science so far has attached more and more credibility to the theory of evolution which has only substantiated that so called master design is the making of evolution, there is no supreme being who created the marvelous master designs , Rather the living organism once having come into being ( protoplasm ) is eternally evolving and dissolving itself. Apart from it nitrogen cycle, carbon cycle, water cycle and so on are also pointer in this direction. we deride and scuff the metaphysics of hindus ( karma ) but i believe there must be some truth in it because there is no grater religion than mother nature. Creationism has died its scientific death. proof is in following videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePDkUVH3MXQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63LRfLyR-JU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_LaAx7bSm0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuKDLyOkEEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCX0JJ16dFM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1tkM_f5B9s

In my opinion science neither ACCEPT GOD NOR REJECT IT. It is becuase of main principle of scientific research where scientist has to observe a phenomena and has to test it through their scientific tools, and his results are open to other scientists to test and verify.

My logic regarding acceptance or rejection of GOD by science is simple, it will remain impossible till the LAST HOUR. It is because if HIS existence is proved, then what will be the need for testing of humans by GOD. So this will remain mystery till Qiyammah.

I do believe in evolution, because it is a scientific fact. With great respect to Dr. Zakir Nayik who has greatly influenced our educated class. He states that evolution is just a theory. I think he should be told that evolution is a fact, while the theory of natural selection and theory of genetic mutation are two theories that try to explain the fact of evolution. In my little understanding, Quran has also hinted towards evolution. I dont exactly remeber the ayat but its meaning is that " kya insaan wo wakt bool gaya jab us ki hesayit kuch bi nahi ti". In this ayat, in my opinion ALLAH is referring to the humans, where they were not in the present fully developed state and were in the stage where we could call them humonoids.

However I personally believe in ALLAH as the CREATOR, OMNIPOTENT, EVERPRESENT, ALL POWERFUL. For my belief, I have my own experiences, as logically or scientifically I cant prove existence or non-existense of ALLAH. But ALLAH stated to humans that
"We will show them our signs in themselves and the universe".

Regards

Hello All

Well, There is no scientific theory which could disapprove the existence of GOD.In fact there is scientific evidence that proves that the universe or life is not the result of a mere accident or by chance production.We find a definite and perfectly calculated plan behind the great handiwork of nature.This planning is telling us about the existance of a Most Intelligent Governer of the universe.

Science is not a perfect knowledge ,it is changing accordingly with time and proves its own theories wrong .we know that some time ago atom was unbreakable.Later on science broke it,thus proving its former theory as wrong.

what are these scientific discoveries and inventions ? Scientists just observe and try to discover the facts that already exist.Science can not create LAWS ,only try to define the LAWS of NATURE.Space still unable to know the mysteries of this known universe.

Science is dependent on the Five sense to get the knowledge of things.But we know that there are many things beyond the reach and limit of these Five senses.These Mata-physical facts can not be proved with physical means any way.

GOD is not a physical entity .we could never be able to prove GOD through our little knowledge .How come a definite thing can understand indefinite.IT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE.GOD can only be felt through HIS manifestation.and HIS best manifestation is this Universe.....I think it is too much


Best regards

Religion and science must not be compared really. The Christians have learned it through the hard way. Science is not biased and doesn't favor anything. It keeps on changing. For example during Aristotle's time the figure "60" was taken as the base and it worked then. Now the base is "10". Hence science is ever evolving.

Science may or may not contradict what the religion preaches. Hence, it should not be used to prove anything religious. It must not be used to measure or validate the religious teachings or revelations.

Iman is blind faith. Religion and particularly our religion is final and complete. The Quran is word of Allah and carry his commands. It is not a book of science. And it should never be taken as such.

cheers,
floydian

__________________
Police Service of Pakistan (PSP)
39th Common Training Program

Everything cannot be understood in light of logic. Logic is a useful phenomena and man is designed to search for it. But Reality or divinity is best understood without the aid of logic or books. Its like the taste of water- you can describe it as flavourless- but cannot give a name to its taste. And that is how some individuals understand God- by transcending the limits of logic and into a realm of souls.

I havent ever felt it,nor do I really understand it, but they say you have to recognize your soul first in order to realize Allah. Thus the Quran rightly points out,

"....And we are nearer to you than your jugular vein" (50:16)


@ prissygirl
So if you think the evolution is quite correct, and so is Allah's statement of the origins of man, isnt there a dissention in your claims? How can you cope with both at the same time? I think I have concluded that theory of evolution is a hoax or a flawed theory at best.

More videos worth watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYD...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_l...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRsMfnPCceI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0wwhSlo1NI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GEh1u5fF4M&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsSOc...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q2ABS7wSxU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KR8SigWQuY

Those who want to be remain perpetually deluded by the scientific goof haroon yahya who is financed with millions of dollars by certain lobbies, only to keep many indoctrinated so that the light of reason never liberate humanity from these shackles. because there is no answer to the beliefs born out by gut-feelings

i again don't want to poke my nose into this controversial topic but i already answered this query, but again i want to mention here that all are moving around to the topic, but i and someone else have mentioned that if we will find God by science then we will not be able to find Him, but by faith and emaan then He is here and everywhere.

God Bless You All

Recommendations are welcomed

Regards
Azhar Hussain Memon

__________________
Still a long way.....

@Saqib Ali Khan
If it’s a simple postulate of science that nothing exists without proper organization and headed by a leader. But how that is possible?? Who is the head who control the revolving electrons in a nucleus. Exactly, who is the head/leader? Who is the head among the various photons who "organize" the light wave?? And If the answer is God, as a leader of all these organizations then you have taken for granted what you need to prove and as such your argument is petito-in-principi fallacious. Moreover, even if it is granted that there is a head or leader then according to our postulate: Nothing exists without proper organization. That means god also has proper organization. But then what about the absolute unity of god?? Moreover, if our second postulate that each is headed by a leader is taken, then who is the leader of god? And who is the leader of him and so on ad infinitum….. If you say that we have to assume god as a leader then why not assume his leader and so on?? Why don't we consider nature as a self-directing principle?
@ Blossomberry
If I am not wrong then that "once having come into being" means Creation.
Regarding Darwinian evolution, is it justified completely – PROVED, or is it just a consensus among the scientists? The following may be illuminative in this regard:
The amino acids of an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, which are made up of 12 different types, can be arranged in 10E300 (1 followed by 300 zeros) different ways.
Of all of these possible sequences, only "one" forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains are either completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things. In other words, the probability of the coincidental formation of only one protein molecule cited above is "1 in 10E300". The probability of this "1" occurring out of an "astronomical" number consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros is for all practical purposes zero; it is impossible. Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is rather a modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" becomes inadequate.
When we proceed one step further in the development scheme of life, we observe that one protein alone means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, "Mycoplasma Hominis H 39", contains 600 types of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.
1. Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in Turkey, in his book Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), discusses the probability of the accidental formation of Cytochrome-C, one of the essential enzymes for life:
The probability of providing the particular amino acid sequence of Cytochrome-C is as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter and taking it for granted that the monkey pushes the keys at random.
2. The renowned British mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle confesses this fact in one of his statements published in Nature magazine dated November 12, 1981:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

@ Aphrodite
Why it is supposed that evolution can't be "coped" with creation? First of all, Darwin's evolution is not the only 'model'. There are many other types of evolution e.g; Bergson's, Iqbal's, etc. And many of these models are included in the concept of process-theology or process-philosophy. Secondly, why evolution is just limited to living things? Iqbal, e.g; considers evolution as a vital process going on at every moment. His description is quite technical and will be understood better if read directly from the reconstruction. Suffice it would be to say that he not only gives evolution of man, but of everything, even of our concept 'space-time' (not space and time). And this concept of evolution is closely related to our concept of God, because as Iqbal says:
"It is a growing universe and not an already completed product which left the hand of its maker ages ago, and is now lying stretched in space as a dead mass of matter to which time does nothing, and consequently is nothing.
We are now, I hope, in a position to see the meaning of the verse - ‘And it is He Who hath ordained the night and the day to succeed one another for those who desire to think on God or desire to be thankful.’ A critical interpretation of the sequence of time as revealed in ourselves has led us to a notion of the Ultimate Reality as pure duration in which thought, life, and purpose interpenetrate to form an organic unity. We cannot conceive this unity except as the unity of a self - an all-embracing concrete self - the ultimate source of all individual life and thought."
"Nature, as we have seen, is not a mass of pure materiality occupying a void. It is a structure of events, a systematic mode of behaviour, and as such organic to the Ultimate Self. Nature is to the Divine Self as character is to the human self. In the picturesque phrase of the Qur’an it is the habit of Allah. From the human point of view it is an interpretation which, in our present situation, we put on the creative activity of the Absolute Ego. At a particular moment in its forward movement it is finite; but since the self to which it is organic is creative, it is liable to increase, and is consequently boundless in the sense that no limit to its extension is final. Its boundlessness is potential, not actual. Nature, then, must be understood as a living, ever-growing organism whose growth has no final external limits. Its only limit is internal, i.e. the immanent self which animates and sustains the whole. As the Qur’an says: ‘And verily unto thy Lord is the limit’ (53:42). Thus the view that we have taken gives a fresh spiritual meaning to physical science. The knowledge of Nature is the knowledge of God’s behaviour. In our observation of Nature we are virtually seeking a kind of intimacy with the Absolute Ego; and this is only another form of worship."

RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE
Also why we take science as a tool tool of proving any and everythings? What is the proof that science itself is rational? Consider the following:
In order to cover 10m distance, first you have to cover 5m. But before covering 5m we have to cover 2.5m and before that we had to cover 1.25m and so on. What is the smallest distance that we will cover without further 'halving' it?? Between any two points, there are infinite number of points, but then how do we move around? How this series of infinite points in space are covered in a finite period of time? How is the universe expanded? How does the universe started in time as between any two points there are infinite number of points??

MY QUESTION
And finally do you think that our test in this life, as it is upheld by major religions, would be easy if the existence of God was not an issue and we could somehow know that god exists? I mean many of us know that if we don't study well we will fail in our college exams no matter how many teachers and head-masters are there??

__________________
Man is something to be surpassed!!

sir i read your whole post very carefully but so far i am very glad that all your scientific-cum-philosophical indictment against evolution and science as a mean to reach god carry no weight whatsoever, though a lay man may be very impressed by it.i am back from somewhere and gone sleep and tomorrow there is a long engagement. so pardon me if i reply late. but i would form a response so that it could be clear what is the difference between scientific jugglery and scientific judgement. Most of your fact themselves are not right in first place. prove it soon

Sure sure sir, take your time..... take as much as you wanted and please let me enlighten and correct my "dense jaragon".

But let me clear this point. I have not criticized evolution, I have criticized the darwinian concept of "mutation by chance evolving newer species".

And I have not criticized science to reach God. Hope you will go again through my post as there are many arguments against the theistic arguments.

Waiting for ur response sir....... especially on "scientific jugglery and scientific 'judgment' ".

__________________
Man is something to be surpassed!!