Evolution and Islam

[G L Wilson]

I suspect that evolution is not a problem for most Muslims.
I suspect that most Muslims are ignorant of facts.

Do you disagree or agree?

[Alexander III]

I suspect that most Muslims are ignorant of facts.


I suspect that you have never traveled out of the country your were born in?

[Red-Headed]

I think that the concept of evolution is a problem for quite a few religions. We seem to be in an educational obscurantism mode at the moment in the West. I stopped worrying about it.

[Jurt]

but evolution and religion do not contradict each other....

[Red-Headed]

but evolution and religion do not contradict each other....

I suppose it depends which religion you are talking about.

[SleepyWitch]

but evolution and religion do not contradict each other....

They do, if you take scripture literally. If you believe everything it says in the Bible/ Quran you'd have to believe in creationism, which rules out evolution. If you don't believe in creationism, you might just as well not believe any of the other stuff in the Bible, because how can you tell which bits to believe and which to discard?


I suspect that evolution is not a problem for most Muslims.
I suspect that most Muslims are ignorant of facts.
So are most other religious people, which is exactly why they have a problem with evolution.

[The Atheist]

I suspect that most Muslims are ignorant of facts.

Given the numbers of sects which teach creationism, I think you're probably right.


So are most other religious people, which is exactly why they have a problem with evolution.

I can't agree with that, however. Not that I have any respect for the Roman Catholic [or any other] church, one must concede that their position is that evolution is real, and it accounts for a majority of christians on its own. Many other sects think likewise, and the number of anti-evolution christians is actually quite small.

But very, very loud.

[Red-Headed]

Given the numbers of sects which teach creationism, I think you're probably right.

I honestly don't think it (evolution) means anything to them.

[JBI]

Simple logic - god created a world, but created it not at year 0, made it in year xbillion or whatever, and put it in a constant motion- it is easy to just say that, not that I believe it, but even if you hold to creation, God created light first, that is how the lights thousands of light years away have reached us by now.

[G L Wilson]

To me, religious people are utopians: for them very little of reality gets in.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Most Christians I've talked to believe in evolution.

[Delta40]

Isn't the stance that religious groups can concede to evolution on the basis that it is an act of God. He triggered the Big Bang

[OrphanPip]

Most Christians I've talked to believe in evolution.

The data suggests that most American Christians do not believe in evolution. The figures in Canada aren't much better, at around 30-40% of the population. Which always troubles me as a biologist because I see it as a serious sign of lack of scientific literacy in the public at large.

[Jack of Hearts]

In this reader's experience, there's usually been a problem understanding which argument is being talked about.

A number of times, upon speaking to Christians, this reader has discovered that they interpret evolution and fundamental cosmology as the same argument. While they intertwine, certainly, and one would never be wholly rectified without affecting the other, the acceptance of one does not necessarily come as a package deal with the other.

Perhaps the organized aspect of the religion is insinuating a domino theory within it's constituent as an implicit premise gone un-analyzed. Maybe that's inherent within the text itself. Who knows.

But loving people who believe wacky sht is indicative of enormous personal capacity.








J

[Stanislaw]

To me, religious people are utopians: for them very little of reality gets in.

I would say that is a rather inflammatory statement, on the verge of full out trolling, however: being an Utopian is not really a problem, the strive of humanity should be to create a utopia on earth. There is not really a good justification for constant hostility and the practice of nationalism. Just because life on our planet is not sunshine and lollipops is not a good reason to give up on an ideal that strives for harmony.

For the purposes of clarification, I am not a religious person, I just feel that humans should work towards a universal peace so that we may better ourselves as a whole and create a better future for our descendants.


Given the numbers of sects which teach creationism, I think you're probably right.



I can't agree with that, however. Not that I have any respect for the Roman Catholic [or any other] church, one must concede that their position is that evolution is real, and it accounts for a majority of christians on its own. Many other sects think likewise, and the number of anti-evolution christians is actually quite small.

But very, very loud.

Well said... there a lunatics all over the place (flat earthers, moon landing conspiracists). Even if I disagree with the teachings of a particular group, or sect of the population, is no reason to ignore facts and judge that group only from my own experiences.


They do, if you take scripture literally. If you believe everything it says in the Bible/ Quran you'd have to believe in creationism, which rules out evolution. If you don't believe in creationism, you might just as well not believe any of the other stuff in the Bible, because how can you tell which bits to believe and which to discard?


So are most other religious people, which is exactly why they have a problem with evolution.

I agree that there a vocal group of people (nuts) that interpret the religious texts literally. When I was a practicing catholic I was always taught that the bible is a guide, much like the parables. Stories meant to guide and help humanity on its quest. Tho I am no longer a 'practicing' catholic (or even consider my self to be slightly religious), I feel it is from ignorance that most non-religious people feel that all religious folk interpret their 'holy' book literally.


The data suggests that most American Christians do not believe in evolution. The figures in Canada aren't much better, at around 30-40% of the population. Which always troubles me as a biologist because I see it as a serious sign of lack of scientific literacy in the public at large.

The problem of ignorance is from the narrow-minded bickering that occurs between atheists and theists. Both sides polarize and offend the other resulting in a lack of communication for the masses. Generally people are quite agreeable on their own, but in groups are often held accountable to the lowest (often loudest) denominator. I have found that devoutly religious folk are willing to listen and to open a dialog regarding evolution and other topics as long as the conversation is civil. People on the most basic level want to be respected, and education can not occur if hasty judgement is passed and offense is offered instead of patients. Like the old saying: it's easier to catch monkeys with honey than with a net.

[SleepyWitch]

I can't agree with that, however. Not that I have any respect for the Roman Catholic [or any other] church, one must concede that their position is that evolution is real, and it accounts for a majority of christians on its own. Many other sects think likewise, and the number of anti-evolution christians is actually quite small.


Yep, you're right about that, I forgot about that.


Tho I am no longer a 'practicing' catholic (or even consider my self to be slightly religious), I feel it is from ignorance that most non-religious people feel that all religious folk interpret their 'holy' book literally
I think you misunderstood me. I don't think that all religious folk interpret their 'holy' book literally. On the contrary, I'd say that most Christians in Europe don't. I was saying that if you interpret one bit literally, you ought to interpret all of it literally because it's arbitrary to pick and choose random bits that suit your needs.

[Jurt]

They do, if you take scripture literally. If you believe everything it says in the Bible/ Quran you'd have to believe in creationism, which rules out evolution. If you don't believe in creationism, you might just as well not believe any of the other stuff in the Bible, because how can you tell which bits to believe and which to discard?


So are most other religious people, which is exactly why they have a problem with evolution. At first there are many people who consider the five books of moses as allegorical so you don't have to believe everything has happened exactly like it was written. Secondly there is something called "gap creationism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism) because there first sentences in "bereschit" or "Genesis" can be translated in two ways: The earth was desert and empty or the earth became desart and empty

[Jurt]

Another interesting perspective might Gerald Schroeder (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AccordingToGod.aspx#) a jewish orthodox physician...

[The Atheist]

Isn't the stance that religious groups can concede to evolution on the basis that it is an act of God. He triggered the Big Bang

Very close to that - there's no point having a god if he didn't at least have a hand in building the universe.

The official position of the RCC - I only refer to them as they constitute a majority of christian believers - is that god was involved somewhere in the creation. Pope RatZZinger recently gave a green light to some study group in the Vatican to spend more time finding out where their god fits into the Big Bang.

I find it highly amusing that despite the Vatican's official position supporting evolution, only 58% of catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution) actually accept that evoultion is responsible for humankind.

Note that the same chart shows muslim evolution acceptance at 45%, which is only just a minority.


The data suggests that most American Christians do not believe in evolution. The figures in Canada aren't much better, at around 30-40% of the population. Which always troubles me as a biologist because I see it as a serious sign of lack of scientific literacy in the public at large.

Where did you get your information from?

Unless this survey (http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/archived-pdf/ARS_Evo_Cre.pdf) is way out, I get 60% of Canucks accepting biological evolution, with a magnifique 71% of Quebecois topping the charts.

[OrphanPip]

Where did you get your information from?

Unless this survey (http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/archived-pdf/ARS_Evo_Cre.pdf) is way out, I get 60% of Canucks accepting biological evolution, with a magnifique 71% of Quebecois topping the charts.

Well that agrees with what I said, I was a little unclear, but I meant 30 to 40 do not believe in evolution.

Correlating it with religion in Canada is tough though. The provinces which are the most religiously conservative happen to also have high numbers of non-religious people because of Native populations. Social Conservative political parties have no presence outside of the prairies. Quebec has one of the highest percentage of Christians, but the lowest church attendance and the only province which actively enforces secularism in the public space, like banning religious clothing and such. I would say that the official religion of Quebec is lapsed-Catholicism. Evangelical protestantism is rare outside of Western Canada as well. Anglicanism and Catholicism tend to hold sway in the rest of the country. There isn't much of an organized resistance to evolution in Canada. It exists though, and I had a blog a few years back on my profile about religious conservatives interfering with proper sex ed in Ontario.

[Drkshadow03]

I think you misunderstood me. I don't think that all religious folk interpret their 'holy' book literally. On the contrary, I'd say that most Christians in Europe don't. I was saying that if you interpret one bit literally, you ought to interpret all of it literally because it's arbitrary to pick and choose random bits that suit your needs.

Joe sat on a rock and turned to speak to his dutiful followers. "I come to explain the nature of the universe to you. Before this world, there was nothing. The nothingness at the beginning of time farted and from this gaseous stench came forth Mr. Sunshine. Now Mr. Sunshine glowed and burned with all the vigor of youth, ready to cut his own place out of the universe, and open up a business in planet creation. He worked really hard for billions of years, gathering the raw materials and elements, squeezing and molding with his special tool, Gravity, and he produced a product that he could proud of. He even designed a special prototype called Mother Earth. Now Mr. Sunshine so enjoyed his special creation, Mother Earth, and its remarkable beauty that he soon found himself deeply in love. He knew Mother Earth was just lifeless planet that could never respond to his feelings, so he filled it with life. Soon Mother Earth, brimming with life, noticed Mr. Sunshine who always beamed down everyday with his hot impassioned gaze and they got married." Joe ended his allegory, rose from his seat on the rock, and bowed before his followers.

Fictionalized story this might be, the first and last sentence should be read literally (a character named Joe sat on a rock and told a story to his followers), the rest of it as highly symbolic allegory. There is no reason that I can think of that one is required to read ANY text, religious or otherwise, as entirely literal or not literal, especially a book like the Bible which is written by lots of different authors. Hopefully the context, the tone, linguistic cues, literary techniques, and the type of material will give some clue on how it ought to be read.

[Stanislaw]

Yep, you're right about that, I forgot about that.


I think you misunderstood me. I don't think that all religious folk interpret their 'holy' book literally. On the contrary, I'd say that most Christians in Europe don't. I was saying that if you interpret one bit literally, you ought to interpret all of it literally because it's arbitrary to pick and choose random bits that suit your needs.

Misunderstandings cleared up! I agree with what you have said :)

[SleepyWitch]

Misunderstandings cleared up! I agree with what you have said :)

:thumbs_up

[SleepyWitch]

Fictionalized story this might be, the first and last sentence should be read literally (a character named Joe sat on a rock and told a story to his followers), the rest of it as highly symbolic allegory. There is no reason that I can think of that one is required to read ANY text, religious or otherwise, as entirely literal or not literal, especially a book like the Bible which is written by lots of different authors. Hopefully the context, the tone, linguistic cues, literary techniques, and the type of material will give some clue on how it ought to be read.

What about those who do read it literally then? Are they stupid and benighted for not being able to tell from the tone that it's meant to be an allegory?
Also, there is no reason why people should interpret the tone, linguistic cues, literary techniques etc. of any text in the same way. So how are these 'indicators' reliable? How do you know that a fairy tale is a fairy tale? "Once upon a time there was a king who had three beautiul daughters ..." sounds pretty 'factual' to me. After all, it doesn't say "Let's imagine that once upon a time there was a king....".

[Drkshadow03]

What about those who do read it literally then? Are they stupid and benighted for not being able to tell from the tone that it's meant to be an allegory?
Also, there is no reason why people should interpret the tone, linguistic cues, literary techniques etc. of any text in the same way. So how are these 'indicators' reliable? How do you know that a fairy tale is a fairy tale? "Once upon a time there was a king who had three beautiul daughters ..." sounds pretty 'factual' to me. After all, it doesn't say "Let's imagine that once upon a time there was a king....".

Well, for starters some people are better and more careful readers. While literary texts of all types are open to interpretation, some readings are better than other readings, and some readings are simply wrong. Literal interpretations never work out very well. I would even go so far as to say no one has ever actually read the Bible literally. Some groups of people think they are reading the Bible literally, some have read it more literally than others, but no one can actually read the Bible 100% literally.

I doubt too many fundamentalist literal readers would read Ezekiel 16:7: "I let you grow like the plants of the field, and you continued to grow up until you attained to womanhood, until your breasts became firm and your hair sprouted. You were naked and bare" and believe this actually describes a real woman who was planted in the middle of the ground growing like a plant. Or that an actual human woman is the true subject. Since if they read the passage in context, the opening of Ezekiel 16:2 reads: "O mortal, proclaim Jerusalem's abominations to her" informs that the later passage is part of an extended metaphor in which a city is being compared to a woman. And if we know what a simile is we understand that the first line in just a comparison, and not to be taken literally as some woman in trapped inside the soil just like plant growing up.

Take this Petrarch poem #17 (trans. David Young):

It's true your smile, mild and full of peace,
retains the power to calm my passion down
and free me from the flames that torture me
while I'm intent and fixed on watching you.

I would hope most people with a brain don't read this passage and think Petrarch is literally burning in flames in the middle of a public square, but some lady doused the flames with a magic smile. I think most people would recognize the flames being described is a metaphor for his passion and lust for the woman who is smiling at him. And the "torture" that is happening isn't literal pain, but his feelings that are torturing him.