Richard Dawkins is so wrong it hurts: What the science-vs.-religion debate ignores

[RainDog]

9. hmmmm

Muslims, generally, accept evolution as a fundamental part of the natural process; they differ, however, on human evolution – specifically the idea that humans and apes share an ancestor in common. In the 13th century, Shi’i Persian polymath Nasir al-din al-Tusi discussed biological evolution in his book “Akhlaq-i-Nasri” (Nasirean Ethics). While al-Tusi’s theory of evolution differs from the one put forward by Charles Darwin 600 years later and the theory of evolution that we have today, he argued that the elemental source of all living things was one. From this single elemental source came four attributes of nature: water, air, soil and fire – all of which would evolve into different living species through hereditary variability. Hierarchy would emerge through differences in learning how to adapt and survive. Al-Tusi’s discussion on biological evolution and the relationship of synchronicity between animate and inanimate (how they emerge from the same source and work in tandem with one another) objects is stunning in its observational precision as well as its fusion with theistic considerations. Yet it is, at best, unacknowledged today in the Euro-centric conversation on religion and science. Why?

My point here in this conversation about religion and science’s falsely created incommensurability isn’t about the existence of God – I would like to think that ultimately there is space for belief and disbelief. I would like to also believe, however, that the conversation on belief and disbelief can move beyond the Dawkinsean vitriol that disguises bigotry as a self-righteous claim to the sanctity of science; a claim that makes science the proudly held property of the Euro-American civilization and experience.

There is space for belief and disbelief - but not all people or versions of religions are open to this - it's not an issue from the scientific atheists who challenge beliefs because beliefs contradict the best accepted evidence over 150 years on a particular topic: evolution.

If you don't accept that humans evolved from a common ancestor, you don't accept the basic theory of evolution - there's no getting around this. It's a cornerstone of evolutionary thought - common descent. It's like saying, "I agree with the idea of gravity, except on earth. God made earth's gravity specifically."

Dawkins is a biologist. He would rightly call this belief irrational and outside the boundaries of scientific understanding. If she wants to believe this religious exception, she's entitled to do so, but no one has to simply accept this false statement because of a belief system formed long before current knowledge.

But not all Muslims deny human evolution and some cite the Q'uran as reason to acknowledge that humans share common descent in the ocean, not from clay, because it says both.

This person fails to understand, maybe that the guy she is quoting from the 13th c. is rephrasing ideas that were already intellectual currency long before the development of Christianity, much less Islam. That Islamic scholar is talking about ideas from Greek philosophers - the idea was not sui generis from that scholar. The four basic elements. Atoms. Existence of unity of all things. To claim that their are hierarchies - maybe this person means taxonomy - but afaik, there is no accepted "hierarchy" of different forms of matter - they are categorized but not assigned "hierarchical value."

I wonder if this person is saying this is where Islam differs in it's acceptance of evolution - they assign value judgment to different entities? If this citation is correct, then, yes, that's exactly what she's doing.

Muslims accept science as being fully compatible with Islam and readily accept microevolution and the belief in macroevolution, with the only exception being human evolution. Within the corpus of Islamic sources there is nothing whatsoever that contradicts microevolution. Evolution on a larger scale from one type of species to another (excluding humans) as in macroevolution, is equally acceptable and justifiable as per Islamic sources. According to Islam, the only exception that is made is the creation of mankind. Humans are not viewed as being part of the whole evolutionary scheme, but rather being a unique and honored creation of Allah. [Quran 17 0, 38 5]. From an Islamic perspective, everything takes place according to Allah's will and permission and as predestined by Him alone. [Quran 54:49] In light of this, the concept of natural selection randomly taking place according to the evolution theory, is not always accepted in Islam.

Natural selection is demonstrated, conclusively, via genetics. To deny natural selection is to deny evolution as well. So this person is saying Islam rejects evolution if humans are involved. This thinking is really no diff. than fundamentalist creationists, tho some of them do go further and deny microbial evolution.

Islamic scholars have a long tradition of work in mathematics because exact calculations of the sun were part of the custom of the Iman's call to prayer at certain times of the day (and medieval xtians picked up on this with prayer books to note hours for prayer during the day.) Algebra, algorithm, etc. confirm the important intellectual tradition of Islam - but this has nothing to say about current religious beliefs, either.

Islamic scholars and rulers helped to save philosophical traditions from ancient Greek and middle eastern thought during the era of the rise of xtianity and the transition of the Roman Empire into a xtian royal theocracy. This person wants to say that knowledge wasn't cross-cultural - but the ancient world, via trade, etc. had many diff. ethnicities interacting.

This is what creates imagining other ways of being and thinking about the world. This is what science promotes, but religion does not. Religion is about dogma regarding essential questions and has nothing to say to science because of this - and has often been an impediment to progress because of this - any religion.

What the article shows to me is that religious belief once again interferes with acceptance of reality because common descent and evolution via natural selection is evolutionary theory. She rejects this but tells herself she doesn't.

False consciousness about the meaning of things, seems to me.