Skip to comments.Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?
Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
click here to read article
You're kidding, right?
Nope. The statement -- "Islamofascists are 'creationists'" -- is completely nonsensical to me.
You miss the ironic humor of the comment... Oh! well..
Actually man does evolve when he is born again into another "creature".. You know, evolving from a primate to a spirit..
I don't have personal knowledge of the beliefs of any particular Islamofacists, but I assume they would mirror the teachings of Islamic scholars. There are dozens of Islamic websites devoted to creationism. I am not aware of a single Islamic teacher who argues for evolution or for the legitimacy of science as a way of acquiring knowledge. If you are interested in the subject you could start here.
Wikipedia: Islamic creationism
Check out some of the links to Islamic creationism/antievolution sites. Much of the material is virtually identical to the output of American creationist orgs like the ICR. Islamic and Christian antievolution orgs have cooperated in conferences and the like.
The wiki article notes some differences in emphasis and flavor, and that Islam has liberals who accept evolution just like Christianity does, but to say you can't even imagine fundamentalist Muslims being creationists...
You're really not putting us on?
Actually I got it, and replied more or less in kind.
"The sky is purple with pink polka dots," declared Free Republic poster Amelia.
(i.e., just because someone says it, doesn't make it so.)
You don't have to know the specific content of their belief; one has only to look at what they do. That speaks volumes. Unless one is deaf.
Islamic teachers drill the Q'uran by rote. That is considered to be the only knowledge a man needs to have. Not for nothing did Pope Benedict XVI aver that what is lacking in Islamic belief is reason, or any appreciation for the intellect, or the life of the mind. Don't forget, all that is required of a faithful Muslim believer is submission to Allah. That's it. The mind turns out to be quite a useless thing, on that philosophy.
But you are right, there is that rare Muslim scholar who will attack evolution theory. Notably, a Turk whose name now escapes me, but who's got a dandy website: darwinism refuted. The scholarship behind the work you'll find there seems unimpeachable.
Once upon a time, the Arabs/Muslims were among the leading scholars and scientists on the planet. Alas, Wahhabism took care of that. Nowadays "Arab scholar" or "Muslim scholar" are virually oxymorons....
p.s.: The Turk I mentioned is Harun Yahya, a pen name used by Adnan Oktar, “a prominent Turkish intellectual.”
Very well then, show me a definition of "creationism" that defines it in terms of personal behaviour, without any reference to religious beliefs.
You'll find the occasional comment or gloss that will indicate that it is an Islamic version of creationism (especially in the online preface here a section about how evolution, not Islam, is the real source of terrorism) but for the most part the substance, the arguments, the "evidence," the tone, the rhetoric, is all but indistinguishable from American antievolutionary creationism. Evolution as the source of racism, fascism and communism; lack of transitionsal forms; evolution = materialism. It's all in there.
Baloney. You have that backwards. There are liberal Muslims that accept evolution (although, as the wiki entry notes, even many of them insist on the special creation of Man) but theologically conservative Muslims -- including ALL of the "Islamofascists" who you (supposedly) can't imagine being creationists -- virtually all reject evolution.
Show me a counter example. Show me a fundamentalist Islamist who accepts evolution. I won't hold my breath.
Stultis, let's face it: you call any person who disagrees with orthodox evolution theory a "creationist." And so does Wikipedia. I find Wikipedia to be quite "progressive" in the way it presents its subject matter -- progressive, that is, in the same sense that a Hillary Clinton or a Ted Kennedy is said to be "progressive." (Seems more like regressive to me....)
To me, a creationist involves a lot more than just being "anti-evo." Indeed, there may be creationists who don't object to evolution theory in principle (indeed, I am such a one). The objection, if there be any, is to the idea that life and biology are the result of a purely materially based, more or less accidental development. As Jacques Monod said, matter and "pure blind chance" are the root of life and its evolution. That no creationist can accept.
I really hope that the ‘08 election does not address this issue, because it’s always embarrasing to see educated politicians pretend to believe in creationism hocus-pocus in order to placate the zealots of the Republican base. If the future of this country falls into the hands of people that believe the earth is 4,000 years old, then God freakin’ help us. America is great because of our science and technology, not Biblical literalism. Do we have to have another Scopes Monkey Trial? What do you want to chuck next, the general theory of relativity, radio carbon dating, the periodic table, calculus? I hate this hillbilly nonsense.
Yeah. It's all there in actual history, too. Darwinist evolution theory -- whether Darwin foresaw this or not, and regardless of whether he'd approve it or not -- is at the core of every single "progressive movement" that has come down the pike over the past century and more.
It is our belief that Allah is the creator of the universe and all its contents. The concept of evolution is un Islamic. The animals, humans, etc all were created by the command of Allah and will be created by His command. The ever changing conclusions of the scientists is sufficient of their false research.
It is permissible to use hair gel.
And Allah Knows Best
For: Mufti Ebrahim Desai
The concept of evolution is wrong.
As Muslims, we believe that Allah created human being. We are not transformed from monkeys and apes.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
The Quraan and the Ahaadith are very clear on this issue. Allah Ta'aala had created Adam (Alayhis Salaam) in the form of a human being. He was the first human being created in the world. Thereafter Allah Ta'aala created Hawwa (Alayha Salaam) as a wife for Adam (AS). From their relationship the human race began.
Hence the issue of evolution is not acceptable to muslims.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ahmad Suliman
CHECKED & APPROVED: Mufti Ebrahim Desai
What would be the point of that? That's like me asking you to make a defense of orthodox Darwinism without reference to a religion or a philosophy. I doubt you could do it.
It demonstrates that there's no "personal bias" involved.
Or is "creationism" like "art" - you can't tell me what it is, but you know it when you see it (ie totally subjective).
Why? What exactly would that prove?
I think your premise basically boils down to: Smart people believe in evolution; dumb people (e.g., creationists and Islamofascists) do not. I do believe this is the way Richard Dawkins regards the matter. (His and Dennett's so-called "brights" vs the benighted religious believers.)
This is moving faster than I can respond, and others have said most of what I would want to say. Accepting evolution would be a rare thing for a devout Muslim.
When I say creationist, I have some rather specific minimal criteria in mind. The most critical aspect of creationism is denial that natural process can lead to speciation and have, in fact, resulted in the common descent of multi-celled life on this planet. It’s a bit more complex for single celled organisms, since genetic sharing is commonplace.
The phrase “natural processes” needs some discussion. When I use it I do not hypothesize about how or why the universe exists or why the rules are what they are. I simply assert that the behavior of things is consistent over time, and no entity reaches in to cause earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroids, or evolution. The game board is set up and the game is played by the rules. I do not rule out the possibility of miracles; I simply don’t see any reason for science to deal with them. I know of no case where science could add anything to a claim for a miraculous occurrence. Nor do I know of any large scale event, such as evolution, the requires postulating a miracle.