Re: The Case Against Muslims who Accept Evolution

American Muslim wrote:

>       In its October 2-8 edition, the Turkish magazine Tempo published an
> article titled "Islam Accepts Darwin" as its cover story. That same article
> was also published in daily Hurriyet and on various Internet sites. Sabah
> columnist Emre Akoz cited the file as a reference in an article called
> "Islam Makes Peace with Darwin," dated October 2.
> 
>       The report in Tempo magazine was based on interviews with three
> academics from the Ankara University Theology Faculty. The teachers in
> question were of the view that the theory of evolution is compatible with
> Islam.
> 
>       However, that view is mistaken. There can be no question of Darwinism
> "being compatible" with Islam, because Darwinism violates the fundamental
> tenet of Islam, the fact that God created and fashioned the universe and all
> living things. Darwinism is a theory which was established to make people
> deny that truth.


This is your first factual error. It's not the last. Don't you think you 
should learn something about a subject you are criticizing?

Darwinism, if by that you mean the various theories advanced by Charles 
Darwin, among them common descent of species and the importance of 
natural selection in adaptive evolution, has nothing to do with whether 
God did or did not create the universe and all living things. Unless the 
claim is that he created them all at once, in roughly their present 
form, a few thousand years ago. But what if he created the universe and 
life a little at a time, using natural processes, over billions of 
years? Is that against Islam? (I see below that you think it is. But 
perhaps your interpretation of the Quran is in error. Isn't that possible?)

> It is essentially a theory which targets religion. In the
> same way that there can be no reconciliation between Islam and Marxism,
> which makes the invalid claim that "religion is the opium of the people," so
> there can be no reconciliation between Islam and Darwinism, which holds that
> "life is the product of chance."


Your second factual mistake. Darwinism makes no such claim.

>       Besides, there is no need to attempt such a reconciliation, because
> Darwinism has no scientific foundation. Contrary to what is thought, it is
> not "a scientific fact" but a falsehood maintained despite the scientific
> facts.


Your third factual mistake. I'm pretty sure you (or whoever you cut an 
pasted this article from) don't know much about the subject. Am I wrong?

I see from the arguments below that I'm right. None of them has anything 
to do with science, only with your interpretation of the Quran. I'm 
afraid that we don't have much to talk about in that case. I don't know 
much about interpreting the Quran, and whatever it says is not 
scientific evidence. If you consider scientific evidence to be 
irrelevant to the question, and I consider the Quran to be irrelevant, 
then we have no common ground for discussion. Except for one thing: 
science does indeed support Darwinism (depending on what you mean by 
it). If you want to reject the conclusions of science, that's fine. You 
are free to make your interpretation of the Quran your guide to truth. 
But don't make the mistake of thinking that science supports, or does 
not refute, your position.

[snip]