[Minimalist]

The koran is a pile of shit just like the bible and all other "holy" books.

[Mister Agenda]

If Muslims can find a way to accept the scientific theory of evolution, more power to 'em. At least they won't be suffering the handicap of being creationists anymore.

[Katelis]

The koran is a pile of shit just like the bible and all other "holy" books.

I basically agree with you. I just wonder what Muhammad or the author meant with the "grow out of the earth like a plant/growth" if he isn't referring to evolution. And I think it's strange that the Quran doesn't contradict evolution explicitly like the Bible does.

[Nineteen]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-22333.html

[Ksa]

Hi guys,
I wanted to know your thoughts about the Quran and its combatibility with evolution. I really think this a strange topic because there are Muslims like Zakir Naik who are totally against evolution or Harun Yahya who is convinced that the Quran refutes and contradicts evolution. But on the other hand there are people who think that in the Quran there are hints to evolution which could not be known to Muhammad and are therefore proof of the Quran's divine origin, for example like these two:
"And Allah hath caused you to grow as a plant from the earth" (71:17)
and
"He is the One who perfected everything He created, and started the creation of the human from clay. Then He continued his reproduction through a certain lowly liquid." (32:7-8)
I think that the second is rather stupid because he probably just meant that Adam, the "first human" was created from clay and nothing else. But I don't really know what the first one is supposed to mean.
What do you think about all this? I really do not want to believe that the Quran is the word of god because there are so many horrable and inhuman things in it.
I would be glad for any opinions.

Dr. Zakir Naik's argument is that the theory of evolution is a THEORY. Not Fact. He said in a speech: "Have you heard about the FACT of evolution? NO it's the THEORY of evolution. Why THEORY? Because there's no proof."

The idiotic argument of Dr. Zakir Naik is that, eventhough human ancestors like homo abilis and homo erectus were discovered, there's nothing in between. And when something in between them is discovered he says there's nothing in between them and what was recently discovered. So it's just dishonest behavior, don't get fooled by that.

[WesOlsen]

There is nothing in the Qur'an which even remotely touches at the modern understanding of the evolution framework. Some muslims argue that the Qur'an contains modern medical science and cosmology too. What they really mean is that they have found possibly one or two sentences which, at a stretch, could be made to nod towards a real science. These rare sentences are without any real substance however, they merely contain metaphorical, half-arsed poetry that could be interpreted in any number of ways.

Is Zakir Naik the one who published that 'Atlas of life' book on evolution in which he claims there are no intermediary species? The one in which he draws fish with wings and ask why we don't see half fish, half bird creatures in the fossil record, or half frog, half horse creatures? If so, his rudimentary understanding of evolution doesn't even compare to that of your average 3 year old.

[Crossless2.0]

Dr. Zakir Naik's argument is that the theory of evolution is a THEORY. Not Fact. He said in a speech: "Have you heard about the FACT of evolution? NO it's the THEORY of evolution. Why THEORY? Because there's no proof."

The idiotic argument of Dr. Zakir Naik is that, eventhough human ancestors like homo abilis and homo erectus were discovered, there's nothing in between. And when something in between them is discovered he says there's nothing in between them and what was recently discovered. So it's just dishonest behavior, don't get fooled by that.

Creationists who mangle the word "theory" like this are always so smug, like they've hit on some unanswerable problem for the scientific community, when all they have done is demonstrate that they don't understand what the word means in a scientific context.
Of course, they get away with it because (1) their target audience is usually functionally illiterate when it comes to the subject and don't know better and (2) they simply keep repeating the lie in venue after venue, no matter how many times they have been corrected.

I sometimes wonder if we will ever be rid of this gross misunderstanding of evolution. Even if people stopped riding their religious hobby horses in a single generation, I suspect there will always be people who just can't/won't wrap their heads around it.

[Cinjin]

I highlighted portions of your statements in the OP:

I really think this a strange topic...
I think that the second is rather stupid...
But I don't really know what the first one is supposed to mean....

It's a stupid fucking book written by primitives. The fact that you would even consider its message tells me that you're a tad gullible.

My advice is to put it in the trash where it belongs. What's next? Shall we consider the primitive scribblings of that other desert book? How bout Aesop's Fables?