|
Dear Mr. Choudhry,
Thanks for the excellent article that I thoroughly and comprehensively enjoyed
reading. This is not your two cents. This is more like a couple of
million bucks. Let me ask you a few question to understand your thoughts
better and clear up a few misconception that might have arisen regarding
my position.
You wrote:
There is simply not enough
time, mathematically, since the origin of life to allow for N random
mutations that are required to theoretically end up with the
species-defining genes that make up the highest forms of life (humans
and cows).
Its not possible for me to agree or disagree with you on this unless
I see the math. What is the point in time when life was originated and
how much time it requires to create the complexity of design of, lets
say, human beings? You also wrote:
Speciation" (the process of
creation of new species) is as yet unresolved by scientists and the
"isolated population" and "gradualist" modes of speciation have been
largely discredited.
My first question is, aren't you taking a gradualist position when
you talk about not having enough time for speciation? My second question
is, since I do consider myself a gradualist, what are the basis of your
assertions that they have been discredited? Yes, Gould maintains that
they are wrong but that's a difference of opinion between
paleontologists and geneticists and punctuated equilibrium is not a
criticism on the theory of evolution. Paleontologists deal with big
chunks of time so for them 10,000 years is an instant but not for
geneticists. I met Gould in 2000 and my question to him was that didn't
he think the difference of opinion between a punctuationist and a
gradualist is merely a difference of a vantage point if we keep
allotropic evolution aside for a moment. He didn't disagree.
Darwin himself, who said that
his guess of speciation as a result of natural selection was just an
analogy
So glad that you said that. It tells me that your knowledge of the
theory is absolutely first hand. Yes, that is absolutely true. Not many
people realize what you wrote and sometime this misunderstanding gives
way to unfortunate tautological phrases like Spencer's "survival of the
fittest" which is like saying "my sister is a girl".
Nothing in the Qur'an even
remotely suggests that any of God's actions violate any of his
pre-ordained natural laws
Throughout this discussion, I made a conscious effort not to single
out a religion or a scripture and comment on it. I have been mostly
successful in my attempt except for places where certain scripture was
specifically mentioned. Your claim above is specific to Qur'an, a book
that I don't fully agree with. My comments do not
mean that I think that other religious scriptures carry more weight than
Qur'an.
Reading Qur'an, there are many places where you'd think, according to
the traditional interpretation, that God does violate His pre-ordained
natural laws when His chosen people perform miracles. Parting of the
moon and the body of water, God bringing dead birds to life, etc. are
such examples. I do not know your position on these parts of Qur'an but
I have seen people, e.g. GA Parvez, interpreting them in a way that
they become agreeable with the laws of nature. To achieve that goal,
sometimes these people even resort to incorrect translations. I have
also seen that when interpretation becomes a little tricky, people
attribute these things as fables (like many Muslims who believe that
Adam and Eve is a fable). But that is a minority view. The larger body of
the Islamic scholarship would disagree with your above assertion. That
is not to say that you are necessarily wrong but for an outside
observer, what's the objective criterion of decision that who's right
and who's not? You may not be in habit of stretching and twisting
Qur'anic verses yourself but I think you'd agree that many are. I think
I am veering off to a direction that is not relevant to the discussion.
Your views on what is randomness are spot on. If all the contributing
factor to an event are known, nothing is random. I think I did question
the validity of the concept of randomness in one of my previous posts
but that's not important. I do agree with your thoughts on that. When I
say "random", I am only talking from the point of view of an observer
who is not privy to the values of the contributing factor. Occurrence on
a single point in a continuum may very well be called "chance" but that
will only be from the point of view of the observer. The contributing
factors will be there and knowing them fully, one can calculate the
outcome. But how the constitution of the process that calculate those
factors came into being is the question. Theists believe its God who
defined the process, atheists believe its NOT God. I am neither. I just
don't know. I don't have enough evidence to join one club or the other.
As I wrote earlier, having every point in continuum is not a chance so I
am not replacing God with Reason in my mind.
You wrote:
So, is it too much to accept
that, when God decided to create humans on earth, he actually initiated
a wonderful speciation mechanism through mechanisms that we will never
be able to decipher -- such a wonderful speciation that with only 50
genes (< 2%) separating us from chimpanzees, we are millions of orders
of magnitude different in intellect.
Although, there is no question mark at the end of the sentence but I
think it is a question. Even if it is a rhetorical one, I would offer an
answer. No, it is not too much to accept at all. Absolutely, positively,
most certainly not. I don't even confine my thinking to the physical
laws. The universe, before the Big Bang, may have been in a state of
singularity. Although its not proven but its a possibility. In such a
state, the physical laws would break down. Any entity that is extraneous
to the universe is not bound by the physical laws of this universe.
Although I am not dismissive of the notion, I can't believe that that
is the case based on a hypothetical possibility. I'd heed Farzana
Hassan's advice of not basing my beliefs on "could haves".
I am just trying to stress my
faith that whatever science comes up will never conflict with Islam.
Well, as you rightly said, its a matter of faith. I can't see into
the future to prove that your faith is wrong. As for present, I think,
based on the traditionalist interpretation of Islam, there are already
things that are in conflict with Islam.
To use "natural selection" to
explain speciation is bad science. To then use that to prove that God
does not exist in an astounding leap in logic
My total and unconditional agreement. I have never attempted to
disprove God by natural selection or evolution or any other scientific
law or theory or hypothesis. It'd be a misguided exercise. All I did in
my previous posts was to present the theory of evolution as an
explanation of complexity of design and stated my reservations about the
argument of intelligent design. I do not have to disprove the existence
of God. The burden of proof is on the people who present the thesis. If,
as I have said multiple times in my posts, there arises new evidence
that proves that the theory of evolution utterly and totally wrong, I
would dump it without any effort since I am not emotionally attached
with it, but that would still not mean that I will become a theist. I
would still need some evidence. I will go where facts take me. I admit
that on the face of it, my asking for evidence is paradoxical. A God who
is outside the realm of natural laws can easily prove His existence but
what if He has decided not to violate his own pre-ordained laws?
Considering, somehow, that revelation of Qur'an itself is not a
violation of His pre-ordained law, it can be assumed that He has
established a line of communication with human race (whatever maybe the
eventual purpose of this entire exercise), so it shouldn't be hard for
Him to provide the evidence.
I apologize for the above paragraph. This is neither the place nor it
is my intention to initiate this debate. I thought that it might be
prudent to clarify that I do not use theory of evolution to "prove" that
there isn't a God in the light of your above remark..
Thanks
Rafi Aamer
rafiaamer@comcast.net
|