Intelligent Design versus Natural Selection

Re: # 28
a post based more on religious hatred rather than logical thought is just as silly as what you are trying to (seemingly) dissapprove of

Shobig,

As Gill pointed out, you should read Theory of Evolution, from a human`s point of view, without any religious bias.

We are surrounded by evolution in every aspect of our lives....from agricultural progress, and animal husbandry....to....

All the comforts that you enjoy including the interaction on CHOWK, are gifts of science. If these scientists and inventors had let religious cloud their judgements and thinking, you wouldn`t be enjoying all these benefits. How many inventions the mullahs created?

Re: # 24 Thank you Dr. Gill for a detailed response. May be my method of putting forth the queries wasn`t an appropriate one. By no means were my intentions to raise a finger at your personal judgment of things or your individual perspective, since from your previous articles and this one, I have come to know that your idea of an article is just that of a precise study of the subject without any biase. Therefore, I do agree with you when u say
``Passing judgment on scientific theories quoting evidence from the revealed scriptures is retrogressive. `` But in response to your comment
``The scientists can keep their faith and continue working on science as I had mentioned in the article. Such scientists who are working on evolution are called theistic evolutionists. ``
I`d like to add that I myself am a research student in one of the pure sciences, particle physics, which to some, would appear to be based on ideas really challenging to even the concept of FAITH. I, on the contrary, posess perhaps equal faith in the human ability to question and explore, as i do in my particular theocracy.
Having said that, my queries in the earlier posts were, in no sense dogmatic ones, but just straight forward ones, and the kind i`d indifferently like to pose to a person of the respective profession.
May be a further probing of the word DAY as we use it today, and as it might have been used in the divine revelitions, can end up in drawing a connection between our own decipheral of the term, and hence the underlying theories.
rgds

I enjoyed reading the article and really enjoyed the views of SR and some others. SR, i do hope you let us know more of your views when you can.

The idea that perhaps chimps were formed from humans...as mentioned by SR with his example of the child chimps brain being closer to the humans brain as compared to the older chimps brain really facinates me. It gives more evidence (and hope) for my religious beliefs...wasnt there a particular group of people mentioned in the quran who had bad habits and were severely reprimanded by being turned into monkeys..(monkeys is the translated term it could well be chimps or wahtever in the actual thing).

i do believe thwe transformation takes place but if this is a natural process and us much smarter humans were formed thru a transformation process from chimps....why do we still see chimps, why are they not still transforming into humans. are we not a better life form. whats stopping them from evolving into a more sophisticated smarter species...maybe they`ve observed how evil and degenerate we humans have become...all the wars n shyt that we have......and based on that they`d rather just roam the jungles than become pathetic humans. :)

Re: # 24

...... excellent post, gill sahib ............ but reason doesn`t have a chance when it comes to matters of faith .............. even if you could produce an arabic-speaking monkey whose first name was cain and last name adam, the faithful would still accuse you of trickery ..........

Mr. shbig_sifar:

I have all the respect for your sentiments. My own roots are in a conservative Muslim family so I am not writing from any spite.

Science is a strange kind of discipline. Before the advent of the twentieth century, atomic concept of matter was harshly criticized by the philosophers (of the vintage of logical positivism) and others. Ludwig Boltzmann whose work was founded on atoms got so disheartened by the harsh criticism that many believe that his resultant frustration was one of the causes of his suicide. But he was right. Atomic concept of matter was vindicated by the tragic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only that, matter and energy became one and the same at the atomic level. These facts were hard to believe before science showed that they indeed are right.

There are no preformed and inflexible ideas in science.

In Darwin’s theory of evolution, common descent is the fundamental concept. This seems to be abominable to them who believe in divine stories of creation. People in the west have been working on evolution for the last 200/300 years; yes, evolution is older than Darwin. This quest has led to the development of new sciences, such as microbiology, molecular biology, genetics, etc. If they had believed a priori that theory of evolution was wrong because it conflicts with the divine accounts, such fields of knowledge and inquiry wouldn’t have been developed.

Passing judgment on scientific theories quoting evidence from the revealed scriptures is retrogressive. The scientists can keep their faith and continue working on science as I had mentioned in the article. Such scientists who are working on evolution are called theistic evolutionists.

Those who do not have appreciation for science but pass judgment on it nonetheless are retrogressive.

You`ve raised some other questions in your # 23. I ask you to read material on evolution, pro and con, and try to find the answers yourself. If time allowed and I got sufficiently motivated, I might try to answer them in another article. However, self-study is the best form of education.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Further, my question to an evolutionist, I am not sure whether it is the right borad for that, would be, `If evolution is inevitable, how much has the HUMAN form evolved since its origin at the microscale, and on the macroscale..WHAT is it likely to evolve into, or what is HUMAN a predecessor of?`

And with regards the idea
``Previously, the creation story included in the Bible was the immutable word of God for the religionists. Now it is hardly mentioned. It is now generally accepted by majority of the people that the world was not created in six days.``

I have to say that a DAY as we now difine it is the time taken by the earth to complete one rotation of the sun. I don`t think an analogy can be drawn between our modern DAY asnd the Biblical /Quranic day. Or, in other words, how could we be sure that the DAY mentioned in the divinie revelitions bears the same length as our present day, when certainly our definition of a day is by no means extensible to a galactic or cosmological level.

rgds

Re: # 21 Gill Sahib, with due respect, i would highly diagree with you on this issue of `asking Questions`! Lets take the example of Quran, the only Divine revelation to have survived in its original form...can you estimate how many times have the belivers been `asked` and `advised` to ponder and to question?..and how many times have they been forced to examine the `signs` that `are there` for the inquisitve and the curious??

Nevertheless...a very good read and an informative piece of writing, both in content and in comparison.

rgds

Interactors:

If one were to follow the divine revelations, there wouldn`t be any science. The spirit of scientific inquiry wouldn`t exist. Science begins by asking questions and trying to find verifiable answers to them; revelation discourages people to ask questions. And if these questions are asked, revelation provides answers which are not required to be questioned.

Theory of natural selection is a scientific theory and has withstood the test of times (more than one hundred years). If it doesn`t provide answers to all the questions now, it`s okay. Because in due time those answers will be discovered or the theory will be replaced with a new and better theory, which would furnish the required answers. Remember, there is no finality to scientific quest.

We can enter the scientific adventure and become part of it, or stand aloof on the sidelines and pooh pooh them who are doing science. The choice is entirely our own. Wishing all of you well,

Mohammad Gill

Creationism vs. evolution … the holy grail. Some rambling thoughts here …

I am of the opinion that Quran supports evolution … that is, development of species from less complex to more complex beings. Humans, apparently, at least in their immediate surroundings, are on top of the pyramid. The very first attribute of God, that of Rabb, has connotations of one who develops in stages.

Adam …

Throughout history of mankind, human race has gone through different phases of development. Civilizations have risen … and disappeared. Quran suggests that Adam was Allah’s khaliffa on earth. Khaliffa includes connotations of “successor” (as well as “leader”)… implying that humans existed before Adam as well, and Adam and his men became leaders of the phase of human development that followed. This does not necessarily mean that all other people/nations perished. During Adam’s era, there probably coexisted other people and tribes … some probably perished, and some became integrated within the larger community of Adam. I think according to biblical data, Adam lived about 6000 years ago.

A hadith sheds more light on this subject … where Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) reportedly stated that Allah has raised more than one hundred thousand Adams. Apparently, Adam connotes the first link in any cycle or phase of development.

… and Eve

There’s more to it than Adam unable to find a date. Much confusion has been caused by a hadith … according to which, Eve was created from Adam’s rib. This seems to be incorrect. The hadith refers to women, and not Eve. Obviously, not all women have been created from Adam’s rib. Apparently, this is a metaphor … suggesting a parallel between women, and rib, the highest part of which is crooked. Meaning, coquetry is the highest attribute of womanliness … which cannot be separated from a woman. Men, deal with it.

+++++++++++++++

Urstruly (#10),

The choice seems to be … to either accept that we are descendants of apes … or that we are product of incest between the children of Adam and Eve. And then there’re the mullah … product of incestuous apes from fairly recent history. No further comments on your ullema ... or this post may get filtered out …

Re: # 7

Thanks to you and Gill for the the valuable information contained here. BUt as usual this article will not generate the ferocity of interatcs other appear to do on Chowk. Nonetheless, the saying too many cooks....is apt here..

from my understanding - natural selection is another subtle variant of mutation. Natures tries out diferent strategies - mutations to see which works and pick a strategywhich works. All those which dont work aredroppped or dead or mutate further. Hence the idea that all of mammals evolved from a vole (sp???) like creature after the destruction ofthe dinosaurs. The vareity of environments that these voles existed in requiredthem to specilise and mutate accodingly. Thus the genetic difference between the cow and the human is small (a few changes in the words and we could be having horns and hooves).

Where the variation is big is when we move from Mammals to other forms. At the end of the day allforms of life on earth are HC based with the same set of protiens connected up differently.

There was an experiement sometime back which generated the basic aminoacids.
I guess we have all seen those charged glass lamps - . They filled this glob with what is considered to be the primordial soup and let the charge generate lighteing inside the glob. Sort of early eath atmosphere was generated there. When the matter inside the glob was analysed it was found that amino-acids were found there. (think it was a guycalled jerath in the US who did this).


SR has however, pointed out some of the questions. However, could it be argued that Humans have evolved to the limit of their abilities with the current form of genetic structure and that a mutation is required for further growth. Hence the chimp example. Where it is not retardation but really simply a matter of some form a mutation in order to be able to cope with changes in environment. (I am no expert herebut very very lay and have no clue as to what I am saying!)

Re: # 6

read the rig/yajur for this (the upanishads have something more detailed). The concept is one of a primordial soup in some sense from where we have all evolved. Dont startassumng that they are talking of evolution in the sense we know today.

for example try reading the Works of Vivekananda - they are more accesible - here is osmething might inerest you

From the lowest protoplasm to the most perfect human being there is really but one life. Just as in one life we have so many various phases of expression, the protoplasm developing into the baby, the child, the young man, the old man, so, from that protoplasm up to the most perfect man we get one continuous life, one chain. This is evolution, but we have seen that each evolution presupposes an involution. The whole of this life which slowly manifests itself evolves itself from the protoplasm to the perfected human being

---

the Incarnation of God on earth the whole of this series is but one life, and the whole of this manifestation must have been involved in that very protoplasm. This whole life, this very God on earth, was involved in it and slowly came out, manifesting itself slowly, slowly, slowly. (Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. II, p. 228)




purnamadah purnamidam purnaat purnamudachyate
purnasya purnaamadaya purnameva vashishyate.

What do think about Harunyahaya work to refute evolution theory?


http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php

Reply to #13, tahmed32

tahmed32. Sorry bud, you missed it big time! The joke was not on Gill Saab but on typical Chowkie readers (Let`s pick an example. How about: ``Greetings. I have ten fingers, two eyes, and a small brain. This is all I need to be on chowk.`` (not my words, I swear!)) Gill Saab is well aware of what I think of his works on this site (expressed through previous interacts). (Nevertheless, Gill Saab, if I said anything inappropriate, I am sorry and very willing to do penance!)

PS: I have been working very hard to erase this ``funny`` streak, but it keeps coming back! I think I should just give up! (I am beginning to miss being (intentionally) funny!)

Mohammed Gill,

A very appropriate article for people living in the states perhaps more than others. I think though, that creationism is of some importance for mostly christians and to some extent other Abrahamic faithfuls. For others to accept it or reject it, could be based on more honest personal insights. Not that I`m suggesting you are not honest. I think you consciously choose to be so.

Here in the US, its become a common tendency to ask the opinions of school kids on evolution and splash it across the media during any serious debate. I think no one should be allowed to form an opinion on this, until an accepted copy of the origin of species for laymen is read by such individuals. I believe that could be the first step in having a meaningful discussion on this.

Personally, I`m inclined to accept evoultion as a better explanation than any other. More on this later.

Adios

To rile our grandmother up, we used to say ``...Aseen aj school ch pur kay aaye, kay saaday daaday purdaaday day agaan purkh Bandar Si....`` She would respond, ``Eho jehiaan kitaaban nu ag laa daini chaee di ey....``

(We learned in school that our forefathers were monkeys, she would rspnd - to hell with such books, they should be reduced to ashes)


On a serious note the theory of Natural Selection is applied daily. The phenomena of natural and selection and survival of fittest manifests daily before our eyes. To what extent is this theory taken as a fact is debatable.