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.

[Natural Law]

"Perhaps the above has something to do with why the presigious Temple of Darwin journal..."

So what exactly or who exactly is this Temple of Darwin you keep posting about? Is there an address or photos of it or is it a fabrication like so many of your other conclusions?

[GodGunsGuts]

It’s in our public schools, our universities, and the MSM...and most of all, it’s in your heart.

[Natural Law]

"It’s in our public schools, our universities, and the MSM...and most of all, it’s in your heart."

Oh, so its a metaphor. You have to appreciate the difficulty keeping up with literalists who rely on metaphor and allegory to communicate their points.

[vpintheak]

Seriously. Get off your high horse, you are nothing but a man. And a snotty, smarmy one at that.
By the way; if you post retarded comments (like your was), a smart person (like you think you are) should know that you are going to get comments of the like.

Hypothesis: If I post stupid crap, I will get stupid replies from my stupid crap post.

Test: Post stupid crap

Analyze: Read and record the response to my stupid crap comment

Communicate Results: If I post stupid crap, most people will respond to that stupid crap post by posting stupid crap back.

M I r tooo dum???

[count-your-change]

Maybe it's a slow news day at the NYT but Hameed’s article was in Sciencemag about a year ago (Dec. 2008). His contention was that, given the low percentage of acceptance of evolution amongst Muslims, the theory needed better PR, disassociating it from atheism and emphasizing its practical side. Or “How Ya Gonna Make It Bi-olo-gy Without Chucky D.?”

That being the case I would doubt that “international academics” invited to the Carnegie sponsored conference would include noisy atheist/Darwinist, Richard Dawkins, whose books aren't exactly best sellers in Muslim countries.

Like an African bushman who wonders why he must wear a three piece suit and wing-tips to be considered “civilized”
Muslims might well wonder why they must accept evolution to be considered “modern and educated”.

[betty boop]

Even some Muslim theologians joined the Darwin bandwagon

"Some" is definitely not "all" Muslims.

There is a huge creationist movement in Turkey right now that is totally discombulating the few remaining Darwinist scientists there. It completely undermines Darwinist assumptions of common ancestor and natural selection. It posits the Cambrian explosion as the Creation event. Thus this model of creationism says that the Creation was about 150 billion years ago; after that time the species remained remarkably stable (that is, not producing a plethora of speciation willy-nilly, as Darwin's theory seems to predict). The major exponent of this creationist theory is Harun Yaya, whose article I read in the outstanding book, Divine Action and Natural Selection, edited by Joseph Seckbach and Richard Gordon (2008).

Sigh. I bought the book; I read it; I loved it for the amazing range of coverage of its subject matter from a diversity of scientific disciplines (biologists, physicists, astronomers, astrophysicists) and opinion. Because many of the articles are followed by "discussions" with critics of the authorial point of view, there were some really fun "food fights" going on. Probably the most fun involved responses to Harun Yaya.... LOLOL!

Anyhoot, I'd love to quote you from these exchanges here but alas!!! I cannot find the book!!! I can't imagine I lent it to anyone. I just can't find it.... Jeepers, I hope I don't have to replace it (it wasn't cheap).

Great book. Highly recommended. :^)

[GodGunsGuts]

Yes there is a huge and growing Muslim creationist movement based in Turkey, and rapidly spreading throughout the Muslim world—especially to Muslim’s who reside in the West. This should open up many opportunities for Christian missionaries, as it will make it easier to preach the gospel message, while at the same time helping us fight the War on Terror, because Muslim’s who become part of this particular creationist movement are taught to denounce terrorism being waged in the name of Islam.

Having said that, Muslim creationists are not without a few disturbing ideas of their own. For instance, they are still opposed to the state of Israel (but not violently so), are prone to wacky conspiracy theories, and most of them long for an (albeit peaceful) restoration of the Ottoman Empire...which, ironically, would be a step up for much of the Muslim world...but a unified Islam, even a peaceful Islam, is a very disturbing prospect, no matter which way you slice it, as the Jihadis would be gunning to make said unity their own 24/7.

[editor-surveyor]

You are too emotional on this. - I’m a big supporter of Israel, but that doesn’t include covering up the deeds of individual sages. Textual analysis supports the idea that the writers of the Koran were posessed of the knowledge and beliefs of the sages of the early centuries AD.

[editor-surveyor]

Nothing antisemitic about it. Its just a simple fact of history.

Is admitting that white europeans kept slaves Anti-European?

You are a true piece of work!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Islamic countries have schools that study biology?

[metmom]

The sewer of the self-righteous.

Kind of like the attitude of most of the evos on these threads, eh? Especially if someone takes a gander over to DC and sees what you guys have to say about FR and FReepers over there.

Get over yourself.

vpintheak is right about your attitude. It is not one that becomes someone who names the name of Christ, as I recall seeing you do.

Ooo, where have I heard that one before? I guess that door swings both ways, doesn't it now?

[whattajoke]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact

In science, a theory is the "highest" level an idea can achieve. Scientific theories do not "become" anything.

I have yet to see a snake change into a bird.

And if that is the demand you place on evolution, you'll never see it. Of course, nowhere has anyone suggested that a "snake turns into a bird" before your eyes. Except creationists attempting to disparage what the theory actually says.

Adaptation is not evolution.

Follow-on questions:

1. What caused the adaptation?
2. Why the need to adapt at all?
3. What sometimes happens to individuals who do not adapt?
4. If a population is geographically separated by, say, volcanic destruction and one population adapts to the new flora it must eat to survive - whereas the other population's food source remained unaffected... What then?
5. Given sufficient time, assuming you accept a 5 billion yo earth, what process "stops" those accepted adaptations from continuing to adapt over long stretches of time?

[betty boop]

Muslim creationists are not without a few disturbing ideas of their own.

Yes; the sort of socio-cultural "baggage" that any popularized scientific theory seems to accumulate today, be it Darwinian evolution or a variant of creationist theory, which Yaya-style Muslim creationism clearly is. (And Heaven knows that global Islam is a socio-cultural phenomenon, especially in its recently-revised virulently aggressive form....)

Having said that, I say: If you want to talk about SCIENCE, then you have to look directly at the theoretical ideas themselves. That's where the science is, if there is any — it's not to be found in the theory's popularizers.

And having said that, I found the missing book I mentioned in my last! And so I'd like to reference Yaya's article in order to demonstrate what I mean by that last statement.

The article is Chapter 15: Did Life on Earth Begin Suddenly and in Complex Forms?

By way of overview: Yaya has the irritating habit of citing scientists against scientists. He also has a way of separating evolutionary theory from paleontology. His critics tend to say he is an unprincipled quote-miner, taking people out of context in order to make a case of which they would disapprove.

But is this "quote-mining?":

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed.... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. [Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 146]

...Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. [Ibid., p. 140, 141, 227]

Doesn't look like a mined quote to me. These look like the statements of a scientist of integrity, honestly disclosing potential problems with his theory, and proposing directions for further research that could resolve them.

And so what does Yaya do? He brings in a raft of paleontologists to shed light on any correspondences that might exist between Darwin's theory and the current state of paleontology:

Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. — Edmund R. Leach, Rethinking Anthropology, 1981, p. 19

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. — David B. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolution Theory," Evolution, Sept. 1974, 28:467

Although an almost incomprehensible number of species inhabit Earth today, they do not form a continuous spectrum of barely distinguishable intermediates. Instead, nearly all species can be recognized as belonging to a relatively limited number of clearly distinct major groups. — Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Invertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 9.1997, p. 9.

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: (1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. (2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed." — Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History Vol. 86, 1977, p. 14

...[T]he Cambrian strata of rocks ... are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. — Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton, 1987, p. 229. [Yaha's emphasis]

These look like interesting issues to me. BTW, I really do not "have a [scientific theoretical] dog in this fight." As far as I'm concerned, evolution theory still deals with very open questions. I'm not gonna bet on a dog in a dog race....

And so, I find this observation deeply troubling:

Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress.... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection or gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it. — Stephen Jay Gould, Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College, 1980.

Well, that would be "just a start" of the list of critical questions that this crazy Muslim, Harun Yaya, has managed to compile. They look pretty serious to me. FWIW.

I am not an endorser or supporter of Harun Yaya or the cultural context in which he arises. I just think he raises some very interesting problems — which happen to be inconvenient to "doctrinal" Darwinism....

[RoadGumby]

I have yet to see a snake change into a bird. And if that is the demand you place on evolution, you'll never see it. Of course, nowhere has anyone suggested that a "snake turns into a bird" before your eyes. Except creationists attempting to disparage what the theory actually says. That is, at the core what the Theory of Evolution proposes, that one kind of animal can change into another, through intermediary forms, with the 'pressure' to do so provided by the environment or by mutation. This would require a process that would go against entropy (The tendancy towards disorder) and would require the increasing or adding of genetic information, when mutations and breeding actually reduces the amount thereof. Your Follow-on questions: 1. What caused the adaptation? This can be almost anything. Actually, Darwin described it well with the Finches of the Galopogos. Over several years, the climate varied, some years the seeds the Finches ate had thicker hulls. This 'selected' for survival, birds with bigger, heavier beaks. BUT, when the seeds returned to thinner hulls, so did the thinner beaks. Environment, mutations, predation, etc. Adaptation is not and should not be confused with 'evolution'. 2. Why the need to adapt at all? See above, but again, adaptation is not evolution. 3. What sometimes happens to individuals who do not adapt? They die. However, see the Darwinian example above.... the adaption was only around while needed. 4. If a population is geographically separated by, say, volcanic destruction and one population adapts to the new flora it must eat to survive - whereas the other population's food source remained unaffected... What then? Then you would have two populations of genetically related, like animals, both of which might adapt to new conditions. However, those two populations of, say for instance, gazelles, would STILL BE Gazelles. 5. Given sufficient time, assuming you accept a 5 billion yo earth, what process "stops" those accepted adaptations from continuing to adapt over long stretches of time? I am pleased to see you using the correct term 'adaptation, as it is NOT evolution. None of your questions would relate to the idea of how a fish would adapt to life as a frog.

[RoadGumby]

Dang html.

I have yet to see a snake change into a bird. And if that is the demand you place on evolution, you'll never see it. Of course, nowhere has anyone suggested that a "snake turns into a bird" before your eyes. Except creationists attempting to disparage what the theory actually says.

That is, at the core what the Theory of Evolution proposes, that one kind of animal can change into another, through intermediary forms, with the 'pressure' to do so provided by the environment or by mutation.

This would require a process that would go against entropy (The tendancy towards disorder) and would require the increasing or adding of genetic information, when mutations and breeding actually reduces the amount thereof.

Your Follow-on questions:

1. What caused the adaptation? This can be almost anything. Actually, Darwin described it well with the Finches of the Galopogos. Over several years, the climate varied, some years the seeds the Finches ate had thicker hulls. This 'selected' for survival, birds with bigger, heavier beaks. BUT, when the seeds returned to thinner hulls, so did the thinner beaks. Environment, mutations, predation, etc. Adaptation is not and should not be confused with 'evolution'.

2. Why the need to adapt at all? See above, but again, adaptation is not evolution.

3. What sometimes happens to individuals who do not adapt? They die. However, see the Darwinian example above.... the adaption was only around while needed.

4. If a population is geographically separated by, say, volcanic destruction and one population adapts to the new flora it must eat to survive - whereas the other population's food source remained unaffected... What then? Then you would have two populations of genetically related, like animals, both of which might adapt to new conditions. However, those two populations of, say for instance, gazelles, would STILL BE Gazelles.

5. Given sufficient time, assuming you accept a 5 billion yo earth, what process "stops" those accepted adaptations from continuing to adapt over long stretches of time? I am pleased to see you using the correct term 'adaptation, as it is NOT evolution. None of your questions would relate to the idea of how a fish would adapt to life as a frog. Oh, and I do not accept a 5 billion year old Earth. That should be better.

[GodGunsGuts]

You seem like a perfect candidate for the HMS Creation ping list. If you’re interested, feel free to drop me a PM :o)

[tacticalogic]

...Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. [Ibid., p. 140, 141, 227]

Is that a question about evolution, or a question about geology? If we're accepting that not finding all of the transitionals in the fossil record means they never existed, does only being able to find one of a particulary species mean that's all there ever was?

There's an implicit assertion in his arguments that there must be fossilized remains of every species there ever was. Geological theory does not support that as being a reasonable assumption.

[betty boop]

Is that a question about evolution, or a question about geology?

Better to ask Darwin about that: That was a direct quote from him.

As for my opinion, I'm glad to take Darwin at his word in this matter.

[Stultis]

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’.”

Actually the idea of "a hierarchy of beings" is Lamarckian evolution (and also "great scale of being" creationism) not Darwinism.

Diverging/branching evolution, combined with common descent, and eliminating the idea of spontaneous generation -- all of the features, besides the mechanism of natural selection, that were new and distinctive with Darwin -- are fundamentally incompatible with the traditional "hierarchy of beings" notion.

But, yeah. Generally speaking, some of every religion have claimed compatibility with evolution, and some of every religion have denied compatibility. The question is: Where do the nutters tend to fall in this?

=====

[tacticalogic]

That appears to be an intentional evasion designed to frustrate the discussion and engender hostility.