Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's theory.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by IGaDaaRiwaaYada:

Johnny B i am not giving the cridet to creationism simply because i cannot find a scientific anwser but science itself lacks a vaible explanation.

IGaDaaRiwaaYada,

I´m not gonna argue about where you placed the credit, i think it´s obvious, but let us just conclude that The evolution theory is a scientific theory, sincere enough to declare it´s ignorance and fade out when things go outside it´s scope,

while creation theory intrinsically provides answer to every dilemma that we may encounter, including scientific ones, and never fades away ,since NOTHING falls outside it´s scope.

 

The problem with science is naturally the lack of scientific explanation to a specefic issue entails an epistemic discomfort, That paves the way for the less convincing but highly comfortable and trivially available aproach of creationism.

 

A: An omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect God(an Intelligent Designer if u like) has created the Universe,i.e everything,period.

 

Voila ! and that is the most prevalent statement for many, all our queries are mystically answered, and no explanations are necessary.

 

Now the odd thing is , You´ve to exhaust science with endless queries till it ceases to respond,

then turned to creationism without querying for explanations,and simply declare it´s universal answer considerable., ain´t that weird?

 

Ofcourse creationism answers any assumption be it nr 5,1,2,4,3 and comes to bedrock(7) ,

 

but can you make a narrow depiction of that Intelligent Designer behind it?

So we can start evaluating and verifying the creation theory, just as we did with the scientific theory.

 

Brother IGaDaaRiwaaYada,

I´ve been asked that Question regarding where i stand earlier in the debate by Bakar, so please scroll up/back and read it.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by NomadicQueen:

First off there is no clear scientific explanation for how we came to be, I think we all agree on this, otherwise we wouldn't be typing.

Wrong! There IS scientific explanation how we came to be. It is called Evolution Theory. How the first living organism came into existance is explained by Abiogenesis theory, look it up.

 

Secondly, WE ARE MUSLIM! We understand and most importantly ACCEPT! that there are always going to be questions that will NEVER! be answered, at least not in life.

 

What questions? If we don't know the answer to a question, it means we don't know the answer for the time being. We might discover the answer in some future date or not. But can we say this or that question will never have an answer? I don't think so.

 

You will find your predecessors there debating over things they do nothing about. You can sit at there feet with a cappuccino and soak up the plethora of knowledge they have to offer. Dont have a ride home? No worries, an army of taxis await you in the parking lot, just one of the many perks of being such a smart Faarax.

Lol!

 

I rarely go starbucks (we have Tim Hortans here in Canada but hate the place ).

 

I don't know about others but this Nomad knows Evolution Theory inside out. :cool:

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by IGaDaaRiwaaYada:

If you are saying all above statements is not that mean you agree that two theories can go hand in hand. Since, you clearly stated how the two theories interplay, as one exists and the other steps aside, in different phases of building a logical trace of lifes origin. In addition, you surprise me when you said

I think you misinterpreted my last post or I did a crappy job of explaining myself.

 

Would you mix water and oil? Of course not. Why not? Cause you know that they don't mix. The same with religion and Science.

 

What I was trying to say was that there are subject areas that science should leave to religion. Such subjects as the nature of God, afterlife, ontology, metaphysical...science has nothing to say about these subject. Religion should do the same thing and leave science related subjects to science.

 

Think of religion and science as two trains heading in the same direction, on two parallel tracks that zigzag each other many times. Both trains are doing good service, providing transportation. Both are working for the same subject -- Humanity. Both must remain aware of each other so as to yeild right of way to the other for the inevitable intersections that lay ahead and avoid collisions. But it would unwise, nigh, irresponsible for both trains to ignore and not give the right of way to the other where the two parallel tracks they're on intersect. Otherwise you got a problem, a BIG problem!

 

Science and religion shouldn't be mixed just like oil and water.

 

Both science and religion are working and competing for the same audience but are selling different messages. Why enmesh the two? It makes no sense to me. ID is NOT a science theory, it is theological theory. Which is fine. I only wonder why lace it with psuedoscience and hogwash arguements. Why not come out and say I'm selling a different message from Evolution theory and here is what it is? Examine for yourself.

[Liibaan]

It seems you fabricating the notion that science and religion have hydrophilic interactions rather than hydrophobic ones as your oil and water example outlines. So based on your example there should not been overwhelming debate on this issue because hydrophobic effect is not in existence. Therefore, based on your assumptions i can state scientific molecules did not / do not and will not collide with religion molecules – resulting zero confusion. However, the reality is conflicting; we see issues are smashing together and that tells us their endurance in one system with high entropy level. Consistently, the confusion rate rises up as matter is dissected , good example, our pool of views here at “SOL.†All that said, we clearly see now that the two issues are inter-mix with hydrophobic interactions in one jar,holding hand one another

and for that reason is why we have a this 7 page long debate and insha allah more Eid Mubarak to ALL players and audience

[Johnny B]

Dear IGaDaaRiwaaYada ;

 

Weather the relationship between Religion and Science should be hydrophilic or hydrophobic can neither be related nor decided by the ammount of posts in this thread. That is not Ceteris paribus.

 

to conclude the way you did was a mere attempt of ad captandum vulgus "An attempt to capture the gullibility of the naive among the listeners or readers".

 

SB is clearly of the idea that ID and Science shoulden´t be mixed, becouse solving tortuous paths of the endless labyrinths of theology is nothing for Scientific Theories.

Science can calculate the length of the wings of the heavenly Angels ONLY if and when you can see the heavenly Angels.in short( only if the Angels do exist naturally).

 

While Your reality seems to be that Theological Theories ARE the base of our knowledge,but we should mix them with Scientific theories that we use to verify and validate our natural knowledge gained through our natural senses,in order to make our Theological theories too Verified and Validated.

 

Your need to Mix is triggered by the lack of natural verification of your theological, intellectual machinations, deceptions and masquerades, becouse ignorance is not an attractive alternative to even a tacit knowledge.

 

And there i give you the last word of this round.

[Socod_badne]

Iga,

 

This is for you:

 

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind -- Einstien

[Liibaan]

Bro S.B. it is good to see u becoming more understanding of where iam coming from. The qoute is absolutely summing up wat i was trying to enlighten you, that niether religion nor science can stand by itself

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by IGaDaaRiwaaYada:

Bro S.B. it is good to see u becoming more understanding of where iam coming from. The qoute is absolutely summing up wat i was trying to enlighten you, that niether religion nor science can stand by itself

Firstly, I think qouting Albert Einstien won´t strengthen any of the positions you guys have taken,but i can live with the fact that you guyz made a mystical, long and complicated handshake.

 

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

Albert Einstein

 

Now, do you guyz still agree with Albert?

[Castro]

^ I think not. Einstein would quickly go out of favor with that last comment.

[Socod_badne]

Castro,

 

You're dead wrong. I'm still fan of Einstien and there is not much I disagree with what he said. Although a Pantheist, he was not an atheist, paganist or polytheist like alot of scientists. He believed in one God. My understanding of Pantheism is that like us -- monotheists -- they believe in a single God but of different nature. The God of Pantheism is not 'personal' God and he is indifferent to out affairs here on earth.

 

Johnny-B,

 

Einstien was right in that one doesn't need a religion to have ethics or morality. Murder is considered a crime and inimical act pretty much across the globe, to even places where no organised religion exists. The first attempted codification of morality or ethics by humanity were non-religiously based.

 

Religions too are source of morality and ethics. And this is undeniable. Whether christianity, judaism, Islam...all tell you what is right and wrong, what to do and what not to do. Not only that they compell you to do what is not eminently altruistic actions like giving alms, helping others, being kind to others...this appeal to empathy is one of the great inventions and attractions of religions.

 

Where I disagree with Einstien is his suggestion a faithful's restraint from certain activities from fear of internal punishment or expectation of internal reward should make him unhappy. If this is true, then alot of ppl should be unhappy here on earth for we all are restrained by fear of punishment for our behaviours and activities.

 

Do we not obey speed laws for fear of being ticketed? Do we not avoid stealing for fear of going to jail? Or kill/harm others? These are basically restraints on ppl's behaviours by the laws of their society, practically telling them what to do and not to do but do you see ppl being unhappy as result? Then, why should they be unhappy if the roles were reversed, and the restraining force on ppl were God's laws and not man's laws? I don't see the difference here.

 

Back to science. Science is amoral. It can not tell right from wrong, bad from good. Science is both Dr. Mengle AND Dr. Salk. It is capable of doing great evil (the A-bomb) and even greater good (curing life threatening diseases). It simply a tool...a God damned good one, the best we have. This is why laws of ethics and morality -- both religious and civil -- are required to regulate science. To tell science what is right and what is wrong.

 

The problem comes when science and religion ineluctably clash and collide in their respective attempts to sell a starkly different messages to the same customer -- humanity. Just like we have rules and regulations and to some extent unwritten rules and understandings whereever there is competition, the same is needed for science and religion.

 

Some written rules and regulation maybe needed, I don't know. But I think somethings are eminently obvious and given common sense is allowed to prevail, inimical clash and collide won't have to take place. Science has no say on spiritual, after world affairs...religion has no say on the science brain surgery, string theory or deep space exploration.

 

In the end analysis, it is the consensus of the society where the subject is debated that will ultimately decide. Science will always be told what it can and can not do by the society it is working for...religions have a major role in shaping a society's opinions and views on morality and ethics. Hence a need for both in a society. Preferably to co-exist in amiable fashion.

 

BTW, this debate veered off course...any1 wanna debate Evolution theory vs ID theory :confused:

[Khayr]

Salamz,

 

Do we not obey speed laws for fear of being ticketed? Do we not avoid stealing for fear of going to jail? Or kill/harm others? These are basically restraints on ppl's behaviours by the laws of their society, practically telling them what to do and not to do but do you see ppl being unhappy as result? Then, why should they be unhappy if the roles were reversed, and the restraining force on ppl were God's laws and not man's laws? I don't see the difference here.

I think that this is the RELIGIOUS view and wherein the Islamic culture that you still identify with, has left some marks on you, Socad Badne!

 

Which way do you sway 50%+ of the time

 

RELIGION or SCIENCE???

 

7 PGS WORTH OF RAMBLING, and you don't even believe in what you are arguing for.

 

Scientism via Evolution which forms the foundation of Modern, PRO-PROGRESS thinking, does not believe in obeying PERMENANT, UNCHANGING LAWS i.e. RELGIOUS LAWS, DIVINE LAWS.

 

What Einstein and most people nowadays want, is

 

CHANGING LAWS that succumb to people's WHIMS.

 

i.e. if we VOTE for it, then we can put it into place and b/c the MAJORITY voted for it, then it is

RIGHT!

 

This is what Evolution preaches, constant CHANGE and non-Permenance!

 

i.e. MAN IS THE CREATOR OF HIS OWN DESTINY

 

and hence,

 

why a MUSLIM can not be PRO-SCIENTISM, PRO-EVOLUTION etc. b/c if you vouch for these IDEOLOGIES, THEN

 

WHAT IS TO SAY THAT

YOU WON'T view the SHARIA in the same light of EVOLUTION aka CONSTANT CHANGE.

 

WHAT IS TO SAY THAT YOU WON'T DEEM

the HADDUD LAWS i.e. cutting off hands, lashing the fornicator etc. to be OUTDATED!

 

 

Some written rules and regulation maybe needed, I don't know. But I think somethings are eminently obvious and given common sense is allowed to prevail, inimical clash and collide won't have to take place. Science has no say on spiritual, after world affairs...religion has no say on the science brain surgery, string theory or deep space exploration.

Which is a way of LIFE

 

SCIENCE OR RELIGION?

 

If Religion is a way of Life (for muslims), then shouldn't science be REGULATED by RELGIOUS LAWS, hence if certain 'SCIENTIFIC THEORIES' oppose

RELIGION LAWS, then can't these theories be REJECTED.

 

In other words, which one is your THINKING, your WAY OF LIFE derived from-SCIENCE OR RELIGION?

 

For the avg. person, it is NEITHER, but rather their own 'PERSONAL FEELINGS' towards a subject matter i.e. IF IT MAKES 'RATIONAL SENSE' , then it is RIGHT!

 

Socadne,

 

You are also 'SECULARIZING KNOWLEDGE' here b/c RELGION (A WAY OF LIFE) encompasses PRACTICAL matters in the daily life of BANI ADAM aka HUMANS.

 

Religion doesn't only deal with RITUALISTIC subjects and CANON LAWS, but covers

such matters as allocating taxes to cover city pot holes, researching issues on cancer, population control eetc.

 

Problem is RELIGION does not view most subjects

'SEPERATLELY' but rather 'INTER-RELATIONAL aka ONTHOLOGICAL.

 

i.e. Cure for Cancer

• What is the Sociological origin and impact of Cancer?

• What is the Anthropological origin of CANCER?

• How does CURING CANCER aid the Community in becoming BETTER SLAVES OF GOD (AFTER all that is the IDEAL for the MUSLIM-becoming ABD-ALLAH)

ETC.

 

 

In the end analysis, it is the consensus of the society where the subject is debated that will ultimately decide.

You have proven my point!

 

CONSENSUS OF SOCIETY (regulating what is RIGHT AND WRONG) v.

 

REVELATION (regulating what is RIGHT AND WRONG)

 

I know which group you have chosen

but how about Johnny B, IGaDaaRiwaaYada, Bakar, Basshi etc.

[Paragon]

As I see it and I could be wrong.

 

Both evolution and intelligent design are mean to play complimentary roles. The environment in which living organisms are evolving is in essence of intelligent design. Since this evironment has come to exist through the will of a Higher Being (since even the plausibility of big bang theory needs Kinetic energy resulting collusion could only have pre-existed in God), organisms or micro-organisms only 'evolve' to the point of 'adaptation', and after adaptation they seize to evolve. Their evolving, which some scientists mistranslate, takes place in an effort to adapt to an intelligently designed environment.

 

In a sense therefore, evolving is a test from the higher being for us and all other living things to adapt to given environmental atmospheres by way of evolving. Just as human destiny is preordained and yet have been provided with the 'will' to somewhat alter the routes. As NGONGE said, we should maybe consider macro and micro level of things and see their combination as compatible rather than conflicting. And as Johny Bravo pointed out, afterall, Darwin did not falsify the existence of divinity or God.

 

Nota Bene: Read about fracas surrounding the latest documentary "March of the Penguins", presented as a case for Intelligent Design. Many Christians contend that this incredible march 70 miles of the Penguins testifies to the hand of the Creator. As I was saying, the environment, if we study its demands on the living, sheds some light on the plausibilty of Intelligent Design thesis while at the same time supportive of the Evolutionary aspects of species.

[Johnny B]

SB

I´m not sure if you got the point of Einstien in that context ,

It´s a counterbalance to what you talked about as religious morals and ethics.

Einstien maintains a virtue-based eudaemonistic ethics,That is to say, human well-being (eudaimonia) is and should be the highest aim of moral thought and conduct.

As we all know ,the defination of what is happy/good life? is something we need to come to terms with , and is highly personal. That is why we´ve so many religions and the order of the entire universe is the way it is.

 

while religious ethics are based on Idealistic philosophy, the church/mosque teaches that this goal (a happy/good life)can be achieved only as the reward for obedience and meekness. The church/mosque threatens the wrath of God (alah) and the torment of hell for those who dare to oppose its teaching, the teachings are (mind you)not as simple as you stated,"like giving alms, helping others, being kind to others" It´s a doctorine that goes beyond that and dictates every aspect of ones life,That doctrine sees science and man as subordinate to religion, to "idea"(look at every pro ID´s post in this debate) and sees knowledge as subordinate to faith.(look at Bakar´s standpoints) The ultimate object of the ID theory is to furnish evidence of the existence of God(alah) THE DESIGNER.

ID lays great stress on moral questions, but the morality ID and it´s religious theories preach is one of meek submission, of passive acceptance, and thus, of justification of existing social evils. This morality substitutes prayer and appeals for divine assistance for struggle and protest against social injustice. The entire Idealist philosophy is contrived, with deliberateness, to bolster the status quo. Therefore not encouraging man to TRY to master his environment or do something about it, on the contrary the answer is simple concise " an Intelligent Designer created and wants it so"

and no further questions are encouraged.

 

 

Now, SB, There is a diffrence between beeing morally/ethically restrained from conducting scientific experiment, or striving to answer a vital question that withholds a vital knowledge or anything you might find necessary to indulge, becouse of the wrath of God(alah), and beeing restrained becouse of the speed limit of the state?

Albert is of the idea that the first is unnecessary and puts man in a POOR way, in short it holds him back

 

I´m of the idea that a confrontation is inevitable becouse ID theory´s claim a possession of knowledge where evolution theory or other scientific theories holds contrary facts.

 

It seems that the ID camp have insidiously snuck into the consciousness of this debate the notion that ID theory and it´s religious doctrines deserve special insulation from criticism, ridicule, and doubt.

Religionists have poisoned the debate about ID and religion by passing off this concept that, "from the outset, religious claims must be treated with a kinder and gentler type of criticism than that leveled at other types of belief systems that generate sustainable knowledge like Science and it´s doctorine."

 

That is why we´ve yet to see a tiny statement that asserts or hints to explain the nucleus of the ID theory without reducing itself to the absurdity.

 

This , if anything can and will only lead to the conclusion that we´re not debating the subject matter in a fair and morally/ethically just way, as Einstien pointed at .

We´re beeing held back.

[Khayr]

That is to say, human well-being (eudaimonia) is and should be the highest aim of moral thought and conduct.

In otherwords, HUMANISM!

 

Which in Islam would be considered SHIRK!

 

Why?

 

Human Well-Being is the Reason d'etre fo the creation of MAN. That is the goal and this goal contradicts every, revelation, every revealed religion.

 

the defination of what is happy/good life? is something we need to come to terms with , and is highly personal.

Hence....HEDONISM!!!

 

The entire Idealist philosophy is contrived, with deliberateness, to bolster the status quo. Therefore not encouraging man to TRY to master his environment or do something about it, on the contrary the answer is simple concise " an Intelligent Designer created and wants it so"

Questions are encouraged provided:

 

-The one asking the question is SINCERE for answers and not playing DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

 

-The one asking the question is seeking something HIGER.

 

-The one asking the question respects his subject.

 

 

Therefore not encouraging man to TRY to master his environment or do something about it

What would be the PURPOSE to 'Master his environment'?

 

If the purpose is driven by HUMANISM-MAN'S WELL BEING for the sake of WELL BEING...then NO, it is not encouraged.

 

However, if the purpose is to draw closer to the ESSENCE OF MAN, which is GOD...then YES, encouraged!

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Khayr:

quote:That is to say, human well-being (eudaimonia) is and should be the highest aim of moral thought and conduct.

In otherwords, HUMANISM!

 

Which in Islam would be considered SHIRK!

 

Why?

 

Human Well-Being is the Reason d'etre fo the creation of MAN. That is the goal and this goal contradicts every, revelation, every revealed religion.

How on earth do you THINK khayr?

what you´re saying is definitely what you don´t want to say.

Do you understand HUMANISM? if so, do you understand it´s opposite? i don´t think so, then congratualations,you´ve just declared yourself inhumane.

 

Homo sum, humani a mi nihil alienum puto

I am human, nothing human is

alien to me