The Theistic Evolution Myth!
Ever since the early years of the 20th century, the Modern Naturalistic Evolutionists have been filling the media with their claims about the origin of life on Earth- stating that sometime a few Billions of years ago, there was a primordial, inorganic liquid of chemicals that were combined haphazardly to form the first living single cell..!
Those of understanding would be still wondering: How far random bonding of amino acids gets you this 'single living cell' they are talking about?! May be it happened miraculously?! (oops… faith again!).
Regarding the correlated and exchanged benefits between the far-lefts and the supporters of Evolution in the United States, they have been working together to use the public education to achieve a radical change, in the World's Powerful nation mainstream-opinion; on the way life came into being.
Since Evolution is the main key to both the Humanist and the Marxist world views.. Promoting Evolution as a scientific fact has led to pave the way to welcome both ideologies, to form the Secular Humanist world view, which hopes of achieving an enlightened society, in order to fulfill the theory which has been recently known as the 'New World Order'.
Evolution changes its skin!
Despite the notable success that the Evolutionists could achieve, by padding their claims in the publics minds as if Evolution is a mere fact; they seemed seeking a way out to keep their idea surviving, since the scientific discoveries in all fields, along the past century, have shown clearly what supports the fact of Creation, and enfeebles the coincidence allegations.
On the other hand, the telecommunications revolution has helped the religious organizations to reform their efforts to reach the publics again, since they were not allowed to access the public education, since the Evolutionist raid that took place along the past 80 years.
May be that would explain the appearance of the likes of the former liberal protestant Eugenie Scott- who embraces a secular humanist philosophy and describes herself as a Non theist- who has had an interest in the creation-evolution controversy in the 1970s, and started preaching her idea that the religious scriptures about God and creation are compatible with the Evolutionist claims about Earth's physical development, in a clear mix of her religious early life and the new trends she has drifted to.
Scott's idea has been praised by the anti-Creationists society, whom could be seen as an example of how can media help promoting ideas successfully, even if those ideas weren't based on any clear cut facts!
Once the needed funds and support are offered; you will have the job done!
In accordance, Scott has been also profiled in media as the leading critic of both Creationism and Intelligent Design!
Theistic Evolution among Muslims!
Theistic evolution or Evolutionary Creationism is the approach which was revived by Eugenie Scott to bring Evolution and Religion into agreement.. an idea which was later accepted by some major Christian churches, some Jewish denominations; and even some Muslim groups.
Such evolutionary opinions on creation were specifically accepted by the Liberal movements within Islam, such as the Ahmadiyya movement, which accepts Adam as the first prophet, but denies that he was the first man on earth.
A quick look at the history of these movements, would tell you much about the their doubtful beginnings, and it would clear things out when you take a while to think about the reasons why they did accept such claims on creation, replacing it by a main part of their creed.
There are also a few Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims who accept these allegation on Creation, specially the youth who were exposed to cultural brain wash, through Media or by having a Western oriented education.
Evolution in the Qur'an?
Among the Evolutionist Muslims, some of who try to support their claims by saying that the Qur'an includes some verses that tells us about the transitory nature of creation.
Although; all of their opinions and interpretations are based on personal points of view, which were never confirmed by any group of trusted Scholars.
On the other side, the Creationist Muslims -whom are the majority- have replied to their rivals by stating many other verses that doesn't carry any controversial interpretations and points out clearly to the fact that creation came into existence the way Creationism describes, without going through any transitional stages.
Between those and these, one wonders where did science go in the middle of those intellectual-religious arguments?
Seeing people using their Holy Scriptures to argue about a scientific issue in the first place, tells that it isn't not a matter of logic, but one of opinion.
At the same time, remembering that the Holy Qur'an encourages and even orders its followers, in many verses, to contemplate the signs of creation around them and in themselves, and to think about them; alarms us that we are taking the wrong way, and emphasizes the need to make a U-turn as quick as possible, to step in the right direction, as a nation that communicates True Faith to our surroundings.
As for those who get themselves busy with the subject of creation, which they haven't witness in personal, and try to doubt God's role in bringing this huge Universe into existence.. There won't be a better reply than this Qur'anic statement, which says what means:
{ 51. I called them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor (even) their own creation: nor is it for helpers such as Me to take as lead (men) astray! } [18:51]
1 comment:
When we understand how a miracle has happened, it becomes science :)
People tend to explain things differently depending on their backgrounds.
If you were not a believer you'll refer creation to anyone/anything but God. And you'll base your theory upon the same facts/theories upon which I base mine. That's natural. Because our understanding of these facts/theories is different.
For example I saw a movie proposing that life on earth was started by aliens that lived on Mars just before it (Mars) was destroyed because of a natural disaster.
The fact that the Evolution theory is used to support some people's view/faith doesn't mean we rule out the theory altogether.
After all you can never be 100% sure of what actually happened, as no one actually witnessed creation. All we can do is try to explain this process according to our current understanding of the evidence we got as provided by our current, again limited, science.
This inevitably produces different interpretations, not necessarily contradictory.
My point is, we can't (I don't) embrace anything (so called fact or not) as pure and unquestionable fact, not your theory nor theirs. Both theories can be wrong or right. "scientists think something is true" not "scientists say something is true".
You shouldn't discuss this subject as if what others think is a sin or
say: they have been misleaded they have been brain washed its a
conspiracy. How can you be so sure you have not been brain washed yourself :)
Facts are what you see as facts or what you can't see as facts but someone else you trust tells you they are (in my case this someone is God). But then again what this someone tells you is subject to your understanding...
You say what they say are claims and allegations, but they will say
that too about what you say. We should discuss each theory objectively and scientifically.
What I think you did in this subject is address the subject ideologically by listing historical events and questioning other people's finds/theories without discussing them scientifically.
In my personal opinion the only unquestionable fact in this universe is God.
Post a Comment