Once again Slate has provided a stupid title for an even more stupid article. This article told nothing about what Muslims believe in terms of evolution. It discussed the rants and ramblings of one crazy conspiracy theorist. What started out as suggestion into what one part of the world believes turned into what seemed to be a complaint from the author about the conflicts between evolution and the creation theory. They made it out to sound like a war was at hand. WRONG.

For starters regardless if evolution is true or not (I dont find it necessary to say one way or the other for the discussion at hand) it is a scientific fact/theory/lie (you pick). Creationism comes from an entirely different beast. The only way these two ideas begin to have common ground is politically; which makes them nothing more than crap to throw on the fire so somebody who thinks they are of more value than others can be the Top Dawg for few short insignificant moments.

ShauneP82

"This article told nothing about what Muslims believe in terms of evolution."

On the contrary, it says that only "25 percent of Turks accepted the theory of natural selection." It also describes how this fellow has a lot of influence. Clearly, many people in Turkey are opposed to science. They are inclined to believe the rants and ramblings of this particular crazy conspiracy theorist, because he also opposes science.

Since you have kindly let me pick:

It is a scientifically proven fact that evolution occurs.

Darwin's theory of natural selection explains evolution. It is a well-grounded theory, with no scientific rivals, just as there are presently no rivals to special relativity. No theory ever becomes a fact, just as no blueprint ever magically becomes a house.

Creationism is a fatuous lie based on religious fanaticism and ignorance.

JedRothwell:

ShauneP82

"This article told nothing about what Muslims believe in terms of evolution."

On the contrary, it says that only "25 percent of Turks accepted the theory of natural selection." It also describes how this fellow has a lot of influence. Clearly, many people in Turkey are opposed to science. They are inclined to believe the rants and ramblings of this particular crazy conspiracy theorist, because he also opposes science.

Since you have kindly let me pick:

It is a scientifically proven fact that evolution occurs.

Darwin's theory of natural selection explains evolution. It is a well-grounded theory, with no scientific rivals, just as there are presently no rivals to special relativity. No theory ever becomes a fact, just as no blueprint ever magically becomes a house.

Creationism is a fatuous lie based on religious fanaticism and ignorance.

Jed, you are wrong to assume you understand the Islamic position on this matter. Paulson lazily, or spitefully, transported the American creationism v. evolution conflict into Turkey and used Yahya to justify this.

Paulson did NOT show HOW Yahya influenced the 25% result, nor did he show the Islamic position on evolution. Rather, Paulson just transported the Manichean duality into the readers' perception of the Muslim world, most likely to justify his own ideological positions (what the Muslims need to do?- how is this journalism?).

Islam does NOT contradict the origins of all life being from water or from developing in stages: there are Quranic verses which generally and specifically as much. But Paulson failed to quote them or even look into the Islamic discourse on evolution and the origins of man.

Ultimately, Muslims are not against using the evolutionary theory for its scientific purposes. But the macroevolution of man emerging from some ancient primate remains unsubstantiated conjecture which Western societies have used to justify ideologies (communism, racism, fascism) as well cultural and societal order (apartheid, segregation, etc).

Jed, you cannot deny that the scientific theory of evolution has indeed had negative, adverse significant impact on humanity not related to its scientific purpose as a unifying explanation for biological sciences. This alone signifies that the theory, while it has useful purposes in the biological sciences, cannot fulfill mankind's societal needs in terms of ideological foundations.

Islam is NOT against science nor are devout Muslim categorically or conceptual opposed to science. But science has its limitations in thought which limit its role in life. Turkey is not representative of the Muslim world nor is it representative of the Islamic discourse regarding science, biology, the origin of life and man, and the theory of evolution. It would be selflimiting and intellectually dishonest to accept Paulson's insular and shallow expose as the defining explanation of the Islamic position on the matter.

BTW, microevolution is scientifically proven. The macroevolution of mankind from an ancient primate is still conjecture not witnessed by any man and is therefore unobserved and unproven. As I said, there are scientific benefits to evolutionary theory related to the biological sciences, but 'belief' in the origins of man from ape in everyday life by common folk is comparable to Faith- an unsubstantiated belief. And that belief has served in several darks ways as any religion could be.

In contrast, Islam is predicated on the authenticity of the office of messengership from God of Muhammad (saaw) which is conclusively established by the major miracle that is the Quran (arabic style). For the Muslim, the certainty of the Quran and therefore the belief that all mankind is from Adam and Adam is from 'dust' (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc) is superior to the faith that mankind is from multiple ancestoral hominids or perhaps from multiple fathers or that some men are more evolved than others. What God means by His words that Adam is from dust is that Adam had no father and no mother according to Muhammad (saaw).

So Jed, where is the evidence that man emerged from an ancient primate? BTW, there is evidence of other hominids that have coexisted at the time of modern man, which means that the evidences of ancient primates could reasonably be the ancient ancestor of these hominids, such as neanderthalis, rather than modern man. Thus, conjecture, sir.

Usama3, you are wrong to assume you understand the Islamic position on this matter.

You understand your position, but there is no official Islamic position. There is no official Islamic pontiff to give credence to such a position, if one should exist.