Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World

New York Times ^ | November 2, 2009 | Kenneth Chang

[Alter Kaker]

AMHERST, Mass. — Creationism is growing in the Muslim world, from Turkey to Pakistan to Indonesia, international academics said last month as they gathered here to discuss the topic.

But, they said, young-Earth creationists, who believe God created the universe, Earth and life just a few thousand years ago, are rare, if not nonexistent.

One reason is that although the Koran, the holy text of Islam, says the universe was created in six days, the next line adds that a day, in this instance, is metaphorical: “a thousand years of your reckoning.”

By contrast, some Christian creationists find in the Bible a strict chronology that requires a 6,000-year-old Earth and thus object not only to evolution but also to much of modern geology and cosmology, which say the Earth and the universe are billions of years old.

“Views of scientific evolution are clearly influenced by underlying religious beliefs,” said Salman Hameed, who convened the two-day conference here at Hampshire College, where he is a professor of integrated science and humanities. “There is no young-Earth creationism.”

But that does not mean that all of evolution fits Islam or that all Muslims happily accept the findings of modern biology. More and more seem to be joining the ranks of the so-called old-Earth creationists. They do not quarrel with astronomers and geologists, just biologists, insisting that life is the creation of God, not the happenstance consequence of random occurrences.

The debate over evolution is only now gaining prominence in many Islamic countries as education improves and more students are exposed to the ideas of modern biology.

The degree of acceptance of evolution varies among Islamic countries.

[Just mythoughts]

Teach the controversy! Let’s get American schools to teach Islamic Creationism, alongside Christian Creationism, Hindu Creationism, and, um, science.

You forgot the sarcasm tag, given who the majority of the secular no God in public education and the degreed crowds, voted for this past election.

[Just mythoughts]

Well, by current creationism logic, that means that creationism=islam. You and I know that is not the case, but we need to rigidly apply the same logic across the board, right? I will await the response of the YECers, but I won’t hold my breath. And I, too, have a database of quotes, folks.

Well well well, now it is the secularmites that run public education and the peered reviews that are first at the trough to maintain their fitness. And the majority of them voted for BamaKennedy.... And BamaKennedy told US that he believes in that 'scientific methodology' and has a partnership with his 'god' to decide who lives and who dies... MMMM mmm mMMm And there is an old saying that he who laughs last laughs longest... some of US are waiting for our opportunity to begin our laughter.

Oh and I have NO doubt this earth is very very very old and this earth is marked with the evidence of that rebellion in the age that was. Clean up time is not that far away in the sun sets of days.

[tlb]

Muslims showing how the new Dark Ages are on the march. And some here are proudly in step with their ignorance, pounding the drum with new threads daily. It’s surreal.

[Just mythoughts]

Muslims showing how the new Dark Ages are on the march. And some here are proudly in step with their ignorance, pounding the drum with new threads daily. It’s surreal.

Oh the ignorance is surreal alright. But as it is Written these things need be. Got to admire all those educated folk that voted for BamaKennedy's scientific methodology...

And if you really believe in the theory of the fittest survive then by 'logic' there is no controlling legal authority, not even a peeeeered review has standing in deciding who survives.

[freedumb2003]

>>Clean up time is not that far away in the sun sets of days.<<

2012?

;)

[Alter Kaker]

Got to admire all those educated folk that voted for BamaKennedy's scientific methodology...

I'm not sure I follow.

Are you saying Obama's campaign platform was "science" or "scientific methodology?" Because that's clearly ludicrous. Of course it wasn't.

Or that Obama's supporters were only "educated folk?" Because that's nonsense as well. Exit polls showed that Obama won a majority of all educational brackets. Obama got 63% of the vote from high school drop outs, yet "only" 58% of the vote from people with graduate degrees.

Sounds like you have a problem with education that has nothing to do with Obama, but that's your crutch.

[metmom]

Teach the controversy! Let’s get American schools to teach Islamic Creationism, alongside Christian Creationism, Hindu Creationism, and, um, science.

Well, if we're going to teach one creation account in the public schools evolution, the secular humanist/atheist one) then we might as well teach them all.

If not, then don't teach any.

[backwoods-engineer]

the next line adds that a day, in this instance, is metaphorical: “a thousand years of your reckoning.”

This Chang guy is clearly ignorant of Christianity. The Christian Bible says the same thing (Koran probably copied it), in 2nd Peter 3:8. Correspondingly, there are also old-earth creationists in Christianity, like me.

The NYT shouldn't even write about Christianity, since they are so ignorant of it.

[Alter Kaker]

And if you really believe in the theory of the fittest survive then by 'logic' there is no controlling legal authority, not even a peeeeered review has standing in deciding who survives.

You obviously believe some cartoon parody of what evolution is supposed to mean.

Evolution explains the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. It has nothing to do with the validity of invalidity of "legal authorities." It's not a values statement. It's simply an observation of how alleles compete and survive.

[Alter Kaker]

Well, if we're going to teach one creation account in the public schools evolution, the secular humanist/atheist one) then we might as well teach them all.

Fine. I have no problem with that. But one of those creation accounts is science, based on empirical observation, and the others are religion. Teach science in science class, and the others in a comparative religion or world literature class.

[Just mythoughts]

2012? ;)

Not a date setter or a date setter follower, I just pay attention to the events as they unfold. Could well begin in 2010 at the peoples House.

[RoadGumby]

Your tagline: Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, it should be approached with an open mind.... At least I can drop an apple and see it fall, showing the gravitational theory in action. I have yet to see a snake change into a bird. Adaptation is not evolution.

Science is the testing of theories. Not necessarily the cataloging of facts. Hence, teaching ‘science’ is teaching of those theories.

At the core of the issue is this, the Bible is a book of faith, a book of the Word of God. It is a true book. And the prince of this world does not want that book to be read as The Word. It suits him to have it picked apart and mocked. And the cornerstone of his effort is to discredit Genesis, the book of creation, the first book. If that is not true, then what of the rest?

Ah, there is the slippery slope of it. IF one is to believe that God exists and that the bible is His Word, then it is essential that it be true, as God does NOT lie. But if Genesis be not true, then what of the rest?

I for one, after a lifetime of secular living, have come to believe in the Word of God. It has much to teach. Say what you will, mock it or believers if you will, lable believers as Luddites if you will, it does not change the Word.

[Just mythoughts]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying Obama's campaign platform was "science" or "scientific methodology?" Because that's clearly ludicrous. Of course it wasn't. Or that Obama's supporters were only "educated folk?" Because that's nonsense as well. Exit polls showed that Obama won a majority of all educational brackets. Obama got 63% of the vote from high school drop outs, yet "only" 58% of the vote from people with graduate degrees. Sounds like you have a problem with education that has nothing to do with Obama, but that's your crutch.

I do not know how to be more clear and precise. BamaKennedy and his crew are using The 'scientific methodology' a process by which a few decided who is most fit. And they are using the TOE to settle some scores while those now most fit are gorging themselves at the taxpayers trough and putting the rest of US into bondage. That system is not a new thing it originated back when the dinos walked this earth. Then a big bang.

[Just mythoughts]

You obviously believe some cartoon parody of what evolution is supposed to mean. Evolution explains the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. It has nothing to do with the validity of invalidity of "legal authorities." It's not a values statement. It's simply an observation of how alleles compete and survive.

I think you are trying to dab and whitewash over what fig leaves have hidden over a few thousand years. Alleles my right eye. Because it took proverbially speaking Moses seat to authorize the scientific methodology as public education. Now did I misread above, or did you say to teach the 'controversy'? In due time.

[Mr. Jeeves]

And, of course, many of the current rationales for young earth creationism were first devised by a Seventh Day Adventist, George McCready Price (and later cribbed, with scant attribution, by Southern Baptist Henry Morris), not directly based on the text of the Bible, but rather to support supposedly infallible visions by Adventist founding prophetiss Ellen G. White.

In short, the history of modern antievolutionism laced with marginal cultism.

Heh, heh - you can always tell when you've hit the target when no one bothers to respond to your post. Well done.

[metmom]

So, you think that yours should have pre-eminence just because it’s your opinion that you have a better reason than anyone else for teaching what you think is correct?

And it’s totally irrelevant what the majority of the populace wants as demonstrated by these polls?

Welcome to the USSA, where the self-appointed, self-described (alleged) intellectual elite gets to decide for everyone else what’s best for them. Screw the wishes of the majority of the parents who are paying their taxes to have their children educated. Nice. /s

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html

Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719

*******************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63

*******************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts

*******************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp

********************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63

********************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties

********************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/

*******************************************************
Should intelligent design be taught alongside the theory of evolution? Please answer this Poll.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2103111/posts

[GodGunsGuts]

Funny, Evolution minus a young earth is emerging in the Muslim world as well:

    Even some Muslim theologians joined the Darwin bandwagon: “Muslim writings from the tenth and eleventh centuries referred to a hierarchy of beings, from minerals to flora and fauna, and even argued that apes were lower forms of humans – more evidence for nineteenth-century Muslims that Darwin’s theory was ‘nothing new’.”
    How could such diverse religious traditions find common ground in Darwin?  The reasons are complex and somewhat counter-intuitive.  Elshakry argued that “One of the driving forces behind many of these scholars’ work was a desire to push back against the forces of Western imperialism.”  But wasn’t Darwin a European, you ask?  Actually, envy may have been more weighty a cause than a desire for enlightenment:

In response, defenders of non-Western faiths drew attention to the greater rationality of their creeds to defend themselves against Western charges of backwardness and superstition.  Many were keen to show that their traditions, unlike those of Western Europe, accepted, reinforced or had even anticipated the findings of modern science.  By embracing Darwin’s ideas, they emphasized that Christianity alone was in conflict with science.

She gives an example:

Muhammad Abduh, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, for instance, was worried about the inroads that missionaries had made into the educational system of the Muslim Ottoman lands.  He was also tired of critics pointing to Islam’s supposed inability to accommodate modern pedagogy and science.  In Science and Civilization in Christianity and Islam (1902), Abduh argued that, in contrast to Christianity, Islam was free of the conflict with science that had so violently plagued Christian civilization in Europe.  To stress this difference, he repeatedly wove references to Darwin and evolution into lectures on the exegesis of the Koran.

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200910.htm#20091029a

Perhaps the above has something to do with why the presigious Temple of Darwin journal Nature praises the state of science in Iran while criticizing the Christian West!

[Just mythoughts]

Heh, heh - you can always tell when you've hit the target when no one bothers to respond to your post. Well done.

You are correct that this is about 'target' practice. And it really is not about how old this earth is, it is about the fruit off the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that started this very old fairy tale, called TOE in the so called modern-era. And the cultist of the cults got themselves first in line at the taxpayers trough.

[RoadGumby]

emphasized that Christianity alone was in conflict with science.

We are, after all, called to be separate, apart, different, peculiar ;^)

We are called to walk by Faith, NOT by sight.

[rae4palin]

Great links.