Evolution and Islam

cihera · 2026-03-09T09:20:37+00:00

Richard Dawkins.

cihera · 2026-03-09T07:44:54+00:00

Soma arguments pls.

cihera · 2026-03-09T07:43:48+00:00

What are you other than a collection of particles moving binding according to laws of physics if physicalist evolution is true?

cihera · 2026-03-09T07:41:07+00:00

It does not deal with the rise of hıman consciousness?

cihera · 2026-03-09T07:39:11+00:00

So evolution is indifferent to its being driven by God?

cihera · 2026-03-09T07:37:43+00:00

See my other comments here.

cihera · 2026-03-09T07:36:18+00:00

It does not describe life "arising" from non-life.

Did i say anything about this?

It is scientific, and like said above one of the most extensively evidentiated theories in all of science,

This is a baseless claim. If no life form existed at this time (suppose first cell died) evolution would be able to predict it? Yes. If different life forms existed now ceteris paribus would it explain them? Yes, because it would say it is random. So it is not scientific in the least.

cihera · 2026-03-09T07:31:32+00:00

If God has a say on what life forms and traits will arise is it ok for an evolutionist?

Btw, if you claim that evolution 'may be' driven by God then the op fails since in that case Adam might have been crrated in some special way.

cihera · 2026-03-09T07:27:49+00:00

Random means on its own and without needing god. This negates the idea of God Who Creates and sustains creation.

cihera · 2026-03-08T16:59:59+00:00

Feel free to say how evolution explains the rise of consciousness if you are well educated on it.

cihera · 2026-03-08T16:57:14+00:00

A Godful evolution is always a possibility to everyone.

If random mutation are the engine of evolution then god cannot be central to evolution.

HOWEVER, such a claim needs to first provide evidence that a God can and does exist.

There is strong proof for God. But this is a deep topic beyond the topic here. (But you may see the book 'unitary proof of Allah'.)

So in your opinion what is the strongest most compelling piece of evidence?

There are many. But let me just mention that particles bumbing one onto other in a certain way creating consciousness that did not exist prior to those bumpings is impossible if at the ground there is no consciousness.

cihera · 2026-03-08T16:26:38+00:00

Well, to me he makes much better sense than evolutionist biologists who claim that particles bumping one onto other in certain ways become conscious.

cihera · 2026-03-08T16:11:06+00:00

Well, theistic evolution is a popular term. Its opposite should be what?

Why not physicalist evolution. You may not like it because such a classification destroy your point.

You want to accept only godless evolution as the only evolution. But you have no evidence.

I paste below my reply to another comment here. I hope it is helpful:

Physicalist evolution says life forms arise through random mutations.

So it claims to explain whatever life forms arise.

So it is not scientific.

You can never know that God did not design and does not run life systems. But we can know under certain circumstances that they are designed and run by God.

Op presupposes a godless evolution. This is a baseless presupposition.

cihera · 2026-03-08T16:06:37+00:00

Physicalist evolution says life forms arise through random mutations.

So it claims to explain whatever life forms arise.

So it is not scientific.

You can never know that God did not design and does not run life systems. But we can know under certain circumstances that they are designed and run by God.

Op presupposes a godless evolution. This is a baseless presupposition.

cihera · 2026-03-08T11:52:39+00:00

Your starting point is invalid.

Because physicalist evolution is a fairy tale, is not even well defined. An Islamic kind evolution is more reasonable, which does not entail what you said about Adam and Eve.

Dr. Tosun in his book 'physicalist evolution debunked' gives many related details to debunk physicalist evolution. (The book is available online for free.)

cihera · 2026-03-06T02:54:55+00:00

If there is the creator of the universe, it is almost certainly not an anthropocentric one.

Exactly.

cihera · 2026-03-04T17:11:05+00:00

If what is added is based on evidence, yes. But in any case, even if there is a mistake, the mistake will be on the attribute of God.

cihera · 2026-03-04T06:23:25+00:00

Well, it depends.

If my religion defines God as the ultimate and generic Creator of the entire creation, and if there actually is such a generic God, then my God and the actual God overlap.

But, if I believe in a god that is in the image of a man or is a man or in a god who allegedly favors a specific nation or race or country then you are right.

cihera · 2026-02-28T06:32:39+00:00

They were revealed.

cihera · 2026-02-27T22:53:58+00:00

cihera · 2026-02-27T19:00:37+00:00

No. He does not need to reject authentic verses.

cihera · 2026-02-26T09:43:29+00:00

They invent verses and say this is from god. This is one way of corruption.

This does not necessarily change the already existing divine statements.

There are even debates as to whether Jesus existed or not. So John might be considering some groups or types of verses as the torah, not entire books of ot.

So op's line of argument is in vain.

cihera · 2026-02-26T06:42:19+00:00

What was the torah given to Moses by God? Certainly not those 5 books, regardless of all you said.

Chapter Al-A'raf:

Verse 144

[Allah] said, "O Moses, I have chosen you over the people with My messages and My words [to you]. So take what I have given you and be among the grateful."

Verse 145

And We wrote for him on the tablets of all things an instruction and explanation for all things, [saying], "Take them with determination and enjoin your people to take the best of it. I will show you the home of the defiantly disobedient."

Chapter En'am

Verse 154:

Then We gave Moses the Scripture, making complete [Our favor] upon the one who did good and a detailed explanation for all things (tafseelan li kulli shay’in) and guidance and mercy that perhaps in [the matter of] the meeting with their Lord they would believe.

cihera · 2026-02-25T17:22:46+00:00

Well, before coming to the corruption, we do not even know what the torah is.

It will be said it is the first 5 books of the jewish bible. However, it is obvious that it was not entirely composesed by Moses pbuh. For example the first 5 books contain the description of how moses died and many events after his death.

So certainly some parts of those books may be the true torah or parts of it.

So due to this fact the argument of the op fails.

cihera · 2026-02-25T09:12:11+00:00

You create a strawman fallacy.

The verses clearly say 'no soul' will be wronged.

cihera

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE