Channel: Mohammed Hijab
right, so first thing that needs to be understood is that as Muslims, we see science as a positive thing. That is because we believe in attempts to come to terms with what we believe is God's natural creation.
Also, unlike Christian counterparts, we haven't had this sort of history where you have a massive divide between the religious institutions and science.
Also, unlike our Christian counterparts, we haven't had to retreat in our hermeneutical approach. In other words, the verses that talk about the heavens and the earth, verses that talk about the creations of the heavens and the earth and the things that God has really created those verses, we maintain a literalistic account of those verses, and we have had to resort to metaphor raising those verses, when they are clearly not intended as metaphors. Now waspa says, will maintain that there was a close relationship between the Koran or Islam and science.
We will also say they ought not to be perfect relationship between the Quran, Islam and science. And this brings me to my main point, that science itself is not perfect. And I'm going to outline two reasons why I believe that is the case.
Right, so the first point I want to make is what Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift. Now science can undergo what is referred to as a paradigm shift. And a paradigm shift is literally no that no to scientific facts, change actual scientific facts. But the whole framework through which these facts operate, also change. Now, that happened at a time, well, sort of Newton, slash Einstein. So there was a shift, a complete paradigm shift.
From Newtonian physics to Einstein in physics, that's an established reality. And people of philosophy of science will know this. Another example is the fact that you know, you had the assumption that the universe always existed and this is called steady state theory.
And this move to the expanding universe model, Big Bang, slash x, that Expanded Universe model, which, of course, meant the following him and at one stage to put on contradicted science because it makes it very clear that the universe did indeed have an explicit beginning. Steady state theory was completely against that. And thus, there was no reconciliation whatsoever between steady state theory and the Quran. So at one stage, the Islamic narrative contradicted established facts, scientific fact. But if science came to agree with the credit narrative afterwards, so this is the first point.
Right. So the second point I want to make is what is commonly referred to as the problem of induction.
deduction attempts to make sort of broad generalizations on specific samples. Now, the problems of induction are many, which are suave, enumerated by David Hume.
One of them is that it's very difficult to make estimations based on a select sample. Or it's very difficult to make estimations based on past experiences on future events. So these are all sort of problems are associated with induction. And these problems cause deep and dangerous complications for those who see science or the theory of evolution, to be more specific, and use a contemporary example, a theory of evolution as an absolute certainty, that is not prone to any kind of change.
Now Muslims unlike a Christian literalist, young earth creationist counterparts, we don't have to believe for example, that the universe is only you know, a couple of days old or a couple of 1000 years old, we can come to the conclusion that the universe is x billion, whatever is years old. And we don't have any problem in in rejecting things like adaptation or speciation, or the fact that dinosaurs you know, existed or any of these things, but we clearly are under obligation to reject human evolution.
Right, so bearing this in mind out you have only two questions, to ask someone who takes evolution as an unchangeable certainty and ultimate truth to which if you can answer in the
Positive, only then can you quench my skeptical first, sort of first question is, can you guarantee that there will be no paradigm shift in the field of biology that I could which we've already witnessed in physics?
That's the first question. The second question
is, can you solve the problem of induction. So you can get enough sample evidences to make a complete generalization in evolution, or human evolution in particular?
These are my questions. And that is my case.
And I really want to ask you, for a favor, I really have a request to make to you.
And it consists of two words.
That's right. fight back. I've made my points clear. I've elucidated on my questions. So it's time for you to fight back, write an article, make a video response? Let's see what you have to say, to these questions that are posed.
So I've been describing evolution as if it's effect as if it's facts, really, I've been taking that for granted the effect of science, whether evolution can by its very nature, because it takes millions of years to take place fulfills the scientific, sort of textbook definition of science, something which is observed phenomena, I'll leave that up to the viewer, I'm not gonna, you know, just go back and forth for you guys, you could decide that it was actually irrespective, it doesn't matter is because then you still have the two questions that you have to answer even if it is effect.
But you have to understand that biologists understanding of, of evolution has undergone a kind of cosmetic surgery in the 20th century. That is, because basically, you had microbiology and sort of new understanding of genetics, which had to be incorporated into Darwinism or Darwinian evolution, to create what you call the Neo Darwinian evolution, or new Darwinian evolution to Darwinian evolution. So as a result of these changes, I can actually come to the conclusion that evolution is evolving, it's changing, is moving around.
Even I mean, if you look at the fossil record, because evolution a big part of the theory of evolution depends upon the fossil record. There have been massive changes.
As a result of the new discoveries, you know, new fossil discoveries, for example, Lucy, Lucy, obviously discovered in 1974,
is a fossil. And people had to you know, biologists had to come back to the drawing board, continuously go back to the drawing board, and try and reconfigure the theory of evolution based on this new fossil.
Another another change that took place number format, and now instead of it being a new fossil, that thing that people have found, it's new classifications now. So Neanderthal man was our anatomical cousin. Right. And then he was reclassified to being anatomical brother. I mean, even to be honest, a very famous controversy within the attorney sort of early
21st century could say, which one is faster if a century is the sort of controversial decade, Stephen gold. So he made a theory or thesis called punctuated equilibrium with punctuated equilibrium, which is actually contrast it is a contrast to Neo Darwinian evolution, one could say he steps out of not new Darwinian evolution. So there's a new explanation now for how human beings how different creatures evolved, which is not the standard Darwinian evolution, explanation. So looking at the changes that have taken place, and continuously change already with the theory of evolution, there are so many changes, that it's, it's really, it's very hard to maintain that there
won't be any new fossils, or there won't be any new reclassifications that will render parts of the theory, perhaps null and void. You know, so think about that. The fact that evolution is evolving, is a testament to effect really, that it can continue to change. And part new evidences can come in and be incorporated and undermined old evidences, how can you maintain a to a certain reality in this case, and if you want to maintain that is certainly something that happens for sure. You still have to take a step back, and you still have to be open minded and think all of these changes have happened. What is guaranteeing us that continuous change will not continue to happen. Think about
So what really astonishes me is that people really do take evolutionary
Almost like a religion, it becomes so deeply entrenched in people's minds, it becomes almost like a religion. And a scientist job is meant to be to attempt to falsify evidences. But unfortunately, because of the atmosphere that has been created in 21st century, with atheism, new age, atheism
is like a stubborn, vehement black stubbornness about ideas.
This is create an atmosphere where people actually want to go and create a self fulfilling prophecy in relation to this field of evolution. And this makes them look, this makes people really bad, like Lord Kelvin Kelvin. You know, it was meant to be, you know, a massive scientist, he made a speech publicly in the 1900s. And he said that we know everything we need to know about physics. And then five or six, four or five years later, Einstein came with a special theory of relativity. So you have to understand that science is an instrumental way of understanding the world around us. It's pragmatic, it changes. So, I mean, that's what you have to understand. But look, if you like me,
appreciate the scientific method. We will appreciate the sensitivity, something that unites people. It's a rational recourse, and you're, and you're someone who appreciates it, then realize that the science itself is not concerned with certain things like meaning or morals. It doesn't concern those things at all.
So if you have like this kind of like craving for certainty, that can only be satiated. With the question, what is my purpose in life that can only be associated with that question?
And look, going back to the science, if we relate it to the Quranic narrative.
The Quranic narrative is, interestingly, despite all the things we've said, it can be, if you look at all of the verses that talk about creation, literally in the Quran, those verses can be correlated with even in the light, like of 21st century scientific discovery. In other words, you can appreciate those verses in the last 21st century discoveries. So this is really an interesting part of the Quranic narrative. And it shows you at least a really strong case for the timelessness of the Quran.
Are you going to subscribe? Or
are you going to just come with the channel as you don't you have not subscribed? You gotta subscribe to the channel.