Talk:Islamic views on evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Whoever included something as bogus as a WebSite questionnaire should be put on notice. WikiBloggers, I hope evolution rules out your future as quasi-information disseminators. The percentages reflect nothing due to the radical disparity in participant volume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rejecting Randomness[edit]

The article states,"...there is no such thing as randomness but that everything happens according to God's will." Does Islamic creationism resemble the idea of the elect used by Calvinists?--Patchouli 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Take a look at Qadr (doctrine) and the parent articles.

Not sure if Reuters articles stay online? Tom Heneghan, "Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey", Wed Nov 22, 2006

Qadr as portrayed by Sunnis is rejected by Shia Muslims, so you can't use Qadr here. The Shia view of Qadr is different, as shown in the article Qadr (doctrine). However, it is true that most Muslims believe that everything happens according to Allah's Will. This doesn't mean that He directly causes it, it just means that He allows it or doesn't stop it. Armyrifle 01:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

- This whole article is very wishy-washy in its attempt to tip-toe around offence to Islam and doesn't challenge the scientific inaccuracies in the Quran. Evolve a back-bone and write something less timid. Western science is (more than) capable of questioning the Quran's inaccuracies and has a right to challenge errant dogma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Qur'an and science[edit]

I'm working on Qur'an and creationism, maybe the material can be used in this article as well. Imad marie (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't want two articles. Move the bulk of it here and leave a summary there; this is the main article on Islamic creationism, after all. --Adoniscik(t, c) 22:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Genetic Algorithms[edit]

I'd like to propose the theory that God uses Genetic algorithms to do his bidding. This is a field of study in computer science where randomness, more or less, is utilized in creating a result that fits a "fitness" criteria, and over numerous iterations through time, the output approaches perfection. For example, scientists will program a machine to try different variations of plastic limbs and motors to generate a device that moves from point-a to point-b. The first couple of iterations, it's possible the devices generated are so primitive they can't even move, but over time, the results get better and better, until one of them will start moving, perhaps worm-like, perhaps using a single-leg to push, but eventually being able to make it to point-b. Genetic algorithms were based on the techniques of real-world evolution, and like evolutionary biology, they've produced amazing results.

So I propose that God, having created a universe to his liking, set in motion a plan to create a human being, one with the ability to reproduce, think, feel, worship, etc. It took a few million years, and a number of iterations of primitive beings, and all sorts of fitness tests (e.g. coping with variations in weather, geography, diet, etc) before the prototype Adam and Eve came about.

We're obviously delving into intelligent design territory here. It's not science. It's theological theorizing, and trying to match up our beliefs with what science has uncovered.

At the very least, I think a "Genetic Algorithm" link deserves to be in the "See Also" section. --Fshafique (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that even though GA utilizes randomness at every run, the "fitness" tests however are not, and they determine what lives and what dies. If evolution happened in a random environment, then God is laying down the fitness tests. I'm not suggesting that God left things to be random, but rather that a complex system such as a "Universe" could be self-running and wouldn't require God's intervention for the movement of every particle within it -- something which to us might be considered "random".--Fshafique (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand how the general theme of the Quran presents God as the ultimate force. But all this about GAs is pure conjecture, and this has no place in wikipedia. WP:NOR exists for a reason. (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

suggested title change and article merger[edit]

Would it be worth changing the article title to something like "Islamic creation belief". "Islamic creation story" might also work.

I also think that it may make sense to merge the "Islamic mythology" article under the "Islamic creationism" article under any description. The "Islamic mythology" article was created a month after this article and I think it is possible that it may have been set up in competition.

See also the recent discussion on the neutrality of the title of the 'Creation myth' article.

I add this as someone who has no personal belief in a personal god but who acknowledges the possibility that, within conceptions of a god of great power, anything is possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talkcontribs) 09:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that this article contains little or no information on an "Islamic creation story" or "Islamic mythology", a merge/name-change does not appear to be appropriate. The subject of this article is Islamic promotion of anti-evolution (and/or antiscience more generally) views. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead section doesn't seem to reflect reality[edit]

I find the lead very misleading. It suggests that Muslims are at peace with the idea of evolution and science in general, when in fact even if you take a very liberal (by Muslim standards) country like Turkey you find that almost everyone doesn't believe in evolution. This is not the picture the flowery lead section presents. Richard001 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the lead tends to exagerate things, at times more than a little. I think part of the problem is a dearth of RSs on the topic of Islamic Creationism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It actually seems to have missed the following article: History of Evolutionary Thought in Islamic philosophy Faro0485 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Erzurumi Quotation[edit]

Please don't blank the quotation of İbrahim Hakkı of Erzurum. it's a remarkable quotation from 18th century Islamic scholar regarding evolution theory. --Polysynaptic (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Evolution, Creation, or Both?

It says “Allah is Al Khaliq” (The Creator), it also says “Allah is Al Bari” (The Evolver)

For the Muslim there is no need for separation between religion and science. It is understood from the Quran, revealed over 1,400 years ago, that there is both; "Creation" and "Evolution." And in both instances, it is only Allah who is "Able to do all things." In fact, it was the Muslim scientists, more than 1,000 years ago, who set the stage for the advancement of learning, technology and disciplines in science that we know today.

Allah has explained how He created everything in the universe and brought all life out of water. He created humans from earth (not monkeys) and there is no need to attempt fabrications of "links" to the animal world in Islam.

The Christian Bible says that Adam & Eve were both created here on Earth, less than 10,000 years ago. The Quran says that Adam & Eve were created in Heaven, and NOT on Earth. When they disobeyed God, He expelled them from Heaven, down to Earth.

Muslims believe that souls are assigned to humans 40 days after the human inception. The Quran says that angels retrieve human souls on two occasions. One occasion is when humans die. The other occasion is every time humans fall asleep. When humans wakeup, the angels release those souls back to them:

It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death; and those that did not die, during their sleep: those on whom He has passed the decree of death, He keeps back, but the rest He sends (to their bodies) for a term appointed. Verily in this are Signs for those who reflect.

[Noble Quran 39:42]

And Allah has Created every animal from water; of them are some creeping on their bellies; some walk on two legs; and some on four. Allah Creates what He wills: for sure Allah has Power over all things.

[Noble Quran 24:45]

The Quran has set a precedent 14 centuries before modern science, explaining in simple and direct terms about his "creation" of animals and their various functions and then assures us it is He who has the Power over everything. This statement includes the fact Allah can if He Wills reshape and alter his creation as He Chooses. There is clear evidence within many species of alteration and changes within the species. However, there is no concrete evidence to support a cross over in development from one type to another, such as reptiles turning into birds or alligators turning into cows. The statements made in Quran are quite clear when Allah tells us of having brought forth other life forms and then destroying or replacing them with others. This again, does not imply evolution in the sense of one type becoming or changing into another.

Allah tells us He is Al-Bari, (The Shaper or Evolver) but once again, this does not mean He has a need to bring about each individual life form all from one kind. Actually, while reading the Quran you learn He has brought many types and shapes and sizes as He Wills. Changes within species occur even as quickly as one or two seasons, not even taking a whole year, much less millions as was supposed by Darwin.

Speaking of Charles Darwin, he was only an armature naturalist and had only observed the finches (birds) on the Galapagos Islands for the first time in the mid 1850s. He noticed that on each island the birds had different shaped beaks according to the type of food available on their particular island. For this reason, he assumed, the birds had progressed over millions of years and only the hardiest of the species had survived the climate and vegetation changes. However, this is totally inaccurate and was dismissed as a mere humor in a TV series on the educational channel in October of 1998. According to the scientists’ discoveries in that very same year, the effects of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino, the climate on these same exact islands had drastically changed in a single year within a number of months. And to their surprise, the eggs of the finches on each island hatched open producing birds with beaks already altered to accommodate the changes of their environment.

The commentator even said this shoots Darwin's theory completely down and he laughed.

There is no DNA research pointing to a connection between apes and humans as was supposed by the scientists and those who had financed them over the years. In fact, the barnyard pig is closer to humans in many aspects, than a monkey or a gorilla. Consider the fact, doctors use the skin from pigs to replace needed tissue on burn victims and the famous movie actor, John Wayne had a pig's heart valve installed in his own heart in a 1977 operation to save his life. It worked, too - until his smoking caused him to die of cancer.

The rational approach to the whole subject is rather simple. Just as He is able to Create the universe and bring forth life, it is simple also for Him to produce as many different types of forms of life as He Wills. No problem for Him, after all - He is the Creator and He is the Shaper. And most important, He can change anything as He Wills - even today.

FOR MORE GO TO: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:34, 18 December 2013‎

Amusing what one can find on the internets, but this doesn't look like a WP:RS and there are no specific proposals above for improving the article. . dave souza, talk 13:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

islam + human evolution are incpmpatible[edit]

This article is mislading and someone should do something about muslim apologetics giving a misleading and biased outlook throughout wikipedia scientific articles. Harun yahya (a muslim apologetic) has been even more outspoken against evolution than christian creationists.Jigglyfidders (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You only hear people that are outspoken. (see Attentional bias). Furthermore, one person doesn't represent a whole community, no matter what you want (see Confirmation bias). Please find some validated evidence in your claim and then come back to Wikipedia. -- (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that Harun Yahya is "even more outspoken against evolution" than the likes of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hovind and Ham are about as similar as Henry Osborn and Stephen Jay Gould. Hrafn, Hovind is rejected by mainstream creation scientists. Ken Ham, unlike Hovind, has qualifications in the field. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 14:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
There can hardly be "mainstream creation scientists" as creationism is fringe in science, and your comparison is clearly false. Hovind and Ham were born within a couple of years of each other, are both still alive, and both promote the amusing conceit that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Henry Fairfield Osborn died in 1935, and his ideas have little in common with Gould (born 1941) who of course worked in the rather different field of invertebrates rather than vertebrates. Neither has relevance to Yahya, unlike Kent and Hovind who share anti-evolution beliefs. . dave souza, talk 15:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is about Islamic views on evolution, which are diverse to say the least. There are muslims (scholars as well as scientists) who accept evolution and there are others who reject it. And although it is true that a majority of muslims today reject evolution, that still does not make the evolution accepting muslims opinion about the compatibility of the quran invalid. In summary, this article should give only give the diverse views muslims have about evolution instead of making judgmental claims about the compatibility/incompatibility of the quran with evolution. That is the reason I removed a sentence from the lead " .... underlying issue is that Adamic descent as written in the Quran is contradicted by modern anthropology and empirical evidence..". talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Pre-modern thought section misses the subject[edit]

The "pre-modern thought" section misses the subject. It contains lots of interesting informations about the work of (probably) muslimic scientist. But there is no explicit connection to the religion. At most you can conclude that the islam was maybe in parts more liberal in older times, than it is today in general. It is a bit like mentioning Darwins ideas in the context of Christianity and Evolution. There is simply no connection. Much more interesting would be, to stay in the picture, what the anglical church thought in these times about Darwins writings (and that is not alltoo positive i guess). -- (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputed section[edit]

The premodern thought section smacks of the banned user Jagged85's systematic dishonest use of widely unavailable, rare sources to promote the agenda that virtually every scientific theory, and half of all engineering, was invented by Muslims a millennium before the stupid Westerners had an inkling of it. The reference to Isis, on "The Supposed Darwinism of Biruni", which I can not access, smacks of this, as do the multitude of references to the Azerbaijani International. As all know, Jagged85 made many "contributions" of this sort of systematic disinformation (over which ArbCom banned him), many of which stand to this day. Looking at the edit history, the sections in question were added by Jagged85; based on the source of the information and the inability to find third-party academic references to it (not just repeaters of Wikipedia) in a cursory search, I believe it should be at least tagged, if not struck completely, until the rare, obscure, and arcane sources can be verified as actually stating what Jagged claimed (based on his contributions, the actual citations almost always stated the exact opposite of what he used them for). This reminds me of the need, even two or three years after the fact, of the need for a "Jagged85 Damage Control and Clean-up Task Force". St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 16:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it. It was extremely dubious OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought so, but I've caught flak for bias in dealing with Islamic topics on Wikipedia, so I thought it was best to post here and let someone else take care of it. I doubt, unless Jagged85 is back, anyone is going to be arguing for re-instating it. However, do you believe the entire thing needed to be struck? If it was ten short paragraphs in length, I believe at least two were encyclopaedic, just stuck in a bunch of synthesis and unreferenced/falsely referenced statements. That section could, theoretically, be made to work in the future (with a very drastic rewrite), but, pursuant to the first sentence in this comment, I believe I'm not the one to do it (my reputation around WikiProject Islam is such that even if my edits are generous to to the Islamic religion or Muslims, let alone factual, I'm likely going to get taken to AN/I - talk about bias in action, look at the scrutiny something like "Genesis creation myth" receives, and then trawl through any twenty articles dealing with Islam... do you notice a difference in the level of criticism, in both senses of the word, displayed therein?). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 12:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Two reports of a conference held in London[edit]

Two reports of a conference held in London, convened by the Deen Institute in January 2013, which help to illustrate some of the positions being taken:

Here's also the homepage for the meeting. Jheald (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of Jahiz and his book on animals?[edit]

From the lead of Al-Jahiz: "In biology, Al-Jāḥiẓ introduced the concept of food chains and also proposed a scheme of animal evolution that entailed natural selection, environmental determinism and possibly the inheritance of acquired characteristics." I actually own a copy of Jahiz's book on animals in two volumes from Mu`assasah al-A'lami publishers and it's an awesome book considering its era. Couldn't information on his views be worked into this article? I know it predates the formal proposal of evolution much later, but it certainly seems relevant as a precursor to Islamic views on the theory. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against the inclusion of Al-Jahiz's views in this article, but they're written, there has to be a new category, as they do not fit into the current categories in the article.

Yster76 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted that sentence from the lead of Al-Jahiz as it was a blatant copyright violation, a near straight copy of one isolated sentence from an overview which pays very lttle attention to Al-Jahiz and leaves questions open, such as what it means by "animal evolution". Do you have a secondary source explicitly connecting the views expressed in Jahiz's book on animals with evolution, to comply with our no original research requirements? As that indicates, the book is a primary source which can only be used with great care to avoid introducing our own interpretation or synthesis. . dave souza, talk 17:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have seen secondary sources on the web and in print mentioning al-Jahiz even before I checked the lead for his Wikipedia article - I was merely quoting it as a convenient means of getting the idea across. I didn't mean to suggest that we use his book as a source either; I only mentioned the book to show that what I have seen in web and print sources about his ideas being innovative is indeed true. I can run a search just for what's out there on the web regarding his work, though going back to the books could take a week or so. Which I don't mind, but I want to make sure others are on board for when I post what I find here on talk. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Probably not worth wasting your time on, in light of recent discussions at talk:Evolution and talk:Al-Jahiz, sections 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 15. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussions give the impression to a layman such as myself that the issue is a lack of secondary sources considered authoritative in the field of the history of science. I have never studied the subject formally, but perhaps you guys (User:Dominus Vobisdu and User:Dave souza) could comment on whether these sources claiming he was an early scientist discussing the existence of the food chain are authoritative or not, at least for the statement "Jahiz suggested the idea of a food chain": one from Princeton U Press, one from Pearson Education, one from U of California Press, one from Springer Publishing, one published by LIT Verlag and one from Ashgate which I believe is a commercial publisher. All pretty much repeat the same quote that he suggested the food chain - can anything be done with these? It seems as though it could be mentioned that "the idea of a food chain has been attributed to Jahiz," as even if the sources aren't necessarily authoritative, they do pass Wikipedia:Verifiability and seem, at least to this editor, to pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Not really. The food chain doesn't really have much to do with evolution, and doesn't say anything about Islamic views on evolution, the topic of this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Obvious yet incredible observation, sir. Since I have your ear, I'd like to ask some other questions here on this talk page (or on your talk if you could continue answering questions): are these sources enough to support such a statement on the article about Jahiz himself, are they enough to support such a statement on the food chain article, and would the following sources together warrant mention of Jahiz's ideas on the natural selection article: Pearson Education again, another one from Springer, one from Icon Books which appears to be commercial, Newsouth Books which also appears to be a commercial publisher and Infobase Publishing.
Sorry if these are a lot of questions but I am a big fan of Jahiz and was flipping through some of his books recently and it got me thinking about what more could be contributed to his Wikipedia article (via secondary sources, of course). Thank you so much for any information you could give on the validity of said sources and the possibility of including them in any articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read the talk page discussions I linked to above and you will see that there are problems with the material you will find on Al-Jahiz. Specifically, Islamic boosterism. I once watch Al-Khalili's documentary on Islamic science with a pretty open mind, but he turned me off quickly with his blatant exaggerations. The claims I've read about Al-Jaziz and evolution seem incredibly far-fetched. The translation I've seen of the passage where he supposedly discusses evolution is an obvious hoax. Not being able to read Arabic myself, I am rather disposed to reject the more grandiose claims. Another thing that's always at the back of my mind is that we had an editor here who added Islamic boosterism to thousands of articles before getting banned. Whild I have a great deal of respect for the actual accomplishments of Islamic scientists, boosterism (of any religious or national group) makes me sick. Good luck, but be careful. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The Pearson and Uni of California books give a more distanced perspective, indicating that Al-Jahiz's book of animals included thoughts on natural or environmental explanations of variation which have been proposed by several scholars as a precursor of evolutionary ideas. They're still very brief comments, but I think that sort of tentative indication would be a reasonable point to include. . dave souza, talk 20:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey User:Dave souza and User:Dominus Vobisdu, sorry for the delay. Yes, boosterism is a huge NPOV violation and I'm not surprised to hear that some have used Wikipedia as a means of Islamic boosterism on science articles. This is worrying. We should be careful, and with that I'm uneasy about this myself. We do have sources which seem alright simply mentioning it, but do you guys know any other editors with experience in the history of science who could perhaps comment? One or two more might be enough to settle whether Jahiz should be mentioned in this article or not. If you still have the time, we could deal with the article on Jahiz himself after that and just finish the issue for good - just a simple "should this issue be mentioned in Wikipedia or not." I'm only suggesting more input because I really don't feel comfortable calling it either way at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
As above, in my view it's worthwhile including a brief mention that Al-Jahiz's book of animals included thoughts on natural or environmental explanations of variation which have been proposed by several scholars as a precursor of evolutionary ideas, but these translations or interpretations have been contested. That way we mention this well publicised issue while making it clear that it's tentative. The exact wording should be based on the sources. . dave souza, talk 17:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fair if it's going to be mentioned at all. I'm not entirely comfortable writing the passage myself, so let me suggest this and see if it's found acceptable to others (though others are free to say if they feel it shouldn't be included in the article at all):
"The theories of 9th-century Arab writer Al-Jahiz have been syggested as a precursor to evolutionary ideas, though these interpretations of his work have been contested."(sources)
Is that an alright place to start? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

20 january 11.52[edit]

Can anyone check this edit for consistency? Problem is that the pdf in the ref does not load...!Super48paul (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islamic views on evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)