Sunday, October 23, 2011

Evolutionary Science

Written by Kamal Nuruddeen

At the cutting edge of science, there are frequent moments when cherished theories and established assumptions are overturned by glaring new facts or exposed inconsistencies. Scientific journals in all fields are full of duelling researchers and academics debating the merits of various ideas and slaughtering many a sacred cow. Of course, this is a perspective that the general public does not see. For them, science is presented as a body of cut-and-dry facts and indisputable laws. Scientific proof is supposedly the means to delivering absolute certainty about our world.

Occasionally, there occurs within the scientific community an event so traumatic that it is felt by wider society. When a theory regarded as fundamental to our understanding of the world is challenged by new discoveries, we find scientists in disarray and society at large bemused by how something that has been scientifically proven turns out to be incorrect.

This is exactly what has happened as recent experimental findings seem to cast doubt on Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The Theory of Relativity is so fundamental to physics that even the researchers who presented these shocking results were at pains to make clear that the likeliest explanation would be an oversight in their experiment rather than a flaw in the theory.

Although it seems that there may well be an explanation that conforms to the physics textbooks, it still remains that for a time, physicists were willing to question the fundamentals of their beliefs and countenance the possibility that they may have been wrong for the past one hundred years.

Implicit in the reaction of physicists is an admission that science by its very nature is fluid: ideas come and go; hypotheses are proven one moment and disproven the next; basic assumptions are questioned and challenged. Science is a snapshot in time of our understanding of the universe, of Allah's creation and our understanding will inevitably change. If we build our worldview on science - and seek to validate our beliefs in accordance with it - we are building on shifting sand.

As the "neutrinos break speed-of-light barrier" affair is being played out, one thing to note has been the way many physicists have been able to openly question Einstein's ideas without fear of vilification. Contrast this with the infinitely more dogmatic stance of another branch of science: evolutionary biology. Any dissenting ideas that challenge evolution are treated akin to heresies - with the heretics castigated by the priests that guard this dogma.

We should bear in mind the evolutionary - even revolutionary - nature of scientific advancement at a time when some Muslims seem content to modify Muslim beliefs and aqeedah to align them with current scientific thinking. Will aqeedah need to be continually modified to keep pace with the latest theories?

Scientific facts are arrived at through the best endeavours of the limited human mind, and as such must be subservient to revealed knowledge which is imparted to us by Allah, the Perfect Creator, through His chosen messengers. Whilst Evolution and Relativity will one day crumble apart, the Quran will always remain intact.
Labels:

6 comments:

  1. Salaams.

    This article is atypical of the misunderstanding that we Muslims have with regards to the scientific method.

    NO SCIENTIST says that science delivers absolute facts (not even Dawkins!) . So to say that new evidence has emerged which is turning scientific beliefs is nothing new or out of the ordinairy. Whose eyebrows are you intending to raise here???????????????

    Besides if you read the new scientist so many discoveries are happening all the time and many scientists chop and change on a daily basis. So what does this article prove?

    This does not cast doubt upon the scientific method, it only REINFORCES it. Thats the beauty of the scientific method, it does not claim absolute certainty like the neo dawrinists do, neither is science the realm of certainty that we Muslims think scientists believe in.

    As for the whole evolution business. There was so much fuss over nothing. On one hand you have those that want to twist our beliefs to fit a theory and on the other you have the flat earther creationist thickos who think that science is one big freemason/atheist/zionist conspiracy.

    Islamtoday.com beautifully reconciled evolution. Who is to say that beings didnt exist before Adam AS and the fossils being discovered today were of past creations before Adam AS?

    One can *scientifically* accept evolution, aswell as the scientific belief that the dead not not rise, WHILST accepting the MIRACLE of Adam AS creation without a father and whilst also accepting that Isa AS can raise the dead.

    Miracles are exceptions to the scientific norm.

    One common problem with Muslim polemics in the feild of evolution is that they are stuck with the ' its only a theory!' mode. Many cannot fathom how incredibly stupid such statements make us look as a community. Of course its only a theory, science is based on theory and degrees of certainty, not absolute truth . When one critques a theory one has to provide a scientific *alternative*, not just poke holes in a theory. EVERY theory has holes in it.

    Here lies another pitfall. When the typical Muslim polemics begin, as an alternative we often bring out a quasi version of creationism tied in with Intelligent Design. Often not knowing that ID theorists are not against descent and one of their founders (michael behe) is himself a strong believer in descent, yet look at how many times Harun Yahya quotes him without even knowing his posistion lol.

    We land ourselves in a quagmire when we say God is the *alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation*, as if their is a contradiction between evolution and religious beief to begin with. Furthermore if God is considered an alternaive SCIENTIFIC explanation, then you have to make Allah SWT a falsifiable scientific theory (!), then you have to via emperical means show he exists in the first place, and thats before you emperically have to prove the existence of Adam AS and Eve AS coming from his rib. (again, merely showing holes in the theory of evolution does NOT prove your own point by default per say)

    To summarise, I dont know what your article intends to prove but the obvious?
    ReplyDelete
  2. Danke
    Dies ist eine hervorragende.
    ReplyDelete
  3. An excellent piece ma sha Allah. Like on many issues, the man in the street is fed the line that theories are indisputable facts. Anyone who has worked in academic science will be very familiar with the (all too human) pressures of funding, publication and prestige that are brought to bear and result in some theories gaining primacy and position over others. This reality is far from the bastion of objectivity that the public is led to believe that science is.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Nice article, thanks.

    And bizarre rant from comment number 1. Did he forget to take his medicine or something?
    ReplyDelete
  5. Kamal NuruddeenOct 24, 2011 04:23 PM
    Anonymous from 24 October, 2011 12:11:

    Thank you for your comments, although I am somewhat bemused by you attacking my article for things it did not say. Nonetheless, I will try to respond concisely to your points:

    "NO SCIENTIST says that science delivers absolute facts..."
    That's not what I said. If you read the first paragraph carefully, I'm talking about the general public and its perception of scientific facts, not what scientists think. In many quarters science is seen as delivering certainties. Scientific proof is seen by many as the indisputable foundation of knowledge.

    "Besides if you read the new scientist so many discoveries are happening all the time..."
    That is rather my point. You're clearly very angry but I'm not sure who you're arguing against...


    "This does not cast doubt upon the scientific method, it only REINFORCES it."
    I'm not attacking the scientific method at all. In fact, the foundations of the scientific method were laid by Muslims who developed notions of empiricism that were then adopted by medieval Europe. The scientific method has more than proven its efficacy at advancing our understanding of Allah's sunan in the universe.

    "When one critques [sic] a theory one has to provide a scientific *alternative*, not just poke holes in a theory."
    Not really. Theories provide testable hypotheses. If the hypothesis is proved false, the theory is undermined. If a theory continues to be disproven, it eventually loses acceptance. Providing an alternative is certainly not a requirement to critiquing a theory, although it is clearly desirable. When the neutrino experiment seemed to cast doubt on the Theory of Relativity, there was no real "alternative" theory. That did not affect the validity of the critique.

    "As for the whole evolution business..."
    When it comes to evolution, Muslims end up tying themselves in all sorts of logical knots. If you believe that Adam AS was a product of evolution and hence had parents, all sorts of mental contortions are required to explain away many explicit verses and ahadith that describe Adam's creation. If you believe that humans are a special-case exception to evolution, then there is no basis within evolution to make that distinction. If you reject the "scientific evidence" when it comes to human evolution then how can the evidence for non-human evolution be so compelling? The scientific reasoning in both cases is the same.

    I am afraid I have no idea what relevance your other points have to my article. I have little patience for Christian fundamentalist offerings of intelligent design as an alternative scientific explanation and do not know why you brought this up.

    In answer to your final question, my point (as summed up in the last paragraph) was merely to show that the neutrino story gives a salutory lesson in the limited nature of science-based knowledge in comparison to revealed knowledge, the latter of which Muslims uniquely possess in the Quran and Sunnah. I am puzzled as to why you found it so objectionable to make this point.

    Wassalaam,
    Kamal Nuruddeen
    ReplyDelete
  6. The author of comment 1 did not forget to take his medicine. He took somebody's medicine instead of his own without realising it. That is why he sounds like a very angry and confused parrot! In my line of work I have seen many like him.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)