looking at the Quranic verses you've mentioned
kasimgul
I wish you all the best on your journeys to find the BEST suits you...
I would like to comment about some Quranic verses mentioned in some
pages, please. I should say that the verses given as examples from
Quran are not selected related to creation exactly except a few
touching very slightly to topic.
"Islamic Creationism
Contemporary Islam has a greater tendency to literalism than
Christianity does. The Koran is taken by almost all Muslims as the
direct and unaltered word of Allah, and Genesis is considered a
corrupted version of God's message. However, the creation accounts in
the Koran are more vague and are spread among several surahs
(chapters) (2:109-111, 7:52-57, 16:1-17, 40:66-70, 41:9-12, 42:28,
65:12), allowing a range of interpretations similar to those described
in part 1. Most Islamic Young Earth Creationism is imported directly
from the USA. (Edis 1994)"
Please you should refer to correct verses related to the topic you've
mentioned.
Thanks.
Frank J
Not sure what you're saying, but what caught my eye is how (Taner)
Edis discusses Islamic YEC in 1994. IIRC, Harun Yahya, the Islamic
creationist one reads about most in recent years is an OEC. Does that
mean that Islamic creationism has "evolved" in the last 2 decades from
mostly YEC to mostly OEC? If not, has it's "evolution" paralleled that
of US creationism, which seems to be retreating from explicit defense
*or* denial of OEC? IOW evolving in the direction of "don't ask, don't
tell what the creator/designer did, when or how?"
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
The online version of that argument is at <http://www.talkorigins.org/
faqs/wic.html>
"What Is Creationism?" under the heading " "Scientific" Creationism
from Other Religions", although it seems to be saying that Islam
doesn't need to use scientific-sounding language to justify
creationism: if it's in the Quran then you know it's true. (However,
this assumes that you have correctly understood the Quran.)
While we're waiting for Mark Isaak to respond, my own impression is
that Mark is also saying that the Quran rarely mentions origins of
specific things, such as man or cattle, and so the list of applicable
surahs - several of which are used, in order to partly address the
isue of misunderstanding any one of them - is quite loose. I can only
read the English-language version provided; maybe the choices make
more sense in Arabic.
Creationism, or, according to Wikipedia, "Creation Science or
scientific creationism is a branch of creationism, which attempts to
provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the
Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts,
theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth,
cosmology and biological evolution. Its most vocal proponents are
fundamentalist Christians in the United States who seek to prove
Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.
The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex
nihilo"; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last ten
thousand years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were
created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that
fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic
flood which completely covered the entire Earth. As a result,
creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical
evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation
scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book
of Genesis."
This seems to exclude "old-earth" creation science, depending on
whether you're required to believe in all of these things or only some
of them. But I think the essence of creationism applied to biology is
the belief or opinion that the characteristic forms and behaviours of
living things in present or past times are the result of sudden
developments, interpreted as God creating this or that creature, and
that living things don't change signficantly from the nature of their
parents and ancestors. To understand successful scientific animal or
plant breeding, creationists often do acknowledge "microevolution",
which is a sort of change from generation to generation that somehow
doesn't contradict creationism. They might say that there are many
different breeds of dogs, but no dogs bred to become cats, although
you may think that some dogs are very much more like cats than some
other dogs are. (I think I remember that Muslims don't like dogs
much, so that may be a poor example to use, but there /are/ many
different dogs and they seem to have been made different by mankind,
not by God.)
The theory of evolution disagrees: Wikipedia expresses it as "The
biodiversity of life evolves by means of mutations, genetic drift and
natural selection"; living things are descended from other living
things that were not the same, and they are as they are now because
their ancestors had novel characteristics whereby they prospered more
than their neighbours. (That's the "natural selection" part.)
It is possible to argue that that is /how/ God made and provided the
things that he has made, including human beings, either by
establishing life on the Earth and then letting the life find its own
way by evolution, or even by providing the Earth and letting life
spontaneously arise, merely by having atoms come together in a self-
perpetuating way. Or by providing a "universe" in which objects like
the Earth also arise naturally.
Christian creationism has a problem with its Genesis creation story,
in which apparently God made various things when the world was
supposed to be all nice forever, built around or for the first humans,
who lived in a garden. There are many not-nice things living now,
from the point of view of humans - dangerous animals and poisonous
plants - so why did God make those? A popular argument is that such
things were made more nasty, presumably by God, to punish the humans
after they offended him by disobeying him.
The great majority of scientists who have a well informed opinion,
believe that:
- The Earth is a mass of rock and iron that is about 4.5 billion years
old.
- For a couple of billion years, the Earth's atmosphere had almost no
oxygen, you would not be able to live in it.
- For about five-sixths of the existence of the Earth so far, there
weren't any living things more sophisticated than bacteria and slime.
- Life on Earth has sometimes changed "abruptly" on the time scale of
geology, but that can mean a change that took a million years.
- About 65 million years ago, an asteroid between 5 and 15 kilometres
wide struck Central America; its matter is found in a thin layer that
is buried all around the world, and the heat of its incineration, then
the cold and the impoverishment of vegetation under dust-darkened
skies, led to the extinction of dinosaurs and many other species that
lived then - which may have taken many years, although such an
asteroid strikes in a few seconds, and its immediate effect may be
felt around the whole world in a matter of hours.
- Humans are descended from apes that lived in Africa. Of course,
modern apes are not our ancestors, they are the modern descendants of
the same ancient creatures, and may have changed over the time in
between, just as we have. But probably they didn't change so much.
- Plants and animals that are used by humans, for instance providing
food or labour, have been conspicuously changed by human breeding and
human selection of the best products.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by kasimgul
<kasi...@gmail.com>:
No one here made any such mention.
>Hello all,
Goodbye.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless