Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's theory.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by JustCause:

Socod_badne, I am a bit confused with the above statement of yours, could you clarify it further please?

 

Sure. The universe and everything that happens within it are guided by invarient set of natural laws. These are physical and non-physical laws that predetermine the possible outcome of many events. These events range from the paths of planetry motion to possible products of certain chemical reactions to the world of physics. For example, the laws of gravity predict that a ball thrown up in the air will fall back down. You will not see a ball lift its up from the ground and suspend itself in the air as this contradicts the laws of gravity. So these invarient natural laws rule out the possibility of there being chance in mention example. There is no chance in what will happened if you drop a ball suspended in the air. There are noted exceptions of course. Principally quantum mechanics world.

 

The universe is built from quarks, leptons and so on. Since quantum mechanics applies to these particles, why shouldn’t quantum laws apply to the whole of the universe?

 

That is at the elementary level and not the cosmic and non-subatomic world. The laws of quantum mechanics have effect at the very small scale -- at the electron, neutron, proton...level. That explains why the invariant natural laws don't apply to radio actively decaying molecules or quantum mechanics.

 

I will just say now and don’t have the time to expand on it, that we live in non-deterministic universe! Don’t be like Einstein and say, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe!â€.

We do live in non-deterministic AND deterministic world. You simply can not deny the plethora of empiracal evidence available for deterministic world. Einstien was partially right, God sometimes doesn't play dice with the universe. But on other instances like in the case radio actively decaying molecules, God does play dice with the universe. We often observe a radio active molecule decaying in some instances while in other instances under the same conditions, the same radio active molecule doesn't decay. God does play dice with universe in this instance.

[Baashi]

I felt the need to straighten out the point Caano Geel made when he qouted me. I just saw it thanks to JB bold qoutes there.

 

Now again I do accept the fact that things evolve over time including non-material things. Rocks take a beating from elements and that way its shapes got changed. U got the picture where I'm going with this. Living things evolve too in order to adopt their surroundings as a matter of survival. This much I agree! Furthermore, I accept the genes replicating and the fit ones succeeding to last longer and hence propogating their imprints to the next generation.

 

Where I take issue is the assertion that plants, animals, and what have you come about through this process - from one single cell which in turn come about through chemical evolution! I haven't seen the evidence be fossil record or other kind of evidence to support this assertion. Also, at a higher level Darwin claims the process is self-directed, self-designed, and self propogated process. This is not an easy thing to believe unless one is willing to take a leap of faith in Science.

 

I have a hunch that most of you would have a difficult time fathoming the thought of Sony Viao Laptop forming itself over time and all its applications materializing without a programmer and design engineer doing the actual thinking and manufacturing!

 

Theorotically speaking there is a chance this could happen since the basic ingredient are available in nature and given the frequency of chemical reactions happen, there are remote chance that the necessary elements coming together by chance starting in basic molecular level and over time perfecting itself to form a perfect laptop!

 

Of course this not a reasonable poposition since there are not many laptops found in nature. But the point is what the Darwinism is asking us to belief is that organs way too complex than laptop like eyes and brains can appear in nature all by themselves. There is no evidence in support of this.

 

Any way, each of us will ultimately decide, what to believe and what not to, for themselves. I gotta tell you for me, I have yet to see a good explanation from Darwins side of the argument.

[xiinfaniin]

I totally find myself in agreement with the gist of intelligent design theory; the universe is irreducibly complex system. There must be supreme designer behind this elegant world. It just could not be pure coincident (a self-driven process that seems to produce wonders of great magnitude). That much I agree. It is their approach (falsifying evolution theory) and motive (attempt to scientifically prove and validate creationism) that I found futile.

 

Creationism is an article of faith for me and as such it is not subject for scientific validation. It is a divine narrative that I accepted many moons ago. And although Darwin’s evolution theory and its attempt to explain the process of how the species progressed is admirable and deserves some credit it is still an incomplete scientific enquiry that falls short on the mark as to giving a comprehensive picture of its basic assertion. It has many gaping holes as Baashe eluded. I also find it’s assertions quite insulting and wounding to my sense of who I am. I could be many things but I ain’t apes! The fact that they preclude any supernatural causes for the progression of life as a rational scientific explanation is another reason why Darwinism stinks. But be that as it may, I still don’t see why falsifying it should be the prime goal of intelligent design proponents. After all as a scientific theory, evolution must be falsifiable. But would that prove any thing? Say creationism. I don’t think so.

 

Also the motive of scientifically proving (I think that is what it comes down to) God is another pointless exercise. God is above and beyond our senses of scientific methodology and He needs not be proven. The entire universe is a manifest of His grandiose design. And one needs not entertain the notion of proving Him or disproving for that matter.

 

In the final analysis intelligent design theory basically conforms to the unavoidable heavenly manifestation of this universe. What else would a wise man say?

 

It is astonishing to see people with reasonable degree of academic competence pledge unequivocal support for this theory and in the same breath mock and dismiss creationism; the divine narrative of human development and origin of life. I guess it boils down to your level faith.

 

P.S; JB Muttakalim waagii wuu ku lumiyey saaxiib.

[Bakar]

JB

 

 

don´t get confused .. science is nothing but observation, identification and description.

But to apply science and call a phenomena scientific one has to carry out experimental investigation, and bring forward theoretical explanation of the given phenomena.

 

 

I am more confused about the discussion at hand than more so the topic—argument from design and theory of revolution. It is bit late for me to retreat from the perplexity of this topic, therefore,I can’t help but continue on enquiring, as I read some of the abstract philosophical terms used in your explanation of what constitutes real or scientific evidence. Moreover, though I support the notion of everyone having their conviction, still one needs to provide a reason why he/she holds certain judgements. Suppose I am one of the proponents of the creationism, before anything else, I have to provide explanation as to why creationism holds validity or more weigh over naturalism. For instance, my argument would be: alternative explanations (creationism) are needed because science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect. Hence it is contradictory to say all life evolve from simple cell structure. Therefore, there must be an intelligent being who designed the universe. JB, this is an easier way to either reject or support an argument rather than throwing those abstract terms at us. After all, this is basic discussion, and I don’t suppose we are all theologians, philosopher or scientist. At least I am not.

 

 

PS. I am not suggesting science doesn’t correspond to the Revelation, but it is the conclusion mad by its advocates which raises eyebrow. Beside science should not be an instrument by which we gauge validity of God's revelation.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

So for example although although data and experimenation support evolution, evolution cant nessecarily be true just because the data supports it, and it holds vice verca with regard to the creationism, i.e. something is, beacuse it is.

Evolution is a FACT as supported by experimental data and evidences collected. However, evolution is not certainty. But then again no science theory is. Scientific theories are provisional. They are the best explanations we have for observed fact for time being. They can always be supplanted by better explanations and theories. That is what's great about science -- its subject to revision.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Khayr:

Salamz,

 

Science-

WE COME FROM NOTHINGNESS AND WE END

IN NOTHINGNESS

 

That is not what science says. Where did you get that from?

 

Science believes in the principle of cause and effect. For there to be an effect, there must be a cause to 'cause' such effect. This means you can't get something from 'nothing'. But where we came from is more in realm of cosmology and outside the scope of evolution theory. Its entirely different debate altogether.

 

Creation theory is more consistance with Natural Laws because it states that self evident TRUTH that SCIENTISM wants to DENY

 

Creation theory says from nowhere and from nothing, sprung up the earth and all living things. This took place in the span of 6 days, over 6000 years ago. That is clearly incosistant with Natural laws as we know them today.

 

Where the natural laws different say 6 000 years ago? According to science, no. From looking deep into space, thus looking at the oldest objects in our universe, we find that they are governed by the same laws as everything else in our world. So natural laws, as we know them today, governed the earth when creation theory says everything was created.

 

"TO EVERYTHING THERE IS A BEGINNING AND AN END"

 

That can only be said with certainty about living things. But not about non-living things. There are inanimate systems in our universe that had niether a beginning nor reached an end and are self-sustaining. Having said that, I've heard convincing arguements that such system can have a beginning. Even though at no point in the systems history can one pin-point to a particular stage to earmark its birth.

 

Evolution and Scientism denies this self-evident REALITYYYY!

 

No, they're not. The self-evident reality is that evolution is a FACT. An observable and demonstrable fact. Science doesn't deny anything facts show to be true.

 

THAT WOULD MAKE THEM SUPRA, DIVINE, A GOD!

 

So? Are you asking me to deny reality? The implications of this reality is not my problem. I'm only concerned with the truth. I'll leave the rest to learned theologians.

 

and if that is what you are saying, then you are negating TAWHID!!!

 

How so? I made no declaration about Tawhid. Only state facts as I see them.

 

For if 'There is no Reality (GOD) but the Reality (GOD), There is no Seperation from GOD with what is CREATED, call it Matter or whateva...

 

Then, that is Allah's problem, not mine. Its his world, his creation, which I am one. If there are realities which contradict one of his attributes, why should I be blamed for simply noting these realities :confused:

 

HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT, especially if you are a Muslim???

 

I don't see why I shouldn't make such statement or for that matter any other statement as long as it's the truth. Note that I made no personal declaration only stated facts as stipulated by science.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Mutakalim:

Salaamun Lakum Nomads,

 

What is it that Natural selection explains that other theories of evolution failed to explain?

 

Natural selection is part of Evolution theory. In a nutshell, it simply postulates that Nature 'selects' individuals best fit (reproductive fitness) to pass on their genes more favourably then those less fit in the population of species.

 

Where do the terms mutation and chance fit in this

soi-disant

theory of science.

 

Some mutations occur unpredictably. Most mutations are harmless. Others are useless, about 1/4.

 

The reason you and I and every living human soul is different from each other is due to mutation. This kind of mutation is called point mutations and its harmless. Its primary purpose is to add to the genetic diversity of species. It is THIS genetic diversity that Natural selection acts on by favouring the mutants with best genes.

 

What is it that the theory of evolution seeks to establish?

 

How humans evolved, how other living organisms evolved, where we came from and questions of similar theme.

 

How does Darwin dissolve some of the objections to his theory?

 

You mean modern evolution thoery? Darwin is dead. Browse throught this thread, the answers are mostly there. But if you bring up a particular issue, I'll be happy to discuss it.

 

The ID argument is a metaphysical argument, and not a scientific one, but what does this mean? Is this where the philosophy of science comes in?

 

And therein lies the problem in debate such as this. On one side is science relying on facts and demonstrable facts and on the other you have faith based believe theory that can not be tested or verified any way or form. That is why I think debates like this are only good for educational purposes but never for reaching meaningful conclusions.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Baashi:

 

As a scientific theory it has its shortcomings (fatal) especially on the fossil, genetics, and missing and unexplained "gabs".

 

There are no unexplained gaps. The fossil record is very strong. Whatever shortcomes may exist in Evolution Theory, it is still very well supported theory compared to many other science theories. Its remarkable that a theory that is well supported can be the most criticised and scrutinized theory.

 

Nevertheless, the gabs that existed in fossil records are hard to explain away.

 

Not in the light of the geogological and geographical problems presented by nature. Remember we're talking about millions and billions of years in which the earth underwent numerous climate changes and experienced a number of mass extinctions. However, there are good explanations for the percieved 'gaps' in the fossil record. Moreover, the fossile record is very comprehensive and complete for all major transitional evolutions. Most of the noted gaps are in the evolution of one species to another.

 

I have yet to see coherent explanation or empirical evidences that convinces me that Darwin and the neo-Darwinists know how man evolved from single organism.

 

There is an explanation AND evidence. According to Darwin we descended from a single common ancestor via descent with modification. The most convincing evidence is we all share the same information transfering molecule -- the DNA.

 

There are plenty of tales of how man might have originated based on extrapolation from the "creative" powers of the mutation and selection. Without leap of faith, there is no way one can demonstrate its validity using selective mechanism.

 

Yes, we can. You should take a look the 'speciation', based selective mechanisms, of Drosophila in labs back in the eighties. We also have also demonstrated speciation in labs with bacteria and yeasts.

 

You guys might have soft spot to uncritical acceptance in anything that bears "Scientific" label but I don't and so far my inquisitive hunger have not been quenched on this one.

 

Maybe you haven't considered all the facts and explanations available.

 

The other contested issue is the metaphysical aspect of the theory and its adamant or rather active campaign to dismiss the existence of Super Being employing bilogical processes that give shape the living organism.

 

Evolution Theory is silent about the nature of Allah.

[Khayr]

Salaamz,

 

Call it what you want:

 

Evolution, Quantum Physics, Relativity etc.

 

They common underlining principles:

 

 

1) Constant Change & Uncertainity

-Since there is no 'Permanance' and

constant evolution exists, then there is no

 

'Universal End' to 'Matter'. Therefor no pre

 

 

determined destination, hence total Freewill.

 

Taqdeer is negated.

 

 

4) Non-Permenance and Negation of Hierarchy

 

Modern physics also presents a radically different view of the subatomic world from the simple atomism of classical physics, which considered nature to be comprised of indivisible particles—that is, atoms (from atomos, meaning literally “indivisible†in Greek). At the beginning of the twentieth century physicists looked for “ultimate†building particles of matter, and many continue to do so today. But as more and more particles came to be discovered in addition to protons, electrons, and neutrons there now exists such an array of particles, called by some physicists “a particle zoo,†that many have given up on the idea of finding the “ultimate’ particles or building blocks of matter, and rather envisage a vast ocean of energy from which different particles with various lifetimes issue forth and into which they disappear.9 One might say that whereas Newtonian physics saw an order underlying what appears outwardly as chaos in the perceptible world, for

quantum mechanics there is chaos or at least an unknowable reality underlying the order of macro-and even micronature.

Quoted from this page

 

IF there is not an 'Unknown Reality', a 'Start',

 

then we can not say that 'Matter' has Hierarchy

 

and that it actually 'DEVOLVES' from 'TOP DOWN'.

 

Science says that it 'EVOLVES' from 'Down to

 

TOP', a constant progression because their is no

 

'ABSOLUTE' starting point, there is but Entropy,

 

spontaneous change.

 

Also, since their exists spontaneous change, then

 

their can not exist an ONTHOLOGY, a relation to

 

ALL things because their is no 'ABSOLUTE'

 

starting point and the Universe is composed

 

of 'RANDOM COLLECTION of PARTICLES'.

 

 

 

5) Individualism and Notion of Progress

 

If there is no ONTHOLOGY, no

 

interconnectedness to all that EXISTS because

 

science says there 'NO ABSOLUTENESS', ALL IS

 

RELATIVE, then MAN is to act on this EARTH,

 

INDEPENDANT of THERE Surroundings. IF there is

 

no ONTHOLOGY (INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF ALL

 

PARTICLES), then WHAT MAN DOES and SAYS, is

 

INDEPENDANT FROM MANS ACTIONS AND

 

BEHAVIOURS.

 

HENCE, the creation of the Idea of

 

INDIVIDUALISM which basically states that

 

'MAN IS HIS OWN GOD, THE CREATOR OF

 

HIS OWN DESTINY'. This is why we hear such

 

notions as:

 

* 'DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

 

* You can do ANYTHING that you want?

 

* I AM MY OWN PERSON

 

* Believe in what YOU WANT etc.

 

Where does Progress come in?

 

Progress is the simple idealogy that MAN is

 

EVOLVING,

 

HAS HIS OWN DESTINY IN HIS HANDS,

 

there is no ABSOLUTE BEING aka GOD because

 

we can not determine this through EMPRICAL

 

evidence , therefor,

 

MAN is HIS OWN GOD, RULER OF HIS OWN DESTINYYY.

 

 

(DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SHIRK saying that the RELATIVE (MAN) is the ABSOLUTE (GOD)???

 

 

Science says 'RESEARCH FOR THE SAKE OF RESEARCH, DEBATE FOR THE SAKE OF DEBATE'

 

Religion says 'DHIKR-UL-ALLAH is the SOURCE of

 

ALL DEBATES. IF something is not leading you

 

to 'Rememberance of GOD', then it is taking you

 

away from your purpose which is to be 'A SERVANT

 

OF GOD'

 

Fi Amanillah

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Bakar:

JB

For instance, my argument would be:

alternative explanations (creationism) are needed because science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect. Hence it is contradictory to say all life evolve from simple cell structure. Therefore,

there must be an intelligent being who designed the universe.

JB, this is an easier way to either reject or support an argument rather than throwing those abstract terms at us.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

I totally find myself in agreement with the gist of intelligent design theory; the universe is irreducibly complex system.

There must be supreme designer behind this elegant world. It just could not be pure coincident (a self-driven process that seems to produce wonders of great magnitude).

That much I agree...........

I could be many things but I ain’t apes!

As if science or knowledge and facts obtained through it were there to entertain you .

As it stands today , the chimp in San Antonio zoo is your closest relative when it comes to Darwins theory ,and it is a scientific FACT.

ooooh mama , somebody stop me

however unentertaining it might be,yet it won´t n can´t deny you the right to choose and have a faith a diffrent theory , be it descending from the benevolent celestial being that acts as an intermediary between heaven and earth namely angels or Adam´s rib, which may or may not be true and valid as far as science is concerned .

And that is what you´ve exactly done guyz.

First, Bakar by taking the easiet way , second Xiin by favoring Angels to Apes.

 

Now , BOTH your posts share one single decisive argument and the nerve centre of your reasoning seems to be "There must be an intelligent designer or the whole thing is meaningless", a classic line .

 

The two dimensional world of creationisim and it´s tendency to cut short to reach a quick result in an otherwise complex universal issue is a drawback, but ironically natural and well-known shortcomming in the human way of thinking in the three dimensional world of science and nature.

 

In short, Our pursuit to wisdom by intellectual means is the source of our assumptions whereby the need to pursue knowledge through science is the outstanding one in a complex universe becouse of it´s ability to demosnterate and validate facts and realities as they appear in the eye and mind of the beholder.

here i came to think of NGONGE and why creationism can´t be taught at school

 

Socod_badne, please since brother kheyr insists shooting it from the angle of a muslim (as if we lack Muslims here ) refrain from answering his questions dealing specefically with Islam, just for the sake of a healthy debate,

Scientists have a tendency of stepping on ppl´s toes

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

Socod_badne, please since brother kheyr insists shooting it from the angle of a muslim (as if we lack Muslims here ) refrain from answering his questions dealing specefically with Islam, just for the sake of a healthy debate,

Scientists have a tendency of stepping on ppl´s toes

I all Admit this-

 

I come with a Religious Bias and Alhamdulillah

 

for that...

 

and JB, Socod_badne and others who speak similiar

 

words come with a

 

PRO-MODERN,PRO-SCIENTISM,

 

PRO-INTOLERANCE FOR METAPHYSICS

 

biasss!!!

 

The two dimensional world of creationisim and it´s tendency to cut short to reach a quick result in an otherwise complex universal issue is a drawback, but ironically natural and well-known shortcomming in the human way of thinking in the three dimensional world of science and nature.

Religion says-ALLAHU AKBIR (GOD IS GREATER)

 

-Is Multi-Dimensional b/c GOD's

 

will is ALWAYS GREATER

 

Scientism says-MAN IS GREATER which is Shirk.

 

-It is Uni-Dimensional and

 

Self-serving and infact is a Lie

 

woven in web of lies under the

 

guise of 'Complexity'.

 

 

Our pursuit to wisdom by intellectual means is the source of our assumptions whereby the need to pursue knowledge through science is the outstanding one in a complex universe becouse of it´s ability to demosnterate and validate facts and realities as they appear in the eye and mind of the beholder.

Our pursuit to wisdom by intellectual means is the source of our assumptions

If you mean Intellectual means such as

 

Emperical evidence which modern science relies on

 

as the MAIN Source of Knowledge, then you are

 

wrong b/c Wisdom is gained from the 'HIGHER'

 

through REVELATION and not through our Hubris,

 

our Self-serving mechanisms and thoughts.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Khayr:

If you mean Intellectual means such as Emperical evidence which modern science relies on as the MAIN Source of Knowledge, then you are wrong b/c Wisdom is gained from the 'HIGHER' through REVELATION and not through our Hubris, our Self-serving mechanisms and thoughts.

How can someone with the views above be engaged in anything that is remotely scientific?

 

Socod Badne, kabuhu yayna kaa dhamaan. Meeshan cidina cid ma maqlaysee.

[Bakar]

JB,

 

I have said: ".. alternative explanations (creationism) are needed because science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect. Hence it is contradictory to say all life evolve from simple cell structure." In other words, if all life evolves from simple structure, then there is no such thing as causal connection in the universe. Brother Harun put it very eloquently what i have been trying to stress.

 

 

Thermodynamics Falsifies Evolution

 

By Harun Yahya

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything, whether living or not, wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another, and according to the law, the process cannot be avoided.

 

This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you would see that its tires had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its engine had stopped working. The same inevitable process holds true for living things.

 

The second law of thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined, with physical equations and calculations.

 

This famous law of physics is also known as the "law of entropy." In physics, entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. A system’s entropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organized, and planned state towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. The more disorder there is in a system, the higher its entropy is. The law of entropy holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganized state.

 

 

Source: http://islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2002/12/Article02.shtml

[Socod_badne]

Bakar,

 

I have been to Harun Yahya's site few times in the past. I've read several of his critiques of evolution theory. I walked away with the conviction that not only is he deliberatly presenting false information but he is also a charlatan. He is enjoying being in the spotlight where he considered a respectable learned man. In the mean time, he hoodwincks muslims about the falsity of Evolution Theory not with factual evidence/s but with outright lies. Any erudite analysis of his work will yield this conclusion.

 

Its clear that he has very little scientific knowledge, or doesn't care for it at all. My hunch is the latter. My feeling from reading his other works was even when presented with erroneous facts he presented in his works, he still insisted on keeping them rather correcting where he was shown to be wrong. Not an indication of a credible scholar.

 

We see this lack of scientific knowledge evinced in this proposterous claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution theory. He failed to mention in his article that the 2nd Law applies ONLY under specific condition -- closed systems. As the 2n Law states: the entropy or disorder in a CLOSED system will increase. However, the Earth, where evolution took place, is not a closed system. It gets energy from the sun.

 

But what is more damaging is not the refution of his claim and therefore being revealed as intellectally incompetent but also insight into his mindset. One would expect for a someone like Yahya, who assumes a position of authority entrusted to give advice to others about crucial scientific matters, demonstrates at the bare minimum fundamental understanding of what he spouses before he starts orating. However, here in this article we see he simply has no grasp of what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really says. Had he known, he wouldn't have even thought of raising this claim. This is because IF what he said was true, mainly that 2nd Law contradicts evolution, it would mean the earth is closed system, hence doesn't get any energy from the sun. No energy from the sun means no life is possible on earth. This fact doesn't support the existance of any life on earth. The debate between Evolution and Creation theory becomes trivial one.

 

Some have a nack of reducing serious matters into trivialities.

[juba]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

]Evolution is a FACT as supported by experimental data and evidences collected. However, evolution is not certainty. .

how can it be a fact but at the same time an uncertainty? that sounds a little contradictive to me.

 

Evolution is a THEORY meaning not yet conclusive scientifically but might be conclusive in your own head. I find evolution a sticky issue, if you agree you are at odds with allah's laws and if you don't agree you are overwhelmed with the evidence. If evolution did occur that means there was no adam and eve because we supposedly came form apes! how does that work? In any case Allah knows best.