Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?

[Aepsilons]

Arigatou gozaimasu! You are right. Ancient civilizations still have a great deal to offer the world. After all that is what makes humanity different from any other beings.

I do not know where you live. But happy Hanami , where ever you are: The Bloom of Cherry Blossoms 2015

.

Arigadou gozaimashita!!

 

[Daneshmand]

.

Arigadou gozaimashita!!

I would appreciate if you tell me what is the difference between gozaimashita and gozaimasu?

 

[SipahSalar]

In Shia Islam, evolution is philosophically/scientifically possible: Was Prophet Adam the eighth person to live on earth? - Questions Archive - IslamQuest is a reference for Islamic questions on the internet

I do not know the concept of hadith in Fiqh Jaffria, but nothing in that post seems to suggest that shia thinking is any different from sunni thinking except one unheard hadith. I don't know what standards fiqh jaffria hadith are put through.

 

[Armstrong]

.

Arigadou gozaimashita!!

You never greeted me with a traditional Japanese greeting !

 

[Aepsilons]

I would appreciate if you tell me what is the difference between gozaimashita and gozaimasu?

Mashita refers to past tense , whereas masu refers to present tense

I would appreciate if you tell me what is the difference between gozaimashita and gozaimasu?

An example;

To say " I am understanding it" you say -- wakatte iru .

But to say "I got it / I understood it" you say --- wakarimashita .

Notice the suffix "mashita" referring to past tense .

 

[Daneshmand]

I do not know the concept of hadith in Fiqh Jaffria, but nothing in that post seems to suggest that shia thinking is any different from sunni thinking except one unheard hadith. I don't know what standards fiqh jaffria hadith are put through.

In Shia thought, it is possible that humans already existed on earth, when Adam and Eve were created by God. The creation of Adam and Eve without mother or father (outside biological system) was just a one off act to show the power of God in creation. As was the birth of Jesus without a father.

Furthermore, according to Shia thought, it is possible that Adam and Eve's children later on married and reproduced with the humans already existing on earth.

This view creates philosophico-religious framework which allows for evolution to exist in Shia Islam.

Furthermore, in Shia Islam, not every one is able to interpret or decide on Hadith and Quran. Marja' can. And Ayatollah Motaheri had written on these matters and had declared that evolution is certainly possible.

Mashita refers to past tense , whereas masu refers to present tense




An example;

To say " I am understanding it" you say -- wakatte iru .

But to say "I got it / I understood it" you say --- wakarimashita .

Notice the suffix "mashita" referring to past tense .

Wakarimashita! Arigadou gozaimashita!

 

[SipahSalar]

Furthermore, in Shia Islam, not every one is able to interpret or decide on Hadith and Quran. Marja' can. And Ayatollah Motaheri had written on these matters and had declared that evolution is certainly possible.

Shia method of hadith collection was based on collecting as many hadith as possible regardless of authenticity and they were to be checked later by scholars. At least that's what i have learned so far. I feel the method itself is ineffecient, as hadith authenticity should be checked on the spot, and can also later be scrutinized in great detail.
Secondly, Shiite hadith collectors came much later than Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim.

 

[Daneshmand]

Shia method of hadith collection was based on collecting as many hadith as possible regardless of authenticity and they were to be checked later by scholars. At least that's what i have learned so far. I feel the method itself is ineffecient, as hadith authenticity should be checked on the spot, and can also later be scrutinized in great detail.
Secondly, Shiite hadith collectors came much later than Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim.

That is a cheap strawman attack based on your prejudice against Shia Islam.

Anyways, when you have a philosophico-religous argument based on Sunni teachings, in favor or against evolution, come here and we will talk.

Or you do you mean, you have no views on the subject underpinning the biological sciences?

 

[SQ8]

I am a scientist. I just want to see how certain people view evolution with reference to theological beliefs. Can (or should) be the two always kept separate or can we complement the knowledge gain from two to reach to conclusions?

It is usually best to pursue both completely independent from one another. Although certain theological conclusions drawn from Islam for e.g. may actually refute the idea that creation was akin to making statues but rather like a predestined program that was to reach particular conclusions. For that matter, Evolution then is a very likely process that the creator intended.

Still, Science has its place and religion its own. The understanding of each should develop independently and any common linkages or conclusions should only provide "achievements" for personal satisfaction and not develop into keystones for advanced the understanding of either.

 

[Donatello]

Read 'On the origin of Species' by Charles Darwin. Very good book explaining all about evolution and why the naturalists take that route.
Then read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins and let yourself be judge. If you are more interested, read about some of the work by Sir John Gurdon, who was recently awarded the Nobel Prize in Biology/Physiology.

Most people try to confuse religious text with reasoning, that is not possible, because our brains are not designed to follow an unconventional path...more so in religious countries like Pakistan, India, Nigeria etc.

Just because evolution happens over hundreds of millions of years, and hence cannot be examined under a microscope for verifiable proof, doesn't mean it is not happening. Our brains want to go the conventional way most of the time, that is how they are wired. It is easy to understand and grasp 'How' but not 'Why'

 

[SipahSalar]

That is a cheap strawman attack based on your prejudice against Shia Islam.

Anyways, when you have a philosophico-religous argument based on Sunni teachings, in favor or against evolution, come here and we will talk.

Or you do you mean, you have no views on the subject underpinning the biological sciences?

I was just mentioning what i found on a shia website with a shia guy explaining the shia hadith. No need to think of it as an attack. The Differences Between Sunni And Shia Hadiths - Shia/Sunni Dialogue - ShiaChat.com

Of course i have views on the topic. There are several hadith on Hazrat Adam. Some say he was much taller, others say he had a very long life. Why would you feel the need to have humans before Adam to bring it in line with science? If there were humans before Adam, then that raises the question who made them? Anyhow i believe Adam was the very first "Insaan". If there were human-like creatures before Adam, they were certainly not "human". They were something else so the term human will not apply to them.

I have already mentioned my views on the topic. Shaking a few pieces of lego in a bag does not make a train. Someone needs to be there to create something as amazing as Emma Stone.

 

[Daneshmand]

I was just mentioning what i found on a shia website with a shia guy explaining the shia hadith. No need to think of it as an attack. The Differences Between Sunni And Shia Hadiths - Shia/Sunni Dialogue - ShiaChat.com

Of course i have views on the topic. There are several hadith on Hazrat Adam. Some say he was much taller, others say he had a very long life. Why would you feel the need to have humans before Adam to bring it in line with science? If there were humans before Adam, then that raises the question who made them? Anyhow i believe Adam was the very first "Insaan". If there were human-like creatures before Adam, they were certainly not "human". They were something else so the term human will not apply to them.

I have already mentioned my views on the topic. Shaking a few pieces of lego in a bag does not make a train. Someone needs to be there to create something as amazing as Emma Stone.

In other words:

1) You are prejudiced in your views.

2) You do not accept evolution.

Enough said.

 

[Daneshmand]

Most people try to confuse religious text with reasoning, that is not possible, because our brains are not designed to follow an unconventional path...more so in religious countries like Pakistan, India, Nigeria etc. ...

hence cannot be examined under a microscope for verifiable proof, doesn't mean it is not happening. Our brains want to go the conventional way most of the time, that is how they are wired. It is easy to understand and grasp 'How' but not 'Why'

These parts are not correct.

It is usually best to pursue both completely independent from one another. Although certain theological conclusions drawn from Islam for e.g. may actually refute the idea that creation was akin to making statues but rather like a predestined program that was to reach particular conclusions. For that matter, Evolution then is a very likely process that the creator intended.

Still, Science has its place and religion its own. The understanding of each should develop independently and any common linkages or conclusions should only provide "achievements" for personal satisfaction and not develop into keystones for advanced the understanding of either.

That is a variation of "intelligent design". Science rejects that.

Unfortunately in societies where religion is supreme whether at state level or at societal level and without religion being accepting of science, such independence can not be practiced. Only in a highly secularized society where religion has lost all its power and reduced to petty matters on personal level and ridicule at societal level such an independence can be expected. Another solution would be for religion to reform itself and becoming more inclusive of science.

 

[xuxu1457]

untill now Yes

 

[SQ8]

That is a variation of "intelligent design". Science rejects that.

Unfortunately in societies where religion is supreme whether at state level or at societal level and without religion being accepting of science, such independence can not be practiced. Only in a highly secularized society where religion has lost all its power and reduced to petty matters on personal level and ridicule at societal level such an independence can be expected. Another solution would be for religion to reform itself and becoming more inclusive of science.

Not really, the question here was on evolution. The issue with intelligent design is that it assumes that everything was created on the spot or made. Religion itself is based on the idea of intelligent design; after all what good is a deity who isnt in control of what happens around it.
So the problem lies in trying to reconcile either of the two. Which is why I posted before that the research on both should be left exclusive of each other. Evolution is a reality and it happened is one truth, God is a reality and he made the heaven and the earth is another. Neither effects the decision or ideals of the other.
Whilst it seems odd that such "dual" concepts can be accepted in one thought process but that is the only approach that works. Since without understanding of either religion or science, understanding one means that that other will be rejected eventually from the thought process. It is only if both are delved into with equal fervour is the reconciliation possible; but is never understood in the same way by two people.