Richard Dawkins, the God delusion

[davidovitch]

Are you sure?

Yes, i sure am:

Read the whole article yourself: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

Here's my summary:

1) Proof that Moulana Shaykul Islam Kellar (God Bless him) believes in Micro-evolution (minor alterations in a species that do not mutate it into another species):
"micro-evolution within a species ... is fairly well-attested to by breeding horses, pigeons, useful plant hybrids, and so on"

2) non-human macro-evolution: Shaykh Kellar also does not deny the possibility of non-human macro-evolution (the alteration of an non-human species to such an extent that it becomes a new non-human species). He believes that non-human macro-evolution in animals does not contradict the Islamic creed and that someone who believes in non-human macro-evolution is not committing kufr.

3) Ape-Human macro-evolution: Belief in Ape-human macro-evolution is Kufr. Ape-human macro-evolution is the belief that a hairy, buck-teethed monster with a propensity to pick its nose and eat its poo could mutate into an intelligent human.

I believe that our non-accpetance of category 3 evolution is because of the Quranic verse Inna khalaqnal insaana min nutfatin....

Finally, Shaykhuna Keller says that belief in non-human micro and macro-evolution must be predicated in the understanding that the ultimate cause of all these 'mutations' is Allah.

[Nawawi619]

did anyone read his book the God delusion?
and is there any rebuttal from the muslim camp??

As Salamu Alaykum


As far as writing there hasnt been any book written by Muslims that address directly Dawkin's thesis. However as stated earlier, Sh Hamza Yusuf issued a video response, and some have written articles. Harun Yahya although he is a mixed bag, has written pretty good works addressing atheism and evolution.

Dr. Alister McGrath, who is an Oxford Christian Theologian, wrote two works addressing Dawkin's arguments from obviously a Christian perspective


The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divinehttp://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-Delusi...6898020&sr=1-7

Dawkins' GOD: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life
http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-GOD-Ge...898020&sr=1-12

[faqir]

Just out of curiosity, is Hamza Andreas Tzortzis traditional in Aqeedah, that is, Ashari/Maturidi/true Athari?

From what I gather he used to be with HT then left them and now attends classes of sh Haitham Haddad....

He does have some good material on his site....

I've got the book sitting at home... most of it is totally irrelevant. There is one chapter where he tries to refute some of the arguments for God but does a terrible job. I also have a Christian rebuttal to his book....

there is also something on-line from William Lane Craig which you should google and read.

its a shame a Muslim did not write something directly in response but its probably a bit too late now!

[JerryL]

Sheikh Nuh Ha Meem Keller argues in favour of microevolution, that is, changes in the characteristics of a species (like the colour of a butterfly changing) as long as the species does not become another one.

We've actually observed speciation in recent history (such as the evolution of American goatsbeard).

Jerry, are you a contingent being or a non-contingent being?

I don't think the distinction makes sense. Under those used, I'm both (being both necessary and caused).

I believe that our non-accpetance of category 3 evolution is because of the Quranic verse Inna khalaqnal insaana min nutfatin....

The physical evidence is overwhelmingly the other way. You may believe which you choose.

Finally, Shaykhuna Keller says that belief in non-human micro and macro-evolution must be predicated in the understanding that the ultimate cause of all these 'mutations' is Allah.

Seems philosophical. We know many (all?) of the physical causes of mutation; much like we know why a streetlight cycles from red to green.

I've got the book sitting at home... most of it is totally irrelevant. There is one chapter where he tries to refute some of the arguments for God but does a terrible job. I also have a Christian rebuttal to his book....

I'm sure there's a rebuttal to the rebuttal.

If you had to stand before God in complete honesty: Would you say you are reading the books to find the truth, or do you already believe you know what is true from before you started the books?

[Abu Yunus]

Jerry, are you a contingent being or a non-contingent being?

I don't think the distinction makes sense. Under those used, I'm both (being both necessary and caused).

What distinction?

How are you necessary?

[Marwan Ibrahim]

Well, I suppose this is rather tedious and pointless. Atheists will refuse to accept ANY evidences for the existence of the Almighty. They will either argue for the absurd(by denying the various forms of the cosmological argument), or they will dismiss the question altogether as improper(as is with the case of the teleological argument).

[davidovitch]

We've actually observed speciation in recent history (such as the evolution of American goatsbeard).

Claims that the American goatsbeard has undergone macro evolution have been rubbished. See here for more details: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html

The physical evidence is overwhelmingly the other way. You may believe which you choose.

la kum deenukum wa liya deen. To be honest, i havent seen any hard evidence in favour of ape-human evolution. Lots of innuendo, false hopes and forgeries, but no real archaelogical, skeletal evidence. If you'd read the other Nuh ha meem keller link in my last post, you would have realised this.

We know many (all?) of the physical causes of mutation;

Really? i always thought that the more we learn, the more we realise how little we know.

Wa ma uwtitum minal ilmi illa qalila.
Kalla! innal insana layatga. Ar ra-aahus tagna.
A antum ashaadu khalqan amis samaa?

[JerryL]

What distinction?

How are you necessary?

Between "necessary" and "caused". I'm necessary in that I was the inevitable outcome of the initial state of the universe.

Well, I suppose this is rather tedious and pointless. Atheists will refuse to accept ANY evidences for the existence of the Almighty. They will either argue for the absurd(by denying the various forms of the cosmological argument), or they will dismiss the question altogether as improper(as is with the case of the teleological argument).

I suppose it's either that or there actually hasn't been any presented. I'm standing, well sitting, here willing to discuss which it is. You seem to have decided before hand. Perhaps it is pointless, but not for the reason you think.

“With high style and light-hearted disdain, David Berlinski deflates the intellectual pretensions of the scientific atheist crowd. Maybe they can recite the Periodic Table by heart, but the secular Berlinski shows that this doesn’t get them very far in reasoning about much weightier matters.”
—Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, bestselling author of Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution

You haven't presented an argument so much as a "listen to this man" appeal to authority.

Do you believe Behe is an authority on god / "weightier matters"? You seem to. It must be difficult then that Behe is a Christian and you aren't. It seems you disagree with your own cited authority.

Claims that the American goatsbeard has undergone macro evolution have been rubbished. See here for more details: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html

It's not a new species because it's a new species?!?

Some more:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

To be honest, i havent seen any hard evidence in favour of ape-human evolution. Lots of innuendo, false hopes and forgeries, but no real archaelogical, skeletal evidence. If you'd read the other Nuh ha meem keller link in my last post, you would have realised this.

I would realize that you haven't seen it? But I'm not really concerned if you've seen it. Have you looked at the results of gene-sequencing of mitochondria from primates and hominids?

But you want fossils? OK. At which letter is the first "human" skull?

Really? i always thought that the more we learn, the more we realise how little we know.

So you don't know that we didn't evolve then?

[Abu Shuja'ah]

to the Muslims.

As Muslims we believe people are tortured in the grave for their sins of this world. As Muslims, those skulls are due to those punishments.

I'll ask JerryL one simple question:

Is the universe in order or chaos?

I see round planets, if this universe was a chance, why aren't there square or rectangular or triangular planets?

I see planets in orbit, on a fixed course which they repeat over a period of time. If this universe was chance, why don't they go wherever whenever?

I see stars, imploding, exploding and yet if it were all random, an explosion or implosion would hardly be seen.

I see black holes and their forces, so many of them, if it were all random, wouldn't the occurrance of them be random too?

Can you point to me, ONE thing in this world that does not have order nor design?

Allahu Alam.
to the Muslims.

[JerryL]

I'll ask JerryL one simple question:

Is the universe in order or chaos?

Both. Perhaps you are asking if the universe is random. I don't believe random exists above the quantum level. If quantum randomness translates into the macroscopic world through extreme dependence in complex systems, that might represent an element of randomness in an otherwise deterministic universe.

I see round planets, if this universe was a chance, why aren't there square or rectangular or triangular planets?

The definition of a planet includes that it have sufficient mass for gravity to overcome the plasticity of the material it is made from (if it's not generally round, it's not a planet).

To again answer what I assume you meant rather than what you asked: because "round" gives the shortest distance to a shared center of gravity". If you made a square planet, it would immediately collapse under its own mass into a sphere.

I see planets in orbit, on a fixed course which they repeat over a period of time. If this universe was chance, why don't they go wherever whenever?

Because of gravity and conservation of momentum.

I see stars, imploding, exploding and yet if it were all random, an explosion or implosion would hardly be seen.

But it's not random. I never said it was random. I've said on this forum in the past that the universe is deterministic, and not random above a quantum level. You are hacking at a straw man.

I see black holes and their forces, so many of them, if it were all random, wouldn't the occurrance of them be random too?

You see black holes? Somehow I doubt that.

Can you point to me, ONE thing in this world that does not have order nor design?

I would need definitions for "order" and "design" here, as I can imagine many possible meanings.