Refuting Harun Yahya Islamic Creationism and Who is Funding This Pseudo-Science?
This post is split into two parts. Part I shows that Islamic Creationism is incorrect. Part II answers the harder question that NYT couldn’t answer: who is behind Harun Yahya’s creationist push into the West?
Part I
The New York Times has an article about a huge, colorful book about creationism sent by Muslim writer Harun Yahya to all the major American and European biologists: Islamic Creationism and a Book Sent Around the World.
At 11 x 17 inches and 12 pounds, with a bright red cover and almost 800 glossy pages, most of them lavishly illustrated, “Atlas of Creation” is probably the largest and most beautiful creationist challenge yet to Darwin’s theory, which Mr. Yahya calls a feeble and perverted ideology contradicted by the Koran.
In bowing to Scripture, Mr. Yahya resembles some fundamentalist creationists in the United States. But he is not among those who assert that Earth is only a few thousand years old. The principal argument of “Atlas of Creation,” advanced in page after page of stunning photographs of fossil plants, insects and animals, is that creatures living today are just like creatures that lived in the fossil past. Ergo, Mr. Yahya writes, evolution must be impossible, illusory, a lie, a deception or “a theory in crisis.”
Harun Yahya has been stalking Muslim circles in the West for quite some time. I saw his books at every major Muslim bookstore I have ever been to, along with every single Muslim convention (Islamic Society of North America; Islamic Circle of North America - I’m sure there are others).
The first issue I have with this quack is that he is wrong. (If you are already convinced that he is wrong and just want to make fun of him, go to Razib’s blog).
His basic argument which is his book Atlas of Creation is as follows:
Darwinists claim that by undergoing minor changes, living beings evolve from one species to another over millions of years. According to this claim which is refuted by scientific findings, fish transformed into amphibians, and reptiles transformed into birds. This so-called transformation process, asserted to last for millions of years, should have left countless evidence in the fossil record. In other words, during their intense researches for the last hundred years, researchers should have uncovered many grotesque living beings such as half-fish half-lizard, half-spider half fly or half-lizard half-bird. However, although almost every stratum on Earth has been dug, not even a single fossil has been found that Darwinists can use as an evidence for their so-called transition. On the other hand, there are innumerable fossils showing that spiders were always spiders, flies were always flies, fish were always fish, crocodiles were always crocodiles, rabbits were always rabbits and birds were always birds. Hundreds of millions of fossils clearly show that living beings have not undergone evolution, but were created. Hundreds of millions of fossils prove that living beings did not evolve, but were created.
He is raising the issue of “transitional forms.” He is saying, if a fish became a sorta-fish, then became a sorta-bird, then became a bird, we should have FOSSILS of the TRANSITIONS. Yet we don’t.
This is where most creationists stop, clap their hands, throw a jig, and celebrate this pseudo-science.
Non-sense.
Gullible Western Muslims, once again falling prey to lies sold to us by the Muslims of the Muslim world (lies such as: all Muslims all over love all Muslims because they are Muslim and would never harm/hurt/rape them), need to do some research.
Let’s start with Razib, who is a scientist:
evolution is not directional. there is a common misconception, derived from 19th century (pre-evolutionary) “chain of being” philosophy that evolution has a teleology, specifically toward complexity and even intelligence. this is not a correct assumption, and biologists haven’t accepted this view in any numbers since the late 19th century (there are reasons there might be macro trends, but that is a whole book, or two).
Then let’s go to a more authoritative source (assuming you don’t want to go get this book).
The FAQ’s here, answer a lot of questions, including the one around which Harun Yahya bases his entire idiocy. See question 6.
If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn’t there be more transitional fossils?
Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?.
HY very conveniently leaves out any discussion about vertebrates and primates. He talks only about spiders and lizards and other little things.
Trust me, check out this FAQ. Any doubt about evolution - the Fact, its not a theory - that you have had, will go away then.
Part II
NOW to the equally interesting question: who is funding Harun Yahya?
There is no way of knowing except anecdotal and circumstantial evidence.
The first thing we can do is look at his publisher (the source for which is this).
Just looking at the selections and titles and even the about page, its really hard to tell what ideological affiliation Ta-Ha has.
However, you can start to speculate when you look at the Quran translation they are promoting. It’s the one from Dr. Jamal un-Nisa bin Rafai (a PhD).
It seems to be the case that this Quran is authorized by Al-Azhar University. That really doesn’t tell me much (though it might later, see below).
Then we see that the Harun Yahya South Africa tour is sponsored by Al-Ansaar Foundation.
This foundation is criticized by South African madrassa Dar’ul Inamiyyah who run Ask Imam. The head of the query service is Mufti Ebrahim Desai, who is a Deobandi scholar.
Who are the Deobandi? Check out the Wiki.
This below what I wrote up myself in my research on them:
By the 19th century, the British parliament took direct control of India from the East India Trading company. To punish Indian Muslims for their central role in organizing the Revolt of 1857, excluded Muslims from public life. This exclusion created a bitter dispute among Muslims. Some wanted to maintain cooperation with the British. These were lampooned as “The Innovators.” The other group initiated a puritanical Islamic movement founded at the Deoband madrassa, which propagated Islamic values and a hatred of everything Western, including secular knowledge.
So we have Deobandi scholars criticizing the sponsors of Haroon Yahya. Let’s take a look at their reasons for criticizing the Al Ansaar Foundation. As you read through it, you’ll realize that Deobandis (who are strict madhabi/traditionalists), only have these views towards two kind of Muslims: Progressives and Wahhabis.
A: A group of Ulama did meet with the executives of Al-Ansaar previously and expressed their concerns about many un-Islamic issues of Al-Ansaar. An Ulama Supervisory Board was suggested to regulate the Shar’ee aspects of the radio station. We have now realised that it was just a front as the Foundation continues promoting its un-Islamic philosophies some of which you have stated.
While a handful of Ulama may be sincere in their endeavours to contribute to the radio station, they are unfortunately used by the Foundation to promote their agenda. Why would Al-Ansaar then not adhere to the reforms suggested to them by the Ulama which is representative of the views of the vast majority of the Ulama? Why would they link up with so-called Aalims from abroad and enquire about their views? Why would they permit a non-Aalima woman presenter to express views on Shari’ah? That’s the value attached to even those Ulama who sincerely contribute to Al-Ansaar. The tendency of Al-Ansaar to pick and choose some views is nothing but promoting their agenda and following their Nafs in the name of different views and tolerance. Will such an attitude be conducted by a surgeon when attending to a critically ill heart patient?
See that last sentence? That is invoked by traditionalists and orthodoxics whenever they are faced off against Muslims who reject *their* hierarchy of scholarship. The only two Muslim groups that do that are the Progressives and Wahhabis.
Which side does Al Ansaar fall on?
Al Ansaar Foundation is Progressive (scroll down) (history lesson: South African ‘progressives’ are a bit older than North American progressives).
Wait, what?! Progressives?! This is where it got interesting. The whole time I had been investigating thinking I’d see a Saudi connection.
Suddenly, I took another investigative turn and found that none other than Mustapha Aykol, the Turkish writer who believes in the compatibility of liberalism and Islam and human rights and is all over the place on Daniel Pipes’ Frontpage Magazine, American Enterprise Institute (Wolfowitz and Rummy), National Review (Kristol and Right-Wingers like Bernard Lewis), and the Washington Times (right-wing, establisher as conservative alternative to Washington Post, founded by this Church, see Wiki), is massively connected to Islamic Creationism (the link to his website is below).
So now Mustapha Aykol is in the mix. If you trace his connections you see a certain Seattle Based Discovery Institute. They are hard-core right-wing creationists. This is from Wiki:
The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to get creationist beliefs taught in United States public high school science courses.[1][2][3][4][5] A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is “a theory in crisis” due to it being the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[6][7][8] Several of the institute’s programs have placed it at the center of numerous controversies, particularly its campaign promoting intelligent design and the religious goals outlined in the institute’s Wedge strategy to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”[9][10] A federal court recently ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues “demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions”.[11]
He is further arguing that Intelligent Design could be a bridge between civilizations.
So, there it is: Harun Yahya is most likely a front [update: or ally] for Christian right-wing’s version of Creationism.
Funny thing is that Harun Yahya seems to be using the Christianists the same way they are using him (this article openly states that Yahya is Aykol’s organization).
Here is Aykol on a Muslim site arguing for creationism against the US government, which supports science.
Does that seal it? Not fully, but its pretty close.
Muslims shouldn’t feel bad, Yahya does have a pretty nice Muslim beard.
There is more.
You have to look at the method used to send the book out. They basically got hold of a big list of experts in the field and had enough money to send the book to all of them. They did the same thing with the same book in France:
The article does not say who paid for this expensive, lavishly-illustrated, 770-page anti-intellectual propaganda tome to be so massively distributed (although it asks the question.). Nor how whomever sent it was able to get a list of the “dozens of thousands” in educational establishments to whom it was individually addressed.
Right-wing groups are well known for sending out book in this fashion. Here is an investigative article by United Methodists on how one right-wing group sent out 100,000 copies of a book called Islamic Imperialism, to a bunch of Christian pastors and priests.
Everything’s political, an activist clergywoman once said. In the case of The Institute on Religion and Democracy, there are certainly some political questions that deserve to be answered regarding a recent “gift.” (See “The IRD’s Gift of A Book on Islam Stirs Confusion, Concerns” in Context.)
The IRD recently sent out 100,000 copies of a book, “Islamic Imperialism,” by Efraim Karsh (Yale University Press), along with a complimentary review of the book by Iranian journalist Amir Taheri.
[Yes, the same Amir Taheri whom I've warned about previously; who works for Benador Associates, which supports such people as Richard Perle and Walid Phares. But don't get caught up in the Taheri/Benador connection. They are not all in some massive "conspiracy" to turn Muslims into creationists].
Point is, the method that is used to circulate Harun Yahya’s book is the same as the method used to circulate the book Islamic Imperialism by right-wing evangelical groups. Everything can’t hinge on methods, but a lot can be inferred from them.
A Turkish-American professor at Truman State University has previously done a little bit of inquiry about Harun Yahya and stated the following:
It is clear that Yahya’s project commands an immense amount of resources. It is doubtful that Yahya’s lavishly produced materials support themselves — they are priced to be affordable, and even obtaining them for free takes no great effort. The August 2002 issue of Mercek, his “monthly scientific and cultural magazine” sold for about $1.80, including two VCD’s (video CD-ROM’s), and the only ad for non-Yahya merchandise it contained was for a series of materials to learn English (important for the upwardly mobile). Yahya’s web sites make most of his books available online, in a wide variety of languages — at no charge. Turkish creationism has gone international, and Yahya’s books are as easily found and as prominently displayed in Islamic bookstores in London as in Istanbul. And the organization behind all of this, and the sources of its finances, are virtually unknown. The Turkish state, notoriously unable to bring the underground economy under control, or even collect taxes from most businesses, is also unable to enforce regulations on religious foundations.
Another striking aspect of Yahya’s material is how much of it is taken, with minimal changes, from Western creationist literature such as that associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Since the Quran is not as specific as the Genesis story, Islamic creationists usually allow an old earth, so Yahya discards flood-geology and is noncommittal about the age of the earth. But the rest is there, flavored with quotations from some “Intelligent Design” figures, and all set in a matrix of traditional Islamic apologetics hammering on how obvious it is that there is a designing intelligence behind all the wonders of nature. ICR-style creationism, which we tend to think of as a sectarian, evangelical Protestant peculiarity, turns out to be pre-adapted to an Islamic environment.
Dr. Edis wonders how Yahya can afford to do what he is doing. But, he cannot answer the question of who backs Yahya.
I believe I have.
Conclusions:
a) Harun Yahya is scientifically wrong.
b) Harun Yahya is a representative of the entire Turkish and Muslim Intelligent Design/Creationist Industry
c) It is connected to various “progressives” who tend to support liberal Western values
d) These “progressives” then have connections with right-wing news evangelical organizations and think-tanks and institutes in the West, some of whom have a long-standing agenda to distribute creationist and intelligent design materials across the world [they are also giving progressives and reformers a bad name].
I am deeply disappointed that “progressive” and seemingly liberal-humanists like Aykol are working with the Christian right-wing.
To donate to this blog — because research takes time and I have obligations — please hit the paypal at the top right of the blog.
ps - don’t hate Christian Evangelicals. Many are quite cool.
I made a stupid comment and it was deleted to emphasize my stupidity
Impressive research.
As I recall, the issue was brought up earlier on eteraz.org and briefly discussed:
http://archive.eteraz.org/story/2007/6/1/23274/32670
The interesting thing would be to see if any Turkish scientists/authors have openly rebutted his ideas and tackled them head on.
BTW, when I was in DC about a couple of weeks ago, at least two or three (Muslim) acquaintances who’re interning in Capital Hill this summer reported that their Senators’ offices received copies of a huge-ass Harun Yahya book in the mail, all on the same day! It turned into the joke of the day at work, unsurprisingly. I suspect it’s the same book as described above.
Honestly, I’ve always found the look and colors of his books and pamphelts way too tacky to even find them appealing (seriously, it’s like surrealism meets pre-teen angst!!). Although I do remember once trying to read a book that someone had lent: couldn’t even get through just a dozen pages of all that pseudoscientific crap.
Prepare for a flood of poorly spoken moronic Creationist trolls. Nice post btw.
Nice post Ali. You have put a lot of effort into this which i appriciate. But I’ll need some time to absorb this.
In short, can you give your own views on how you see Darwin’s theory. In ways its pretty evident now that HY’s refuation of darwin theory is down the drain, but where does that leave a mere mortal like me :). (Not that i care too much wether my ancestors were gorilla’s or chimps, or even humans… since i am one, and i know that. But well, i do have a brain that think and requires answers).
First rate deduction, my dear Holmes. I think Prof. Moriarty is cornered :)
Oh, and humans did not evolve from apes. We both had the same common ancestor, and branched off into two different groups eons ago.
Ya Haqq!
Darn. Wished I had time to comment on this. This is definitely a discourse that has been hijacked by fundamentalists on both sides — evangelical athiests and creationists. I’m just going to link Meryl Wyn Davies’ Darwin and Fundamentalism and leave it at that, for those who want a more balanced view. Here’s the link:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Fundamentalism-Merryl-Davies/dp/1840461772/ref=sr_1_1/105-8659016-9832454?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184733335&sr=8-1
The only way to get noticed online is with a highly professional website!
Visit 82media.com for more information on high quality website design services by industry professionals.
Custom Website Design Starting at only $99
http://www.82media.com
Salaam all,
How does a Muslim rejecting Quranic creationism reconcile evolution theory with the Adam/Eve story?
Naeem
Good post Ali,
Thanks for linking, but I have to add that Harun Yahya’s ideas are not too new. Actually he reiterates the arguments which have been brought forth by various Islamic authors in Turkey since the early 1970s. New is the fact that he entered the international arena by translating his books and by using the internet.
However, the technical quality of hiss bokks is remarkably if you compare them to earlier Islamic creationist tracts. And they are sold at a low price or given as presentsw. This raises the question who founds him. I cannot solve this question from ny desktop, by I would consider it more useful to direct investigations to Turkeys “Islamic bourgeoisie” than to potential sources abroad.
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Part 1:
I don’t think this exposition of the positions does justice to the real issues involved here. If that solves the evolution question so quickly why do so many remain unconvinced?
It is because human evolutionists, and specifically the ones who enjoy responding to creationists of some fashion, believe they own the entire discourse of evolution.
The reality is while natural selection is an observed phenomenon and nearly undisputed, it is actual speciation (the splitting and definition of a new species) which has raised countless questions.
Of course, the ’slow and gradual’ repeated line has worn thin on those who understand biology on even a basic level and realize that at a certain point a jump in chromosome counts needs to take place for most speciation as we have witnessed in our own ‘evolution’ (which is only by comparing the wide number of chromosome counts between animals today).
The fact is that any modern day observable chromosomal abnormality within humans is a disease, resulting in the inability to procreate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#Chromosomal_aberrations
But if we assume, for a second, that the chromosomal increment or decrement resulted in a viable species, we are now made to take the further leap (of faith) that the same ‘random-occuring-once-in-100000-years’ event, occurred in exactly the same place, and same time period to allow a female of the same species to be created
(which evolutions say would most likely be a sibling).
The other possibility, which is even more unbelievable yet seemingly preferred by more evolutionists, is that our new ancestor with an “intra-species viable” non-disease chromosomal abberation is also possible to mate with a different species female (w/ diff chromosomal count) and result in viable offspring which will have the new chromosomal count.
Of course, this type of breeding is basically unheard of in the animal kingdom, with only one equine species capable of meeting the condition albeit unnaturally.
No real answer has been determined as to why this type of breeding fails in the natural world of the animal kingdom, but somehow succeeded wildly in combination with an extremely rare genetic event (which has yet to be witnessed in mankind).
Of course, evolutionists (once they get past the problem of establishing the first generation) are the first to say that incestuous relationships would be necessary for the model to continue. Of course, incestual sex is also extremely rare in the animal kingdom. (Erickson, Mark T. “Evolutionary Thought and the Current Clinical Understanding of Incest” )
When we have already established that the new species can and will mate with the old, would we have the intelligence necessary to fight instinctual taboos against incest to know that incest is best for our chromosome count to continue? As today this is a sign of dysfunction or sexual abuse resulting in socially disturbed individuals (and part of our success story as a species is our highly ‘evolved’ social units), in what way does this create a detriment to further evolution?
So many questions arise that its as of yet impossible to say that this is the exact mechanism by which we came to be.
Part 2:
Harun Yahya is supported by a great number of traditional Muslims. Deobandi’s, who abstain from certain aspects of spirituality and sufism, don’t like his sufi connections.
Naeem and Yursil raised some good points that I’ve wondered about myself. I’ve never particularly understood how evolution fits in with the concept that God created Adam and Eve but I guess if Adam and Eve were created as one of the Neanderthal/australapithicus(sp?)/very early precursors to modern humans it would make sense. The concept of mutating slowly to a different species also puzzles me because as Yursil stated almost also chromosomal mutations that occur today result in sterility or an “unfit” species with a greatly reduced life expectancy in comparison to a nonmutation.
PS: This whole issue completely confuses me
yursil’s exposition is extremely confused. not to be snarky, but perhaps one reason many people don’t believe in evolution is that they don’t know much about.
p.s. speciation has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
and hybridization is ubiquitous in the tree of life, especially in plants. though these issues are side topics since the major point of adaptive evolution due to selection upon favorable mutations is the primary issue.
I don’t think this exposition of the positions does justice to the real issues involved here. If that solves the evolution question so quickly why do so many remain unconvinced?
1) surveys tend to show that most people don’t understand evolution (as i note above, teleological perceptions are dominant). so they remain unconvinced by something they don’t understand.
2) for most of human history people exhibited misunderstandings or falsities in regards to the world around us. that doesn’t make them correct. one should be cautious about relying on majority rule. e.g., if you surveyed the public and asked them if a bridge looked stable, and most of them said, while all the civil engineers immediately declared there was a structural flaw, who would you trust?
The reality is while natural selection is an observed phenomenon and nearly undisputed, it is actual speciation (the splitting and definition of a new species) which has raised countless questions.
1) most biologists do not accept a distinction between micro and macro evolution. in other words, there is no difference in dymamics. a small minority of biologists do beleive macroevolution is qualitatively different.
2) speciation has been observed, see link above.
3) species are fuzzy categories, there are whole books debating demarcation. so when you say “how can species 1 turn to 2,” please be aware that species are not solid and crystal clear categories. biology is a digital science insofar as its atomic units are genetic sequences. these are discrete and bounded. but species, genus, populations, etc. tend to be fuzzy and operational levels of organization.
The fact is that any modern day observable chromosomal abnormality within humans is a disease, resulting in the inability to procreate.
the vast majority of whom resulted in spontaneous abortion due to lack of viability. this is called natural selection of course. the chromosomal abnormality that is the most common is on the smallest chromosome, so a particular % are viable, if not fertile (though not necessarily totally infertile in all cases).
But if we assume, for a second, that the chromosomal increment or decrement resulted in a viable species, we are now made to take the further leap (of faith) that the same ‘random-occuring-once-in-100000-years’ event, occurred in exactly the same place, and same time period to allow a female of the same species to be created
(which evolutions say would most likely be a sibling).
no. you are transmitted the macromutationist model, which few biologists accept. rather, most biologists believe that species emerge gradually through allopatric processes (geographic separation, the build up of genetic incompatibilities). there are cases where macromutations occurred, teolist fishes are on. and, hybridization in plants results in immediate generation of new “species.” the apples you eat are polyploid, they’re chromosomal abberations where there is duplication (ergo, greater size). also, you seem to forget that enormous swaths of the tree of life are asexual or hemaphroditic (some species are asexual, hemophroditic or sexual depending on context!).
Of course, this type of breeding is basically unheard of in the animal kingdom, with only one equine species capable of meeting the condition albeit unnaturally.
this is false. there are many sorts of hybridizations possible. the half killer whale and half dophine in an aquarium in hawaii is a recent case. but half sheep and half goat have been produced, as have half tiger and half lion. in smaller animals this is very common too. hybrids tend to be unfit, but not always. there are many fly species which produce very fertile hybrids which don’t exist in nature because flies don’t mate across species bounds. this is a complicated and big topic.
Of course, incestual sex is also extremely rare in the animal kingdom. (Erickson, Mark T. “Evolutionary Thought and the Current Clinical Understanding of Incest” )
this is false. there are even plants and animals which regular “self.” that is, they are hemaphrodites which fertilize their own sex organs.
When we have already established that the new species can and will mate with the old, would we have the intelligence necessary to fight instinctual taboos against incest to know that incest is best for our chromosome count to continue? As today this is a sign of dysfunction or sexual abuse resulting in socially disturbed individuals (and part of our success story as a species is our highly ‘evolved’ social units), in what way does this create a detriment to further evolution?
you haven’t established actually. i decided that one “fisking” is appropriate. i’m not wasting time on this anymore, i have real research which i’m interested in. time is finite. most biologists don’t care if people reject evolution as long as they are left alone. the problem is when those without educational qualifications in this area start lecturing as if they know something.
Razib,
That’s fine :) Perhaps we are all just idiots who cannot answer these questions with such certainty like you.
I think it is a bit disingenuous to conflate arguments against ‘evolution’ in terms of speciation for humans to be arguments against natural selection and plant hybridization, which is what rabid-evolutionists tend to do.
The fact is there is no real, natural, observable chromosomal speciation for animals. What we can find in plants with different chromosomal counts results in the same issues I brought up above.
Reading the few examples that discuss chromosome count and morphology on the site reinforces the fact that most chromosomal ’speciation’ results in inferility (even amoungst plants). The only difference is the rare fertile species with a different chromosome count is that it can be self fertilized which really makes the example moot for those of us who are not capable of such feats.
The ’speciation’ of insects being observed, which is really reproductive isolation, also does not really address the issues I am discussing.
On the site we have only a few examples of actual insect ’speciation’ which really boils down to reproductive isolation for individual lines of 15+ generations of insects.
None of them reference chromosomal differences through translocation, etc that would be necessary to have occurred in the manner I described. And obviously, none really address the sociological issues of incest which is (as cited) extremely rare in all animals.
Hybridization is (as stated even on the talk.origins site) seems to be an extremely disputed source of animal evolution even amongst evolutionary scientists.
-Yursil
On a philosphy of science blog, the above would be interesting. But this isn’t Popper-eteraz, it is just Eteraz.
What is “Islamic Creationism” and does it have anything to do with chromosomal abberations or punctuated equilibrium?
yursil,
i don’t know if you are an idiot, but you’re really ignorant. that’s the problem, “L” thinks you raise “good points” when you raise nonsense points. this is basically people who don’t know what they’re talking about thinking they can talk about what they don’t know about.
i had a long response to you, but it got stuck in moderation. hopefully ali will push it through when he gets back on the web. in any case, you’re obsession with chromosomes is misinformed. in fact, a friend who works on chromosomomal genomics tells me that the perception by most evolutionary biologists that aneuploidy is problematic is false.
Oh, and are Adam and Eve Neanderthal or Cromags?
The theory of evolution is obviously wrong for a number of reasons. Yes, there is the lack of transitional forms; the amazing and seemingly sudden appearance of many complex life forms during the Cretaceous period; the fact that evolution cannot be recreated in the lab - organic compounds have not been turned into amino acids or other prelife forms.
There are a number of modern scientists who think the theory of evolution is a crock, who have calculated the mathematical possibilities of it and found it to be incredible.
There is virtually no credible evidence to support the theory, which really alarms atheists, who find that the lack of facts about evolution really undermines their religious faith. Yes, atheism is a religious faith.
Great post.
Incidentally, ‘Ask Imam’ is useless (from my experience anyway). They throw Islamic jargon at you but don’t really answer your questions.
[...] Refuting Harun Yahya Islamic Creationism and Who is Funding This Pseudo-Science? This post is split into two parts. Part I shows that Islamic Creationism is incorrect. Part II answers the harder […] [...]
I am glad you are posting the Iraqi Body Count. Can you place it higher so all the Republicans can see what a noble action they are defending on Bush’s right to support KBR and other war merchants.
Put in US terms, this would be about 11 million dead Americans if Iraqis were occupying the USA.
God Bless America.
Fuck Dean World.
[...] about it here. Posted in Intelligent Design, Beliefs, Evolution, Articles, Islam, [...]
Razib,
Of course, I have cited inconsistencies with what you have stated and with the sources you yourself have provided, if that makes me ignorant, thats fine… no need to respond to the actual points.
The idea that all aspects of evolutionary ‘law’ (as some people are calling it) have been all worked out, and that there are no big concerns or questions is disingenious to say the least.
You say
Well, if your friend says so.. Of course, then that makes evolutionary biologists and medical doctors wrong.
I’m not addressing the macromutationist model. I’m addressing the point where both models must converge, and that is the point of chromosomal morphology. One cannot gradually increase or decrease a number of chromosomes, it either increases or decreases. And when it does it causes big problems.
Again, the examples you give demonstrate you don’t really want to understand the point. Lions and tigers contain the same number of chromosomes, so its a bit irrelevant… even then Ligers are largely sterile, only the females are somewhat fertile and forced to reproduce with the founding species, not males of their own.
In the case of sheep-goats we have a completely sterile species resulting (i.e. a chromosomal disease).
In the case of the false killer whale and dolphins, we again have the same karyotype: 44.
Further, as your talk.origins source indicates:
“Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants ”
Therefore we are asked to trust that a random macro event of chromosomal increment or decrement occurs, that that event results in a viable healthy offspring.
Then we are asked to branch out and believe that either that offspring is capable of mating with those of a different chromosomal count (its parents species), and retain and carry on the chrosomal aberration.
OR we are asked to believe that the offspring were aware enough of their chromosome count to selectively mate with others who had the same chromosomal abnormality (their siblings) and had viable offspring.
I have sites from biology professors of universities that portray this exact understanding, if you don’t believe me, I can provide them. The fact that you are denying this speaks volumes.
You say:
Kind of like religion.
[...] Ali Eteraz: Point is, the method that is used to circulate Harun Yahya’s book is the same as the method used [...]
Assalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah
I pray that you are in the best of health & imaan.
This is a short message to notify you that this entry has been selected for publishing on IJTEMA, a venture to highlight the best of the Muslim blogosphere.
To find out more about IJTEMA, and how you can further contribute, please click here.
May Allah bless you for your noble efforts.
Wa’salam
Ali,All, Im interested in understanding the muslim view on evolution if one exists that is generally acceptable? can anyone point me towards a link. googling didnt result in anything interesting.
on a side note, the comedy that is HY’s latest book came to my attention aswell just enough to post a link to the nytimes article on my blog. the research uve done is awsome! welcome to my blog roll!
[...] and Islamic Theology Can Be Consistent Filed under: Islam — eteraz @ 3:09 am The comments in the post about Harun Yahya raised the inquiry of how evolution is consistent with Islamic [...]
I tend not to back the side that calls the other “idiots” and “uneducated”, and then does not provide much in the way of argument.
It is well known that several top biologist argue against the theory of evolution, so saying that anyone who understands the science would support the theory is a pure lie.
Name one. And please don’t mention the Discovery Inst.
Well it looks like this guy has committed shirk just as the many of the heretics in my country
The scientifically accepted definition of “evolution” is:
The change in expression of alleles (traits) over time.
Look it up if you doubt this.
My grandfather breeds cattle. He selects a heifer with traits (alleles) he thinks are desirable to mate with a bull that he thinks has desirable traits (alleles). This is evolution. My father can select for preferable traits in breeding animals, but god cannot. According to those who deny evolution my grandfather is greater than god, well he is greater than the god of the those who commit shirk and the heretics who deny evoltuion. The god this person claims to follow cannot be the God of the Qur’an or the God of the people of the Book. Our God did not forget to create evolution as did the god of the heretics who deny evolution.
Abu al Hamurabi
A correction to my last post:
The scientifically accepted definition of “evolution” is:
The change in expression of alleles (traits) in a population over time.
Gary,
You say:
The theory of evolution is obviously wrong for a number of reasons.
What are these reasons?
you say:
Yes, there is the lack of transitional forms; the amazing and seemingly sudden appearance of many complex life forms during the Cretaceous period;
The Archaeopteryx from the late Jurassic is the most famous and the fossil record is bursting with them.
You say:
the fact that evolution cannot be recreated in the lab - organic compounds have not been turned into amino acids or other prelife forms.
See my previous comments and as far as turning organic compounds into any type of life…well scientists only seek to understand the mechanisms that God put into place to govern nature. It was Dr. Frankenstein that that did that.
You say:
There are a number of modern scientists who think the theory of evolution is a crock, who have calculated the mathematical possibilities of it and found it to be incredible.
Name ten. Also, include links to their curriculum vitae. If they are real scientists then obtaining there CV online should be easy. This is important to do as otherwise everyone will think you made the names up. Also, this will tell us a lot about the the research they are doing and whether they have been published in peer review journals or they are just someone who got a D in entry level bio.
You say:
There is virtually no credible evidence to support the theory, which really alarms atheists, who find that the lack of facts about evolution really undermines their religious faith. Yes, atheism is a religious faith.
Yes there is, my grandfather can reproduce evolution on his ranch. Evolution is manipulated and observed regular in the lab. People like you who deny truth and deny that God was brilliant enough to create evolution are in league with satan or the ginn or whoever it is that you consider the author of all lies. Please don’t tell me how well you know the scripture…so does the devil, and I already know how much you know about science and truth. To deny evolution (Gods wisest creation) an to deny science (a discipline that seeks to understand how Gods creation works in order to be a better steward of this planet) is to deny God. Quizás you can tell that I am a believer and biologist.
Imani ya Mungu, (may God give you peace)
abu al hamurabi
In the first place, no one has observed a species change into another species.
Science is no objective truth anyway. The methodology of science and its claims to a Universal objective truth have been rejected by more than “10″ experts, Mr. Hammurabi, on the philosophy of Science and Epistemology.
Paul Feyerabend was the head of Berkley University’s Dept. of Philosophy. Please read “Against Method,” if you get the chance. This faith in Science is rather naive.
wa ma taufiqi illa billah
Here is a link to 2 hour video of ADNAN OKTAR (HARUN YAHYA) answering the questions of foreing press. A Press Conference held in Istanbul _ June 8th,2007
http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/070608_pressconference.php
Mr. Cyclewala,
Do not refer to me as Mr. You may refer to me as Abu or bwana Hamurabi or Don abu al hamurabi de Kilgoris.
Can you define species for me as you understand. Please feel free to look it up in the dictionary, after doing so, if you desire you may retract: In the first place, no one has observed a species change into another species.
I could not find the CV for Paul Feyerabend. I did find several that were not his, but were associated with his name. I did find something about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
Paul Feyerabend was an officer in German army during WWII. Today he is an anarchist, whose views are considered radical by people in his discipline (philosophy not science). He also believes in a world where there is a free society in which ‘all traditions have equal rights…which means that the creation story of Zoroastrianism, the Enuma Elish, the Earth mother, of the Hindu, of the Greek titans and all the other creation stories will stand on equal ground with both Judeo-Christian and Islamic Intelligent Design.
I do not know whether you are a believer or not, but I must ask. If you are a believer do you really want someone like Paul Feyerabend speaking for you and God? And do you really think that Professor Feyerabend would appreciate you dragging him into this particular debate?
Neither you nor Gary have named ten experts. Naming Paul Feyerabend does not count as one since he is apparently not considered an expert by persons in his own discipline…so, y’all still owe me ten scientists I requested and no “experts” will suffice as Gary’s claim was about scientists and not “experts”.
Faith in science may be naive, but trusting in anarchy is just plain stupid. If you respond again, please think critically about what you are posting. I certainly will before I respond.
la paz de Dios,
bwana Hamurabi
Mr. Cyclewala,
I read more on Paul Feyerabend. It seems that the problem he had with science is that one could “cherry pick” which data to use and which data to ignore in order make your argument. The fallacy in his argument is that scientist have a “peer review” process before something even begins to go down the road of acceptance in the scientific community. This peer review process continues for quite a while…and for some things longer than others. Biologists and in fact all scientists are self policing as we are seeking to understand the truths of Gods creation and nothing else. When the occasion arises when you have heard where a scientist was debunked such as in the case of the stem cell thing in Korea or the cold fusion in America, it was scientists within these disciplines who called these people out. We do this in order to keep science pure with no agendas other than to seek truth in order that we all can be better stewards of this plant as God commanded us…
Now the problem I see with intelligent design, be it Judeo-Christian or Islamic is that it “cherry picks” data to prove its point and ignores all data that shows it to be incorrect. The most evidence that lies in the areas that dispute intelligent design far outweigh the areas that support it. These are the problems that Professor Feyerabend imagined were in the scientific community and I believe that if he were alive today. that he would be one of the primary opponents/critics of intelligent design.
You said: In the first place, no one has observed a species change into another species.
It was Darwin’s observations that led him to his ideas…Did you know that Charles Darwin was the Chaplain on board “the Beagle”?
Also, in the Holy Scriptures (Judeo/Christian and Islamic) in the story of Noah, this was observed and documented (forgive the grammar in the translation). “During these times the sons of God (generally considered to be elohim or angels) looked upon the daughters of man and found them to be fair. The sons of God laid with the daughters of man and the children of these unions were the giants we know today.” It goes on to indicate that Noah was one of these giants. The Holy Scriptures, the inspired words of God give a description of evolution and speciation and even show that we are here as a result of this event.
Allow me this query: are you a believer and accept evolution as as one of God’s creations or do you deny the word of God?
Bwana asefiwe, (may the Lord be praised)
Don abu al hamurabi de Kilgoris
I have watched countless of debates about evolution and can tell you its a religion hiding behind science and not science. The reality all we REALLY know is species emerged on Earth more complex as time goes by with the simpler organisms appearing first and then more complex organisms appearing gradually after than and primated and humans even more later.
Other than that, there is nothing. Science has not been able to show us how evolution could have occurred and I have seen enough debates from Dawkins, Miller and others. They speak with a lot of confidence but when confronted they expose the weakness. Most Darwinist believe in evolution the same way Christians believe in the Bible or Muslims believe in the Quran. Faith, no more and no less.
“Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, ’special creation,’ is clearly impossible.” (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)
Thats says it all!
mohamed,
Hey white man…you need to learn how to…and you sound very western, perhaps you are an evangelical fundamentalist. First off if you have to lie, you are in league with the author of all lies and not with he one true God.
Read my previous posts and refrain from your evil lies, lest when you lie in your grave you will be tortured by the jinn forever. Or if you prefer lying white man, well you know what your book says will if you are in league with the author of all lies.
David Meredith Seares Watson (1886-1973) appears to have been a paeoecologist (what we would call it today). It seems as if he was fascinated with pterosaurs. An animal that most white anti-evolutionists say could not have existed (funny you would cite him). I also looked up the quote. I could not find in any of his available literature. I did find it on a bunch websites dedicated to deceiving true believers of the Holy verses into believing that God’s greatest creation (evolution) in simply not so. This doesn’t mean he didn’t say it, but he can’t really speak for himself, however, had he have used these words in text I would have them someplace besides on those evil WebPages that are full of lies begat by the evil one and you are a part of this evil propaganda. Your kind does like to use/oppress those who cannot defend themselves.
But I’ll bet when your are sick that you insist on the new drugs that combat the diseases that have evolved to be stronger than the old medicines. I challenge you and all the others who an the side of the evil against evolution. The next time you are sic tell your doctor that you don’t believe in evolution in that the diseases don’t evolve and that because of your faith hat you will only take the first drug penicillin. You don’t really have to, but when you don’t in your heart you will know the lie that you have been involved. That says it all!
I dare say that as you read this you that you are wrong.
If you liked this please feel free to read my posts above. In them you will see the debate going in a direction you never would have dreamed and maybe in them you will begin to see the Truth concerning the will of our creator. And have you ever had an independent thought of your own?
Mungu akubarikisana (May God bless you very much)
Mwalimu Abu
Dear Don abu al hamurabi de Kilgoris,
Professor PK Feyerabend’s understanding of faith, God etc., is irrelevant to me, as he is an expert on epistemology, and has shown the weaknesses of science’s claims as a method for reaching objective absolute truth. This he has done quite convincingly, building on the work of Thomas Kuhn before him.
Since J. Piaget, many pro-science epistemologists now admit that the only possible defence of science is the pragmatic argument (i.e. that ‘it works’… which can also be demonstrated true of yoga, black magic etc etc.)
Skepticism about Science’s epistemological claims are much older, David Hume is a good earlier example.
Your views regarding philosophy and science are also betray a lack of familiarity with the former.
May I suggest to that as soon as we begin to interpret any data and/or organize it into a coherent conceptual structure, we enter the realm of Philosophy.
This has been conveniently ignored by scientists in the latter half of the 20th century. Probably frustrated by their inability to answer the argument of the Philosophers. Hence the character assassination of Feyerabend and others.
I can recommend that you familiarize yourself with the subject before making such sweeping statements.
Regarding the dictionary definition of a species, I would advise you to look up earlier dictionary definitions of it, then also do the same for “sets” and see what caused the change: Russell’s paradox.
salam alaykum
PS I put my faith in scripture, and its interpretation by the saintly men of God, as opposed to science, which is shoddy philosophical skills applied to ever changing bodies of data.
Philosophy is useful for showing up poor thinking, like “uhh how did the world get here? since God does not exist, so once there was a self -existing dot, and it exploded ,and then little bits became bigger and more complicated bits. Yeah! that sounds right.”
Spot on Mohamed!
Of course, theology and jurisprudence have never suffered from philosophical flaws.
u don’t believe in God bcoz u can’t see him?
Cyclewala,
“Saintly men”? You sound more like someone from the west, than a true believer of the Holy verses.
You said “Professor PK Feyerabend’s understanding of faith, God etc., is irrelevant to me…” This statement comes into conflict with your later statement “PS I put my faith in scripture, and its interpretation by the saintly men of God, as opposed to science, which is shoddy philosophical skills applied to ever changing bodies of data.”
Please explain to me how you balance this? You claim that science is bad and that you only trust the scriptures. You then someone you cal a scientist (and you don’t care whether he believes in God or not) to use as your source that science is incorrect. Applying your logic, You cannot accept what what scientist say because science is wrong and that put your faith in scripture, and its interpretation by the saintly men of God. If these men of whom you cite as scientists are wrong because they are scientists, then aren’t you in turn a hypocrite for using them to support your faith in the scriptures?
Also, all the people who have been cited, if you apply their reasoning to creation science, then creation science would be incorrect, not only by application of their principles, but because creation science is brought about by creation scientists*, therefore it cannot be true. This is difficult to reconcile as well.
* I do not believe that creation scientists are scientists, I believe they are heretics. I also find it ironic that you and your kind misinterpret the words of dead men (who cannot defend themselves or call you a crackpot) in order to promote lies.
Also, you show me in your language that you may have never had a thought of your own and you are not capable of thinking independently of the deception that has been pumped into you. I challenge you to get into the scientific literature and tell where it falls short of the truth. Please cite the journal article with this so that I may check behind you to see if what you are saying has any validity. There are many peer review online journals available so this should be a cinch for someone like you. Look into the biology publications** and philosophy, since I think by your logic that we both agree they cannot be trusted…Also in the biological literature, show where it disagrees with the what the creator of the universe has commanded us.
** I suggest crustacean literature, it is what I am most familiar with, I am an invertebrate biologists who is a true believer in the one true God and in evolution. You will find this type of literature packed with evolution. ALso point out to me the “shoddy philosophical skills applied to ever changing bodies of data” in the same publiction.
I anxiously await your response.
Imani ya Mungu,
Mwalimu
Afif,
I believe in theory of gravity and trust my life to it, even though I cannot see it and that no one can explain it. Do you or are you a hypocrite?
I believe in hydraulic theory and trust my life to it every time a bring my automobile to a stop or walk across the road. Do you or are you a hypocrite?
I believe in God, even though I cannot see him, because I see his glorious creation and know personally the work he has done in my life and the lives of others. Do you or are you a hypocrite?
I believe in Gods greatest creation “evolution” because I see it everyday in his creation. Do you or are you a hypocrite?
Of these four things evolution is the easiest to understand…I mean it would be a very weak god to not make his creation to adapt to changes wouldn’t it? That’s why my God is great and all knowing, evolution is indeed one of the proofs that there must have been a creator. To deny this is shirk (heresy).
Mungu akubarikisana
I’ve got to say that Hamurabi’s Pops is beating some intellectual ass.
This is a fallacious set of arguments. #1 and #2 are dependent for their proof on closed system, domain specific evidence.
#3 and #4 are supposed to naturally follow as extensions of #1 and #2.
BS
These are open system, domain non-specific dependencies.
One can take example #1 and run with it either way and make a case: you can say that Gravitation is a NATURAL Phenomenon which massive objects exert on each other - or - you can say that Gravitation is a SPIRITUAL Phenomenon in which some Unseen Force exerts Itself over Creation.
Both may be true. One is a matter of observation and complete. The other is hypothetical and not necessarily required to understand and predict outcomes.
There is no necessary connection between your brakes working and your faith in the unseen power of God.
Brakes work equally well for atheists.
Buzz Kill…
I agree, however, I was addressing the fallacious comment made by “Afif” comment #46, my comments would be a logical outcome of his premise. I wish he would respond.
Mwalimu Abu
Buzz Kill,
Please forgive me, I did you an injustice. I missed your last line.
You said “Brakes work equally well for atheists”. Please, I hope that you were not eluding that I was an atheist, for nothing could be further from the truth. I believe in the Holy verses and live my life accordingly. Also, I am a biologist and someone who believes that evolution is one of the creator’s greatest creations. Therefore it would be foolish of you to call me an atheists.
I commented on evolution in the piece you commented on, It now strikes as convenient that you stopped your critique short of what I said about evolution. Your kind has a very big reputations for ignoring the truth by changing the subject. I say that you are not an atheists, I say that you are anything but, I also say that you are in league with the evil one for that is his greatest trick is to deceive those who think the are believers into denying Gods power by believing that Gods greatest creation “evolution” is non-existent. To deny evolution is to deny God.
Before you comment on this please feel free to read over my previous comments. Also note that many on your side have said that science is untrue and have given the names of scientists that they say support thier view (therefore invalidating their argument). I am a biologist and I am not using and language strong in science but indeed strong in truth. Please refrain from science talk (even from the soft science philosophy) and speak with words of truth. Do not hide behind you fear of the truth. Do not hide behind changing the subject or addressing something that was not spoken or implied by me.
I think that you are as capable of this as I think you are capable of having an independent thought.
Mungu akubarikisana
No, Father of Al Hamurabi
I made no claim that you are an atheist. It is obvious that you are a man of God.
What I was saying was just because you say you believe in the unseen forces of gravity, hydraulics and God doesn’t mean that gravity and hydraulics will work differently for an atheists.
Faith in the unseen is not required for these forces to operate. Like God, they operate regardless of what you believe.
And calm down man. You have no idea what I think about science or God.
If you are a scientist, you will wait for more evidence before you draw such complete conclusions to vague hypothesis.
Buzz Kill,
You are at the very least a man with honor. I Thank you for both of your comments.
However, I am very weary of those who know not truth professing rhetoric showing how little truth they know and how little faith they have in God. This is no excuse for me speaking too quickly. Forgive me.
And feel free to share what you believe.
Barakasana,
Mwalimu (teacher) Abu
Pass.
To abu al hamurabi
First of all I am not white but its typical of many of you Muslims in the West. Stupidity is not the problem, its when you are not aware you are stupid where the problem is. You guys fall into 2 categories:
1- We do whatever the West thinks and does and try to find a way to reconcile that with islam
2- We do everything the Islamist overseas do and try to justify why it does not reconcile with Western thinking.
Either way its just reactionary. Most of you were snoring prior to 9-11 then you suddenly emerged. probably due to anti Muslim feelings tha has risen after 9-11 in the West.
You are not original, either you guys are just trying to assimilate by any means, or you are trying to rebel by any means. No originality, no self sufficiency, no innivations. Just mimicking others.
I have seen many debates about evolution, and I have ssen enough. Evolution is something only an atheist scientist can believe because the alternative to them is creation. Anyone who tells us it established by science is lying. THATS the reason why anti evolutionist are always persecuted and marginalized by Darwanist. See themin a debate, they sound very similar to Sunni Muslims debating. its not surprising, because Darwanism is an orthodox religion hiding behind science.
You guys ain’t got balls, either you become cowed by Western intellectuals norms for the sake of it or you reject it and look at the Muslim past for the sake of rejecting it. No intellectual arguments whatsoever.
I can’t blame Bush for pretending Muslims here in the West don’t exist, because they really don’t.
Hilarious.
[...] Refuting Harun Yahya Islamic Creationism [...]
mohamed,
I was never in America until January 2002, when my classes began in one of your southern states. It was a difficult time and I even received threats from time to time. Still, I continued my research and taught the classes that were required of me and earned my PhD.
I was the only person from my country on this campus, and the only non-American Muslim.
I agree with what you said:
“1- We do whatever the West thinks and does and try to find a way to reconcile that with Islam
2- We do everything the Islamist overseas do and try to justify why it does not reconcile with Western thinking.”
From my experience, this was the case. You to are a huge victim of this, To me you still sound white and if this is not the case for give…you just sound very American. In the lasses I taught, evolution always would come and the non-degree (biology) seeking would always give the same arguments you give. These people were Christian fundamentalists. This is also what you sound like they offer no proof of either their knowledge or their faith only rhetoric. Since you sound like a white Christian fundamentalists I was confused. Forgive me this oversight.
However, you confuse me somewhat in your writing in one instance you say:
“1- We do whatever the West thinks and does and try to find a way to reconcile that with Islam
2- We do everything the Islamist overseas do and try to justify why it does not reconcile with Western thinking.”
As if you are indeed one of these Muslim. In another case you say:
“I can’t blame Bush for pretending Muslims here in the West don’t exist, because they really don’t.” Are one of the western Muslims or is it they?
You also said: “You guys ain’t got balls”, to me this sounds like an American southern redneck expression that I heard more than once while in your country. I think you are confused.
Once again, I made specific points in posting that like white Christian fundamentalist and like Bush, you ignore the question instead of addressing the question, then you resort to name calling and talking about things you only pretend to know.
Click on my name and you find a hint of my origin and where I am and learn something about Charles Darwin.
You are foolish and are in league with the evil one! You not addressing my comments and putting up a smoke screen says it all! In case you have forgotten, it is post #41. Please reread it (and my previous posts as I have already challenged you to do) if you have the courage. Please comment on what I have said and not what you have imagined. Also, get your story straight about your heritage before you email me.
If you don’t have the courage…well marginalize yourself.
Mungu akubarikisana
Abu al humurabi
Since you are from Tanzania and speak swahili, can you translate:
“Mbuzi hali nazi kwa vile hawezi kupanda ngazi ndipo azifikie nazi.”
And if they were forced to eat those, would they have developed hands instead of hoofs?
Buzz Kill,
Bwana asefiwe! Habari mzee! ni mzurisana. Hapana Tanzania. Jina langu ni Abu al humurabi. Papo starehe Kilgoris. Tafadhali jina lake nani?
Mungu akubarikisana,
Mwalimu Abu
PS: Karibu. I think a goat could only eat the husk of a coconut if he found it in the taki taki…Una jua?
For everyone else: he got the country and the language wrong (udhanifu mzungu). Hapana Tanzania= not Tanzania
Swahili means “the man of the coast”, therefore it is a people group and not a language. The language is Kiswahili which means: the language of the man of the coast. Also, Kiswahili is not my mother tongue, only the official language of my country and I never officialy learned it, but I do ok.
Buzz Kill,
Since you know the language of my country, allow me to share a joke I heard at Wilson Field last week.
Background. Most everyone in the cities speak English as well as Kiswahili and their mother tongue…except the ones filled with pride. Any this joke must be told in English for it is a play on how words are pronounced in English juxtaposed to Kiswahili. You may have to read it aloud to understand get it.
Ready? Here goes:
There was a mzungu woman walking down the track when a lorry came by and put dust in her face. She covered her face and exclaimed “My eye, my eye”. The fat mama in the shop then brought her two eggs.
Next I will tell about the mzungu that said to give his wife a hot coffee ever morning while he was away.
Una jua? That’s a good one no?
Puns and tongue twisters in Ki-swahili. Now we’re talking.
I’ll ignore all the slander. And try put it in clearer terms.
Scientific thought is based on an epistemological principle call Occam’s razor. This is the foundational assumption of scientific thinking. Not that there are not many other flaws as well, for which any history of Philosophy textbook shall suffice you– but this basic assumption is deeply flawed: it is simply a belief, there is no reason to accept it as true.
There is no reason to get into a ‘journal article’, (tho’ I’ve done what you suggest in my academic past) as here we are talking at the level of meta-discourse.
To Thabet, the claim was never made. Faith is an act of faith. I was merely pointing out that science presents itself as ‘objective truth’ but it hardly is.
Cyclewala,
Forgive, it was just your inconsistencies as to whether you were a Muslim assimilated into the west or that it was someone else, and of course your use of that crude American colloquialism made it more confusing. With that and the previous post you sounded exactly as I spoke…and you made both inaccurate and harsh judgments on me. If you would can you tell me if you are one of the indoctrinated Muslims in America or are just judging them…and why did you defend Bush? I thank you for your most recent post and its clarity.
I don’t really see your point, about not looking at journal articles, simply because you have in the past. I have no idea what journal you were looking but as a biologist we use Ockham’s razor in our explanations and in our journal articles, because often times, the simplest explanation is correct. However, there are other times when this is not the case.
Since I was unsure of what journal you used in your prior parley into the hard sciences I have included a link (just click on my name) to a publication. Please review it and point out to me what it is as you say “‘objective truth’ but it hardly is”. I did cheat a little bit, I work with a decapods. After you have done this we will move on to a more in-depth paper and then to one on evolution. I ask you to do this not to challenge what you believe but if I am wrong, I ask you to do this to show me where I have stepped off of the correct path and that you could show me the way to return.
The intent of the authors of this paper is eventually develop resource management use policy that will make us better stewards of the planet as the Creator commanded, Bwanasefiwe!
Also, tell me how it is that you do not hold creation science to the same accountability as other science. It seems to be rather contradictory that you apply your objectivity so unevenly…or are you a victim of what you accuse others of (this is not a slight, just a reasonable question about this).
Thank you and I look forward to your review of the paper, and to addressing the things you have written that I have misunderstood.
I would like to continue, but I am off to a meeting. I will check for your responses at the end of the day, however, feel free to take as much time with the paper as you need. Quite possibly you could address the other questions today and the paper tomorrow.
Imani ya Mungu
Cyclewala,
I posted the incorrect url. The correct is attached to my name. This prior paper is a bit more complex and may not be as interesting. Feel free to use either one.
Chimp Guevara sez
Viva la evolucion!
That’s not a personal attack on your scientific assumptions, but rather on the limits of scientific claims to “the Truth.”
I assume you refuse to admit that Occam’s razor is an assumption? Finding that ‘it works ‘ to give an explanation, from a philosophical point of view does validate it or elevate it to the level of objective truth.
The word NOT you will notice is missing from the previous post.
[...] is some speculation that HY is connected to right-wing American Muslims and that the right wing think tanks here [...]
Hi,
Harun Yahas ideas are not new. Unfortunately they are widespread and accepted as the be all and end all of islamic science. For some decent writings on islam and science, check out ziauddin sardar.
He believes, (as do I) that there is massive evidence to evolution and although in science nothing can ever be ‘fact’, through induction we can suppose that the theory holds.
Hey, I just read the first two passages and I am starting to beleive in god. You know why? Because only God could have made such a stupid thing like Harun Yahya. Evolution isn’t that cruel after all!
lol
Blah Blah Christians have no brains……….Try it for 1 billion years u won’t prove Islam wrong…y do u guys have problem if someone comes up with a west like thinking who clearly out class ya people..Y don’t ya can’t ya people digest the truth???fuckin brains lol. u can write a thousand pages i would still say fuck u christians.
[...] Eteraz did some digging into Harun Yahya last summer and guess what he discovered? Christian creationist groups are affiliated with the Harun Yahya team and involved in their marketin…. Taner Edis, a Turkish scientist who is hardly a fan of Islam with a publication like An Illusion [...]
[...] Ali Eretaz presents a long chain of reasoning which he believes shows that: Harun Yahya is most likely a front [update: or ally] for Christian right-wing’s version of Creationism. [...]
Here is another way for possible compatibility between Islam (Qur’an) and Evolution. It was written by Sh. Nuh and can be found at http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm.
Although not preferring it himself, he writes that macro evolution is not incompatible with Islam. Leaving much room for differing opinions. He still insists that Adam was specially created (i.e., directly from clay). I personally found this to be much more natural, and especially essential for those not schooled in Aqida (Asha’ari &/or Maturidi). It’s dense but short, so go ahead and get your cup of tea or coffee. :)
I remember reading one of the HY books (at a Mosque of all places!). The were never sufficient, and always left holes for doubt. In fact, they could very well be dangerous for those Muslims who are science majors (myself being one of them). Anyone with any microbiology background will throw them in the garbage bin after a single glance; thats the level of sophistication.
Yes, but Sh. Nuh is not a biologist is he?
It is hard for me to see how being a biologist would qualitatively enhance his argument. Remember, the above is intended for Muslims. Still, the first two sections could be accepted by anyone. Analyzing the philosophical and logical underpinnings of evolution is a job better suited to philosophers and/or theologians.
Yes, I agree. Sh. Nuh concentrates on the philosophy of science. He is smart enough to do that, instead of the bad science engaged in by creationists like Harun Yahya.
My point about him not being a biologist was about authority in disciplines…
The bigger problem is the denial of the laws of life that were created in the beginning by the creator. We see these very day, I believe that abu al hamurabi (above) gave a good description of some of these. These laws cannot be denied by anyone save those who would deny the sun is shining at noon…and most of them do not when they they need medicines they are based on evolutionary science to treat virus that have evolved resistance to antibiotics that worked fine last year.
However, these creationist believe in a supernatural being that created the world (as do I), they however seem to have a problem with the fossil record and how the Earth is(we natural beings use natural time). Many say the the Earth is only 6000 years old according to the Book. Well in the book creation is explained to natural beings by a supernatural Creator. He uses natural descriptions that can easily be understood by a creature that is limited in experience with anything (humans). So if if the supernatural Creator is the one who said the world was created in 6 days, then these are certainly supernatural days and not governed by the rules he set forth to operate over this planet. If this is correct, then this supernatural creator has deceived us or the creator is a natural being. I believe the Creator is a supernatural being.
That being said can anyone tell the length of one of the Creators supernatural days? Feel free to use natural hours, days weeks, years, decades, centuries etc to describe this, however, please do not offend the Creator by saying that a natural day and a supernatural day are equivalent. If you do this you must also explain what other natural laws you desire to put on the Creator and why? I mean these two types of days cannot be equal except to equal beings, correct?
Very interesting post.
I don’t really understand why religion and science cannot coexist. I do believe that God created the universe, but I do believe in science. People get very riled up about things like the big bang theory saying that the creation of the universe can’t be some spontaneous act, it was a divine creation…well, why can’t you say that God caused the big bang to occur so that the universe would develop according to his will? Why must it be just one or the other?
In terms of evolution, I think a few people may look at it from the point of view that humans came from monkeys and then they disagree with it because humans were creations of God and can’t possibly be descendants of an animal. The theory of adaptation doesn’t necessarily link monkey to humans, it describes how organisms/animal behavior/structure can adapt to their environment over time based on needs, mechanical and chemical influences. These changes have been illustrated numerous times (Darwin’s Finches, peppered moths during the Industrial Revolution, etc). Myself being a student of mechanobiology, I see how our bones develop/adapt to the mechanical stresses placed on them according to Wolff’s Law, and I see the necessity of mechanical stimuli to promote allometric growth for reproportioning an adult’s skull size compared to the rest of the body (http://www.bookrags.com/research/allometric-growth-wob/).
My question again is, why can’t both exist? Why can’t one say that God created organisms, adaptation mechanisms, and environment so these animals would develop to the way they are today. Why must they be mutually exclusive?
Musafir,
¡Well stated!
Mungu akubariki,
nanyuki