 |
 |
 |
| |
Evolution Substitution
Bismillah.
I’ve been reading both sides of the evolution-versus-creation argument. While reading the comments of an online article concerning fifteen responses to creationist logic, I came across an interesting rebuttal.
The comment first quotes a section of the article:
“All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.”
The comment proceeds to say:
”You could change "subatomic particles" for "God", and "cloud chambers" for "life", and it would make the same sense. Yet this same argument is called uncertain and other things, when applied that way. Intellectual hypocrisy.”
If you make the aforementioned changes, along with a few others, it comes out like this:
“All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Believers cannot see Allah directly, for instance, so we verify His existence by watching for telltale tracks that He leaves in life. The absence of direct observation does not make a believer’s conclusions less certain.”
In other words, Allah leaves us signs in the world, so although we cannot see Allah, we can see the signs that constitute clear evidence for his existence. (For a list of these signs, refer to the Quran.)
I believe that there is a reconciliatory hypothesis between the theories of evolution and creation. Allah has created laws of nature, and He uses those laws to govern the universe in all its aspects. Science is a witness to this. Who is to say that Allah has not created a law that governs the gradual genetic alteration of organisms? No one but Him has that authority, and He has not revealed any signs ruling out this possibility.
Allah knows best.
Want to comment on this Blogs?
Sign up to Edit Red and you will be able to comment on Blogs and get access to: Upload your own stories and poems, get readers and their feedback, promote your work...
|
 |
|
[Back to top]
|
|
|
|
| The evolutionists have got to tunnel end already,no escape rout again. It is natural that people fight to hell when boxed to a close corner. Well done Jithmud. Keep on keeping on. Comerade |
|
|
If you have faith in something, it pervades every branch and twig of existence. Science is no exception. And even to those without faith, Islam for one has proven itself to be vastly scientific. It revealed 1400 years ago what has only been discovered in the past few centuries, and decades even. Discovery goes on.
As for divisiveness... I call it variety. It all depends on your perspective. Religion has actually been the motive for man's greatest achievements. Humanitarian work was and is done for God (under His many different names and concepts). Wars were and are fought for material reasons, sometimes under the flag of faith.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. |
 |
Comment by: Odogg24 - 2008-05-15 21:24
|
|
| I just do not understand why religion is credible in the science realm. First of all, the 7 billion people on this planet cannot even agree on one single religion. So how are are we to say that Hindus know more than Muslims, or Christians are right and Buddhists are wrong. I am not against creationism, just the divisiveness it brings. It seems to breed intoloerance. |
|
|
| These are just my current thoughts. I have a deeper theory that doesn't rule out creation, and it includes evolution to some extent. Keep an eye out for more posts; I intend to continue on this same topic. |
 |
Comment by: Jorbian - 2008-05-12 20:57
|
|
I do not know how you could come to such conclusions. If you study science, God has left undesputable evidence of creation. Creatures like the bombradier beetle, the slowing of the speed of light, extremely rapid fossilization, and so much evidence that it is overwelming. While I shall say that it does not matter all that much, science points back to God and scientists for the most part ignore that.
I will say that I am making these arguments from a strictly theist perspective, as my religous beliefs differ greatly from yours, however from whatever thiestic perspective it still kind of works. |
| 1 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|