Darwin and God: can they co-exist? [A Muslim scientist checks in]

The Guardian (UK) ^ | July 3, 2006 | by Inayat Bunglawala

[agere_contra]

a book written by the Persian Muslim mathematician

As you say - a few generations after the IslamoBorg arrived, the mighty Euphrates civilisation gave us no more science and no more art. They were reduced to repetitive calligraphy and the crushing weight of Allah.

[nmh]

"Evolution does not attempt to address the origins of life. It only notes what has been observed to happen to that life once it has been created. Evolution and creationism co-exist perfectly. "

Yes, it does "attempt" to address the origins of life through the hilarious "big bang". Suddenly life "evolved" out of nothing that was alive. You can NOT have it both ways. ONLY God gives life - not inanimate chemicals. Also life did not "evolve" into sophisticated forms. It is sheer lunacy to even imagine that life started without God who gives it.

"We observe mutations every day -- children unfortunately born blind or with extra or fewer limbs. Those are examples of negative mutations. However, once in a while there is a mutation that, while unusual, actually BENEFITS the child. If the benefit is great enough, the opposite sex will instinctively find it attractive and the mutated gene will be passed down to the next generation. That is evolution. "

Whenever there is a "mutation" it ALWAYS LOSES important information and degrades. ALWAYS. A deformity is NOT a "mutation". It is a LOSS OF INFORMATION that causes the defect. For example, a child born with defects in the 50's was typically a result of a Pregnancy supplement that caused it. I forget the name of it ... IT caused the defect. The defect may also be genetic - diabetes and on it goes. Name a "mutation" that benefits the child. A "mutation" or LOSS OF INFORMATION is NEVER a "benefit". You confuse "mutation" or "evolution" with what it really is - a LOSS OF INFORMATION that is needed to be, loosely put, perfect. Genetic defects are NOT "evolution".

"Darwin, as a Christian, never suggested that God did not have a hand in the development or progression of human life."

Darwin was NOT a Christian. He rejected Christianity.

[nmh]

I don't expect to EVER meet Darwin.

I'll be in heaven.

[nmh]

"Who do YOU have your FAITH in?"

You: This isn't a matter of faith, but of logic and evidence. While religion varies from place to place; science is universal.

Me: You have put your "faith" in man. The "evidence" evolutionist use for their "faith" is not kosher. Anyone who examines their "evidence" knows that. Evidence it universal and how you interpret it may vary if you insist on using bogus science as your yardstick. Yes, "religion" may vary - but like "evidence" there is ONE correct interpretation - something cannot be true and false at the same time.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yes, it does "attempt" to address the origins of life through the hilarious "big bang"."

The Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with the ToE, nor has it ever. The Big Bang theory also doesn't attempt to address the origins of life.

"Whenever there is a "mutation" it ALWAYS LOSES important information and degrades. ALWAYS. "

Nonsense. This shows an absolute ignorance of genetics, nor do you have a clue what information is.

"A "mutation" or LOSS OF INFORMATION..."

Most mutations are not losses of information.

"Darwin was NOT a Christian. He rejected Christianity."

I'll give you credit for getting that right.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I don't expect to EVER meet Darwin.

I'll be in heaven."

Very presumptuous of you, on both accounts.

[edpc]

Just sourcing the word.....not the concept

[balrog666]

Very presumptuous of you, on both accounts.

Thump-thump-thump. Recognize that sound?

That's how literalists do their "thinking".

[NicknamedBob]

"I don't expect to EVER meet Darwin. I'll be in heaven. "

Oh, right! That part with the wall around it. Let me know when you want to see the rest of it.

[freedomfiter2]

It is much easier to take Genesis as an allegorical account of the beginning and leave the science alone.

It's only easier if you throw out key doctrines of Christianity.

[GSlob]

Nope, and Darwin wins.

[tophat9000]

This isn't a matter of faith, but of logic and evidence. While religion varies from place to place; science is universal.

I would disagree... physical laws are universal or to be more precise what is universal true is a physical law

What science has contended are physical law have varies from place to place; and over time.... and have varies as much as any religion ... and science is still in a state of flux

And that a good thing in science ... when science become dogmatic with it own heretic to be made outcast if they question ... it becomes bad religion ...

Good science is open to challenge, change and overthrow of ideas via logical thinking, to development of a theory to predict, to test of the prediction to validate...and back to logical thinking to challenge how universally true that theory premise can be apply (are there any hidden unaccounted for variable)... ask Newton and Einstein....

Science is not universal truth...science is a methodology to try to discover what is universal true an valid and come from the school of rational thinking

...religion also claim to seek universal truth but via a different route

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Darwin's ideas on religion and his ideas on evolution are separate issues.

Not if you declare that your position is a binary one.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Even the literalists initially supported Darwin (you will note that the order of creation, according to the Bible, is more or less the same order promulgated by Darwinists). It was Darwinists themselves who rejected Darwinists, not vice-versa. The early debates between these two camps are very telling...

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

While religion varies from place to place; science is universal.

ROTFLOL. I shouldn't drink while reading such funny stuff.

[JHBowden]

There aren't different kinds of science, like "Jewish science" or "bourgeois science."

Science does aim for truth. You spoke of universal truth, which is redundant since there is not any other kind. The status of the propositions of science change as the evidence changes, but this is a characteristic of all rational belief.

Note that this is not a property of religious belief. Religious beliefs are irrational since they're taken on faith, but it doesn't make them untruthful, since unbased beliefs may still end up being true.

The real source of the debate arises when radical Muslims and Christians and so forth claim their sacred texts are inerrant; that's what motivates the irrational attacks on science.

[MineralMan]

"I'll be in heaven."

Wow! Pretty good vaunting of yourself, I'd say.

Here's something to think about, nmh, regarding that. Assuming that you're correct about there being a heaven and a deity in charge of it, what will you do when that deity asks you,

"Why did you put stumbling blocks in front of others, NMH? Yes, I created the universe, or at least got it all started. I left plenty of evidence of how I did it, too. Most people recognized that evidence and learned a lot. But you, on the other hand, ignored the evidence I left of how things were created and insisted on a silly thing, causing some people to misunderstand the Bible. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Now, go ahead and come in, but you'll have to take some remedial classes before you get your wings, dear."

[NicknamedBob]

"It was Darwinists themselves who rejected Darwinists, not vice-versa. The early debates between these two camps are very telling..."

It is difficult to refute this kind of posited statement.

One of the ironies in this type of discussion is that religion tends to evolve over time, just like any living thing.

Eventually, the adamantine preachers will be in total alignment with the evolutionary protocal, at which point they will screech, "See! That's what we have been saying, all along!"

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It is difficult to refute this kind of posited statement.

Maybe it is difficult, because it is true? I suggest reading some the early debates. They are very interesting. It has been years since I've done so, but they were, at the time, very eye-opening to me.

[NicknamedBob]

"It was Darwinists themselves who rejected Darwinists, not vice-versa."

Please don't tell me this is what you intended to say. If so, please explain what "vice-versa" would constitute.