Re: Is Islam compatible with Darwin's theory of evolution?



Zuiko Azumazi wrote:

> That depends on which expository author one is reading does it not? As
> mentioned in my previous response, which highlighted the disingenuous antics
> of Phillip Johnson and his cohorts that is apparently being foisted on an
> unsuspecting and gullible public in the USA. Aren't they invoking the
> 'Intelligent Design' argument to promote the Evangelical Christian
> 'Creationism' concept in the USA school system?

> ...
>
> The question then becomes, ought Muslims buy into this divisive controversy?
> And, if so, which side should they take?
>

Quite so. It has been years since I have been actively involved in one
of these controversies and I cannot speak from any current experience.
It is truly a political problem and even then more of a rhetorical
problem than a practical one. Those of us, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist,
whatever, who are not actually involved are probably wasting our time
discussing it.

> Underlying all of this pseudo-controversy is a much more serious theological
> issue, which is, can 'science' disprove the existence of God (I don't
> believe so)?

Quite so. Of course, science cannot disprove the existence of God.
Science cannot disprove the existence of anything. However science can
IGNORE the existence of God and anything else it has no contact with. I
doubt if any real scientists are confused between ignoring God and
denying God. But for every real scientist there are ten people with a
little knowledge and no good sense.
Much of what passes for "science" is really the confused product of
these science groupies.

Science cannot prove the existence of God either. Science might OBSERVE
the existence of God, if God were to make God's self manifest in the
physical universe. So far this has not happened in any manner which
satisfies real scientists. Until this happens science will continue to
ignore God.

Science is not the entire existence of any real scientist (the
exceptions are clearly insane) and a scientist can do science ignoring
God part of the time and live a godly life the rest of the time. Or an
ungodly one. Science itself has nothing to do with the issue. I can see
no reason why a Muslim cannot be just as much a scientist as anyone
else while at the same time being just as much a Muslim as anybody
else.

> Comment:-
> Isn't the whole 'Intelligent Design' argument voraciously sponsored by some
> (theosophical?) scientists? Or, are you implying, that the 'Intelligent
> Design' argument was developed by pseudoscientific theologians (of what
> variety?) just for religious apologetic purposes?

The entire literature on Intelligent Design is polemic. None of it, for
or against, can be trusted. Here is my take: No real scientist has ever
argued for intelligent design operating in his or her own field of
expertise. Note that I mean a physicist's comments on biology are no
more valuable than a layman's and vice versa. I am in no position to
evaluate the claim of anyone on either side of the argument to be a
"real" scientist. I have observed a couple of people who make no such
claim talking as though they were.

It is my understanding that the Intelligent Design argument was
invented by a pious lawyer. It feels that way to me. The argument is
not of a sort that either a scientist or a theologian would normally
advance.

As a lawyerly argument it was unexpected by theologians (and is still
largely ignored by scientists) but it meshes well with politics in the
United States. I don't think it has any religious apologetic value.

The details of all this are not appropriate to SRI. What is appropriate
is how should Muslims view the matter. In my opinion Muslims, just like
everybody else, should ignore the controversy as long as possible. If
it becomes unavoidable, I suggest adopting the pose of complete
ignorance and asking for information but never agreeing with either
side.

Some things that some people believe in passionately are simply not
worth any attention from the rest of us. So long as they do not turn to
terrorism in order to get attention we can safely ignore the
enthusiasts.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Something for the Fundies...
    ... doesn't mean that science is perfect--in fact, ... >> scientists who attend church. ... make you too smart for God, and yet there exist among the scientific ... and Physics would somehow shake us ignorant believers from our mindless ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: The thing about ID...
    ... Some personal beliefs (e.g. the existense of God) are not ... >> testable and cannot be studied by science. ... >> be drawn from evidence consisting of observations and experimentations. ... as many of the greatest scientists believed ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ... there are Creationist and ID scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The thing about ID...
    ... Some personal beliefs (e.g. the existense of God) are not ... >>> testable and cannot be studied by science. ... so all evidence must be held as contaminated and invalid. ... It isn't hampered because the believing scientists deliberately ignore what ...
    (talk.origins)