Theory of evolution and islam
 

What does the Holy Quran say about the theory of evolution?

Regards

This [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzcBsPf04gs&feature=related"]link[/URL] might help you sir.

I just went through the link posted by Jahanzeb. Zakir Naik on theory of evolution. All he said meant to create a confusion about Darwin's theory's validity. He argued:

1- Darwin theory is a theory not a fact. So we cannot rely on a theory.

This made me wonder how a medical doctor can have such a rudimentary approach towards science. He meant to say that we should not pay an ear to anything which is entitled as theory; be it theory of evolution or atomic theory or quantum theory or theory of relativity or Pythagoras theorem or two nation theory. How childish answer.

2- Zakir Naik said that there are missing links in the ladder of evolution of human beings.

Well. Why there are missing links? Only because there are some known links as well. One may recall when Mendeleev designed first periodic table, he left many vacant spaces for element which were not discovered then. But over the years scientists discovered these missing links. How we can expect that Darwin should have come up with his theory only after an absolute perfection. How non scientific approach.

3- He also said that theory of evolution is not generally accepted and there are many scientists who oppose this theory.

Now this is a white lie from our scholar. Because Darwin's theory of Organic Evolution is widely accepted. We study his theory in our course. Our taxonomic classification of organism is based on this theory. This theory is perfectly in accordance with Mendel's Laws of Inheritance and modern genetics and biotechnology although it was put forward 30 years before Mendel published his laws. Darwin's terms like "survival of the fittest", "natural selection" and "struggle for survival" have entered in our daily language. And if one has to compile a book of 20 most influential persons of human history, he has to include Darwin in his list. This theory did face strong opposition but not from scientist community but from religious community.

So what this video of Zakir Naik provides on evolution is nothing but rubbish. In fact in my opinion Zakir Naik is not at all an Islamic scholar. He is a conversationist and a Munazira Baz and if one wonders why people quote him then I tell you that its only because he impresses his listener by pretending that he has a sharp memory. Remember Pretending. His explanations are often flawed and even stupid. I can quote a number of examples in this regard.

What Quran says about evolution, at some other time. But do not ever quote Zakir Naik in your Islamiat paper.

Dr Israr says that first a species had been created (through evolutionary process?) and then God chose a person from among them as his first prophet.
[youtube]n9OP_jVIq4E&playnext=1&list=PL13D0C51A8C9BDB4D[/youtube]

Miracle of Human Creation
 

[url=http://www.harunyahya.com/creation.php]Harun Yahya - The Miracle of Human Creation[/url]

[QUOTE=Nosheen Bukhari;260529][url=http://www.harunyahya.com/creation.php]Harun Yahya - The Miracle of Human Creation[/url][/QUOTE]

This article is about reproduction and development and bit about lactation. Only a slight touch on Hackel Theory. Present discussion is not about embryology but about organic evolution,ie, how life changes its form.

Miracle of Human Creation is book written by Harun Yahaya...
The author was born in Ankara in 1956. He studied arts at Istanbul‘s Mimar
Sinan University and philosophy at Istanbul University. Since
the 1980s, the author has published many books on political,
faith-related and scientific issues. His main focus has been the
refutation of Darwinism and materialism, two modern myths
presented under a scientific guise.

According to Harun Yahya ,It is necessary to discuss Embryology as it rejects the LIFE OF EVOLUTION....

[QUOTE=Nosheen Bukhari;260724]According to Harun Yahya ,It is necessary to discuss Embryology as it rejects the LIFE OF EVOLUTION....[/QUOTE]

You explain how embryology rejects evolution of life. Then I will tell you how study of embryology supports the concept of evolution. And how all animals are related to each other through evolutionary ladder.

The Evolution Misconception
 

Every detail in this universe points to a superior creation. By contrast,
materialism, which seeks to deny the fact of creation in the
universe, is nothing but an unscientific fallacy.
Once materialism is invalidated, all other theories based on this philosophy
are rendered baseless. Foremost of them is Darwinism, that is, the
theory of evolution. This theory, which argues that life originated from
inanimate matter through coincidences, has been demolished with the
recognition that God created the universe. American astrophysicist Hugh
Ross explains this as follows:
Atheism, Darwinism, and virtually all the "isms" emanating from the eighteenth
to the twentieth century philosophies are built upon the assumption,
the incorrect assumption, that the universe is infinite. The singularity has
brought us face to face with the cause—or causer—beyond/behind/before
the universe and all that it contains, including life itself.53
It is God Who created the universe and Who designed it down to its
smallest detail. Therefore, it is impossible for the theory of evolution,
which holds that living things are but products of chance, to be true.
Unsurprisingly, when we look at the theory of evolution, we see that
this theory is denounced by scientific findings. The design in life is extremely complex and striking.
In the inanimate world, for instance,we can explore how sensitive are the balances which atoms rest upon, and further, in the animate world,
we can observe in what complex designs these atoms were brought together, and how extraordinary are the mechanisms and structures such as
proteins, enzymes, and cells,which are manufactured with
them.This extraordinary design in life invalidated Darwinism
at the end of the 20th century.

[B]The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism[/B]

Although a doctrine going back as far as ancient Greece, the theory
of evolution was advanced extensively in the 19th century. The most important
development that made the theory the top topic of the world of
science was the book by Charles Darwin titled The Origin of Species published
in 1859. In this book, Darwin denied that God created different living
species on the earth separately. According to Darwin, all living beings
had a common ancestor and they diversified over time through small
changes.
Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as
he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the
theory was failing in the face of many critical questions.
Darwin invested all his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he
expected to solve the "Difficulties of the Theory." However, contrary to his
expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties.
The defeat of Darwinism against science can be reviewed under
three basic topics:
1) The theory can by no means explain how life originated on the
earth.
2) There is no scientific finding showing that the "evolutionary mechanisms"
proposed by the theory have any power to evolve at all.
3) The fossil record proves completely the contrary of the suggestions
of the theory of evolution.

The First Insurmountable Step: The Origin of Life
 

The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a
single living cell that emerged on the primitive earth 3.8 billion years ago.
How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if
such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the
fossil record are some of the questions the theory cannot answer. However,
first and foremost, of the first step of the alleged evolutionary process it has
to be inquired: How did this "first cell" originate?
Since the theory of evolution denies creation and does not accept any
kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated
coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan,
or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have
produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. This, however, is a claim
inconsistent with even the most unassailable rules of biology.