[Ugur]

As his personal opinion, Sheikh Keller thinks much like I humbly do: There must have been an evolution governed by Allah, but not in the way most evolutonists believe.

However, he unequivocally states that believing in evolution in the way most evolutonists believe is unbelief per se and makes one go beyond the pale of Islam. Read his own words: (Evolution and Islam)

---

To summarize the answer to your question thus far, belief in macro-evolutionary transformation and variation of non-human species does not seem to me to entail kufr (unbelief) or shirk (ascribing co-sharers to Allah) unless one also believes that such transformation came about by random mutation and natural selection, understanding these adjectives as meaning causal independence from the will of Allah. You have to look in your heart and ask yourself what you believe. From the point of view of tawhid, Islamic theism, nothing happens "at random," there is no "autonomous nature," and anyone who believes in either of these is necessarily beyond the pale of Islam.

Unfortunately, this seems to be exactly what most evolutionists think. In America and England, they are the ones who write the textbooks, which raises weighty moral questions about sending Muslim students to schools to be taught these atheistic premises as if they were "givens of modern science." Teaching unbelief (kufr) to Muslims as though it were a fact is unquestionably unlawful.

---

What about accepting the evolutionary story specifically about the "evolution" of the human species: Believing in that story is (normally) kufr. If you do believe in it, may Allah forgive you but come to your senses. Read Sheikh Keller again:

---

As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature" because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else.

---

Returning to his personal opinion again, he thinks evolution is not scientific, though it may be partly correct:

---

If evolution is not scientific, then what is it? It seems to me that it is a human interpretation, an endeavor, an industry, a literature, based on what the American philosopher Charles Peirce called abductive reasoning, which functions in the following way:

(1) Suprising fact A.
(2) If theory B were the case, then A would naturally follow.
(3) Therefore B.

Here, (1) alone is certain, (2) is merely probable (as it explains the facts, though does not preclude other possible theories), while (3) has only the same probability as (2). If you want to see how ironclad the case for the evolution of man is, make a list of all the fossils discovered so far that "prove" the evolution of man from lower life forms, date them, and then ask yourself if abductive reasoning is not what urges it, and if it really precludes the possibility of quite a different (2) in place of the theory of evolution.

---

May Allah guide all of us to the right path.


P.S. See the following web page regarding the unfortunately widespread myth that evolution is science and intelligent design is not (it was not written by Harun Yahya): Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?

[IbnMardhiyah]

The majority of Muslim parents quite effectively counter such nonsense taught in Western schools. When the kids come home, they teach them that we didn't evolve from apes and etc.

I don't know of a single Muslim colleague from since when I was a kid up until now, whether that Muslim is liberal or conservative, who believes that we evolved from apes, despite the fact that such a "belief" is exactly what was presented to us all throughout our time in elementary, junior, secondary, and post-secondary schooling.

[Ugur]

Some Muslim Islamicans do seem to agree with the story that humans evolved from a non-human species. As I quoted above, Sheikh Keller explains that the belief is kufr: "As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature" because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an.

[Ugur]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

The majority of Muslim parents quite effectively counter such nonsense taught in Western schools. When the kids come home, they teach them that we didn't evolve from apes and etc.

The situation here in Turkey is quite similar to the one in the west, and I know that, whatever their parents believe and teach their children, many students lose their faith in God and in Islam after they are taught that the theory of evolution based on random mutations (hence without a need for a God) is a "scientific truth" and that design by God is "only a religious dogma".

[Hanbali]

I have always had the theory that the fossils they supposedly have of Lucy--and other supposedly pre-human species--could just be when Allah [swt] turned certain races into apes and monkeys, as mentioned in the Quran. That would be ironic, since many think of these fossils as proof against God, but rather, I think they could be proof of God.

[Ugur]

Originally Posted by Hanbali

I have always had the theory that the fossils they supposedly have of Lucy--and other supposedly pre-human species--could just be when Allah [swt] turned certain races into apes and monkeys, as mentioned in the Quran. That would be ironic, since many think of these fossils as proof against God, but rather, I think they could be proof of God.

Or some of such fossils may be just ancient species of apes and some of them extinct human races.

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by Hanbali

I have always had the theory that the fossils they supposedly have of Lucy--and other supposedly pre-human species--could just be when Allah [swt] turned certain races into apes and monkeys, as mentioned in the Quran. That would be ironic, since many think of these fossils as proof against God, but rather, I think they could be proof of God.

...the heretic speaks.

[Revert]

Originally Posted by Ugur

Some Muslim Islamicans do seem to agree with the story that humans evolved from a non-human species. As I quoted above, Sheikh Keller explains that the belief is kufr: "As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature" because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an.

Like i said in the last thread before you ran and started this one, no one in that thread beleived this. Its your lack of knowledge on Evoloutionary theories and Practice that made you come to that conclusion.

Also the notion that you ware humble is flase as you clearly chastised the one sister on her knowledge even though it was far beyond yours.

[Ugur]

I didn't run from anywhere. I posted to the end as long as there was something to reply to. I started this thread because it has a different topic than the other. If you knew more about evolution than I do as you claim here, you would realize that all the "scientific" Islamicans who posted on the other thread agree with the above-mentioned story about the evolution of man. They believe that there were "hominids" who evolved to homo sapiens sapiens eventually. As Sheikh Keller says, this story is unbelief no matter you ascribe the process of man's so-called evolution to God or to nature. Therefore, these brothers and sisters must think better about their evolutionary beliefs to save their faith from jeopardy.

Also, it was the "sister" who was rude to me from the beginning to the end. I only responded. She chastised me and forced me to not disagree with her in bad, condescending manners just because I did not agree with her and agreed more with the intelligent design scientists than with the evolutionist establishment. Also I am sure she did not read the intelligent design articles that I quoted or linked. It seems that she just trusts in the evolutionist ideology of modern-day scientific establishment. This is obviously very convenient but also very wrong.

[Ugur]

I've been spending too much time in discussions recently. To focus on my studies I am leaving Islamica again.

Will the sisters and brothers who believe in the evolution of man from primitive hominids heed the warning from Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller? No matter what they do, I have done my best to lead them to think more open-mindedly. I hope that they will see that the philosophy of falsificationism that Karl Popper postulated and that the evolutionist establishment embraced is not a definite rule of science as they believe. It's a philosophy, plain and simple. It is dishonest to force people to accept this philosophy as if it is a God-given scientific truth.

The notion that Intelligent Design theory is fundamentally "unscientific" is based on the philosophy originated by Karl Popper (1902-1994), who postulated a set of rules for science known as "Falsificationism." The main idea is that a hypothesis or theory does not qualify as "scientific" unless it is "falsifiable" (which is independent of whether it is actually "true" or "false"). Popper is revered by evolutionists, but certainly even they would agree that we should not blindly accept his word as revealed truth.

When it is made clear that this definition of science is just a philosophy, what remains to do is to watch the debate about intelligent design and evolutionism with an open mind.

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by Ugur

I've been spending too much time in discussions recently. To focus on my studies I am leaving Islamica again.

Will the sisters and brothers who believe in the evolution of man from primitive hominids heed the warning from Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller? No matter what they do, I have done my best to lead them to think more open-mindedly. I hope that they will see that the philosophy of falsificationism that Karl Popper postulated and that the evolutionist establishment embraced is not a definite rule of science as they believe. It's a philosophy, plain and simple. It is dishonest to force people to accept this philosophy as if it is a God-given scientific truth.

The notion that Intelligent Design theory is fundamentally "unscientific" is based on the philosophy originated by Karl Popper (1902-1994), who postulated a set of rules for science known as "Falsificationism." The main idea is that a hypothesis or theory does not qualify as "scientific" unless it is "falsifiable" (which is independent of whether it is actually "true" or "false"). Popper is revered by evolutionists, but certainly even they would agree that we should not blindly accept his word as revealed truth.

When it is made clear that this definition of science is just a philosophy, what remains to do is to watch the debate about intelligent design and evolutionism with an open mind.

This article you posted doesn't prove anything, nor does it address the basic questions at hand. It is classic of everything that Creationists tend to do, namely support their argument not through evidence but by attacks on evolution. Even supposing one can show that evolution is incorrect, does that support Creationism? NO, it doesn't.

Tellingly, this entire article does nothing but discuss definitions, trying to make Creationism sound more scientific by changing the definition of "science." It does not, at any point, explain why Creationism is believable from a scientific perspective, or offer an alternative definition of what "science" is. The argument you've posted above in the form of this article does nothing to prove your point, it only demonstrates the author's poor understanding of science.

[Ugur]

Originally Posted by Khairan

This article you posted doesn't prove anything, nor does it address the basic questions at hand. It is classic of everything that Creationists tend to do, namely support their argument not through evidence but by attacks on evolution. Even supposing one can show that evolution is incorrect, does that support Creationism? NO, it doesn't.

Tellingly, this entire article does nothing but discuss definitions, trying to make Creationism sound more scientific by changing the definition of "science." It does not, at any point, explain why Creationism is believable from a scientific perspective, or offer an alternative definition of what "science" is. The argument you've posted above in the form of this article does nothing to prove your point, it only demonstrates the author's poor understanding of science.

What about Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller? He may not be a scientist but he is the expert on Islam. He says that evolution might have happened but that there has been no evolution of man. He goes on to state that it is kufr/unbelief to believe that humans have evolved from primitive hominids.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Ugur

What about Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller? He may not be a scientist but he is the expert on Islam. He says that evolution might have happened but that there has been no evolution of man. He goes on to state that it is kufr/unbelief to believe that humans have evolved from primitive hominids.

salam

why do you always say things that are misleading or untrue?

ws

[Ugur]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

salam

why do you always say things that are misleading or untrue?

ws

What that I said is misleading or untrue? The passage below is entirely from the Sheikh Keller article that I linked above:

As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature" because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else.