Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hafizsaad" data-source="post: 6054931" data-attributes="member: 153303">Evolution (Step by Step) :  My aim is not to make debate or i am not going to challenge any person's knowledge. This is just a Scientific and logical Approach to the the very discussed topic of todays in a peaceful way. I Only want to share  some of my thought and search about the topic..So Please Read but starts comments  after the completion of the topic as there may be the answer for your query at the end. So, what is evolution anyway ?Evolution is a tricky and controversial subject. To avoid semantic misunderstanding, lets consider some definitions. The word evolution, could technically speaking refer to practically anything, since so many things can evolve one way or the other. However when most people use the word evolution without clarifying which evolution they are referring to, they usually mean "the evolution of the different species". I can understand why people would simply say "evolution" for practical reasons, but that is somewhat confusing. Because of this, many people think that the the term "evolution of the different species" refers to exactly the same as "biological evolution". I would disagree and say that although the evolution of the different species is indeed a part of biological evolution, the term biological evolution entails a lot more than just that.   <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Biological evolution.</li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This general term can be split up into two separate theories:</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Evolution of life out of lifeless matter a.k.a. abiogenesis.                 This is the theory on how the first biological life                 evolved out of lifeless matter on earth.</li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Evolution of the different species a.k.a. origin of the                 different species. This is a group name for several other                 theories such as the theory of genetic mutation, survival of                 the  fittest, genetic drift, and so on. These theories can                 be mainly categorized into three segments:</li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The theory of micro evolution.                         How genetic drift trough variation and mutation                         creates new breeds of a certain specie that then                         grow larger in numbers trough survival of the fittest.</li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The theory of macro evolution.                          How mutations on a genetic level can cause new species.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The theory of common descent.</li> </ul>How trough micro and macro evolution, all existing                            creatures evolved out of the same ancestral  being. This is                          not a scientific theory but a historical one. In other words                         it doesn't tell us something about the nature of physics, or                          the physics of nature, instead it speculates on how the                          currently existing organisms have evolved in the past.   How dare you ! ? What's at stake ?As you undoubtedly know already; evolution has been a hot topic for decades, and it's still being widely discussed today. And all to often proponents of evolution like to create the illusion as if the debate on evolution is a debate of science vs. religion. But let's look at what's really at stake shall we?The theistic agenda.Let us say for the sake of argument that as an extreme example tomorrow every single little thing that falls under biological evolution turns out to be true! How would that influence the theist his paradigm? Well it wouldn't change a lot. Even in the worst case scenario that all turns out to be true, intelligent design (ID) still 'rescues' religion. Like I explain <a href="http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/fundamentalism.htm" target="_blank">here</a>, our current scientific knowledge on causality still leaves more then enough room for divine powers to be at the source of it. So from that viewpoint of science, a God that creates species in a metaphysical was is just as miraculous as a God creating them trough his habitual enforcement of physical law. So this means nothing really changes, at least not for Muslims. So the reason that I reject some parts of evolution is not because of my religion, because I started to doubt some of those parts even before I became Muslim. I simply question some parts because they don't seem to be making any sense. Christians on the other hand would have some problems, since their scripture includes specific details that would be rendered false if every last part of evolution turns out to be true. However the late Catholic pope John Paul did publish an open letter stating that these specific details from the book of genesis were added by the Catholic church when the Bible was being compiled, for the purpose of answering questions that weren't answerable at that time. The letter was being published at the time that Christians in the US were lobbying to introduce the theory of creation in science classes. To that subject I would like to state that although I myself am a creationists, I recognize that this theory has no place in science class. However at the same time as a scientist I must add that some parts of biological evolution don't belong in science class either! The atheistic agenda.Now, again for the sake of argument, let us assume the opposite extreme. Say that tomorrow every single part of biological evolution turns out to be false. How would that alter the atheists paradigm? Well the atheist would have some major unsolved mysteries in his paradigm. Although some might be fine with that, others may find their paradigm to crumble. As it is today, the wrongful usage of randomness as a counter against the anthropic argument is already a bit of a stretch, as explained <a href="http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/index.htm" target="_blank">here</a>. But if on top of that, the whole lot of theories under biological evolution fall away; this counter simply can't be stretched that far. The atheistic paradigm would have a huge gap there. I argue atheists would automatically start to formulate their personal beliefs of what did happen. Now these beliefs may vary from alien conspiracy theories, to philosophical abstract visions or classical religious views. Nevertheless each self aware atheist will start to inevitably wonder about this and consider alternative explanations. I would say such qualifies as a major change of paradigm. And major paradigm changes is something that people tend to fear and dislike. Changing paradigms is scary due to the uncertainty of what the change will lead to. The human psyche has a natural inclination to fear everything that is unknown. So changing paradigms means that during the transition you would need to consider your whole world as unknown. Not an easy thing to look forward to.Likely suspect ?Although both creationists and evolutionists have a tendency to be biased by their religious views, or their lack thereof. The bias is much more crucial for the atheists as opposed to the theists! Since accepting evolution is allot less crucial for a theist as opposed to rejecting evolution is for an atheist. So when an atheist accuses his opponent of being reluctant to accept his view because of his religious views, it is most likely a case of projection where the atheist is actually the one reluctant to consider the opposite viewpoint. In conclusion the atheist is the likely suspect of hidden agendas.</blockquote>

Verification: Haya warak paha keeyada? (haya wadi kireema paha)

Top Bottom