December 16, 2008
Bracing for Islamic Creationism
Salman Hameed in Science:
Early in 2007, biologists and anthropologists at universities across the United States received an unsolicited gift of an 850-page, colored Atlas of Creation, produced by a Muslim creationist, Adnan Oktar, who goes by the pen name of Harun Yahya (Science, 16 February 2007, p. 925). The atlas was a timely notice that, although the last couple of decades have seen an increasing confrontation over the teaching of evolution in the United States, the next major battle over evolution is likely to take place in the Muslim world (i.e., predominantly Islamic countries, as well as in countries where there are large Muslim populations). Relatively poor education standards, in combination with frequent misinformation about evolutionary ideas, make the Muslim world a fertile ground for rejection of the theory. In addition, there already exists a growing and highly influential Islamic creationist movement (1). Biological evolution is still a relatively new concept for a majority of Muslims, and a serious debate over its religious compatibility has not yet taken place. It is likely that public opinion on this issue will be shaped in the next decade or so because of rising education levels in the Muslim world and the increasing importance of biological sciences.
More here. And related to this, again Salman Hameed in The Guardian this time:
How should scientists respond to the rising challenge of creationism in the Muslim world? Despite surveys showing hostility towards evolution, there is also an overwhelmingly pro-science attitude. This is particularly true for sciences that have practical and technological benefits. The message about evolution in the Islamic world therefore needs to be framed in a way that emphasises practical applications and shows that it is the bedrock of modern biology. This is the approach advocated in the US in the recent National Academy of Sciences publication Science, Evolution, and Creationism.
The arguments for evolution will have to be framed differently in each country. The national academies of Muslim countries can tailor the specifics of the message according to the political and cultural realities of their respective communities. For example, while evolution is included in the high school curricula of both Turkey and Pakistan, the challenges faced by schools in secular Turkey are very different from those in highly religious Pakistan.
Crucially, if a link between evolution and atheism is stressed, as some prominent scientists in the west have been advocating, this will undoubtedly cut short the dialogue and the vast majority of people in the Muslim world will choose religion over evolution. Muslim creationists know this and they have been stressing this link in their anti-evolution works.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 09:35 AM | Permalink






















Comments
It's just pitiful how so many Muslims insist that Islam and science are perfectly harmonious.
There's a good book about this by Taner Edis called, An Illusion of Harmony.
Even some of the most "progressive" Muslims will start acting funny once you mention Darwin.
Posted by: Belgian Beer | Dec 16, 2008 10:00:27 AM
I've been reading Salman Hameed's blog, Science and Religion News, for some time now and it's great to see him featured in these publications and on 3QD.
Posted by: Nizam Arain | Dec 16, 2008 12:51:40 PM
When one lives in the world of Flying Horses and Talking Snakes, any absurdity is possible, along with any violent action.
Reason and Critical thought have just been suspended, and ideological superstition is the reference point.
So, why would this even be a issue?
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 16, 2008 1:00:30 PM
It's also pitiful that atheism is so readily associated with (and often as a prerequisite for ) evolution. Evolution can exist in a theistic universe... but can atheism, or religion for that matter, exist in a evolutionless universe?
Posted by: Kayla | Dec 16, 2008 8:23:42 PM
Kayla--In principal, evolution could work in a theistic (at least at the moment, biology or physics may make this a moot point), in say a deistic view of theism.
As far a a Abrahamic theism, this is impossible, as humans are elevated and separate from nature, and occupy a unique place, often created in the image of a divine creator.
Evolution is not possible in this world.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 16, 2008 9:01:46 PM
Evolution is the mechanism God employs to create us in his image. Just as Universe is the perfect growth medium he arranged just so to make it possible.
Now on the other hand, evolution is absolutely not possible in a merely causal universe with no possible first cause.
Posted by: Carlos | Dec 16, 2008 11:28:16 PM
I was talking to this dog at the train station the other day. I asked him "Reg, do you think humans are elevated and seperate from nature?"
Reg replied "Well look around you Bub, waddya blind? On the other hand, here I am heading down into the city to work, same as you."
"Yeah, good point. Hey, how did you get that job, anyway?"
"Arfirmative action."
I'm here all week. Try the veal.
Posted by: Carlos | Dec 16, 2008 11:39:49 PM
I'd love to see a conference where Islamic and Christian creationists argue with each other on whose interpretation of God's will is actually correct. Would they cite evidence, pretending to be science-y, or just wave their respective Holy Books at each other and shout?
Posted by: Brian Smith | Dec 17, 2008 8:52:12 AM
I'm sorry, but could you try a little harder next time to make your graph impossible for color blind people to read? It's not like 10% of men are red-green colorblind, and you (I think?) used a combination of red, orange, green and brown which, coincidentally, all happen to be a color blind person's worst nightmare. No, just go on, pretend like we don't exist. We don't care about your graph anyway.
Posted by: Tetrisd | Dec 17, 2008 4:24:46 PM
Thanks for speaking out Tetrisd. We designers, even if we have the photoshop colorblindness emulators installed, and even if accessibility issues are on the feature list of the work we do, all too easily forget how real this is for all of you, and how easy it is to compensate for.
Posted by: Carlos | Dec 17, 2008 8:48:34 PM
Carlos,
Have you and the pooch come up with a reason yet why your particular creator escapes the pesky requisite its own cause (and on 'ad infinitum')?
If not, I'd suggest Occum's insightful blade excises the validity of your conjecture by suggesting that if 'something's' always been there it may as well be matter and energy. Parsimonious, no?
Posted by: MattInOz | Dec 18, 2008 12:40:55 AM
bah! - the above should read "pesky requisite OF its own cause....
Posted by: MattInOz | Dec 18, 2008 1:47:04 AM
Did anybody else notice how state control of the media is (curiously enough) directly related to acceptance of evolution?
Pakistan and Indonesia has the freest press among these countries, and Turkmenistan worst. With Egypt and Turkey in the middle.
I think one should have sampled some other countries to provide a fair comparison. Like USA, Canada, a few south american coutries, western (where acceptance will be highest- my guess) and eastern europe and far eastern countries like japan and china.
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Dec 18, 2008 11:40:54 PM
Sorry, Kazakhstan. Not Turkemenistan.
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Dec 18, 2008 11:42:14 PM
By the way, the suspicion of creationism is not related to Islam per se. It's related to suspicion of the West and everything that comes from there.
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Dec 18, 2008 11:44:28 PM
Manas,
Do you mean evolution theory is considered by some in Islamic countries to be a Western rationale? That it does not, truly, belong to science on that account? Or that there is Western science, which needs to be rejected?
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 19, 2008 12:56:19 AM
"Have you and the pooch come up with a reason yet why your particular creator escapes the pesky requisite its own cause (and on 'ad infinitum')?"
Reg (the Mutt) is mute on this. For me, it's moot. If you suddenly are allowing for the miraculous – in the uncaused cause of well-formed causation, than your views and mine are on similarly firm ground. But then why stand so firm on your rejection of the miraculous elsewhere? Sort of an Atheism of the Gaps, I suppose.
Posted by: Carlos | Dec 19, 2008 6:21:14 AM
"Evolution is the mechanism God employs to create us in his image. Just as Universe is the perfect growth medium he arranged just so to make it possible."
So, is She evolving too? What about speciation? Are animals and plants also created in Her image? Are they slowly but surely converging, in a sort of asymptotic manner, to Her "Perfection"? If that's Her purpose, She could surely speed it up by getting rid of cancer.
Why does this openly simplistic and anthropocentric view of something as incredibly vast as our Universe fail to elicit philosophical doubts on those with a religious turn of mind?
Ah, the power of irrationality...
Posted by: Pepito | Dec 19, 2008 12:11:54 PM
Ah, the power of irrationality...
That is the weakness of science-- it refuses to make stuff up.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 19, 2008 12:22:42 PM
Elatia,
All of science, including the theory of evolution, is seen as part and parcel of Western civilization. Which is of course a wrong understanding of history. With hundreds of years of colonization, the colonizers were successful in impressing upon us that science "belongs" to the west.
Thus political opposition of the West often accompany opposition to science- especially among the least educated class of traditional cultures. It almost always does not come from Islam, but is associated with the Muslim identity. Muslim dentity vis-a-vis the West and "it's sciences."
I have often had success with these people when I pointed out to them that there was a strong scientific tradition within the Islamic world until the 16th century, and that there never was the epic struggle between "the Church" and logic as there was one in the Christendom during the renaissance. There was no equivalent of the Church as it existed in the Christendom. There was no "official position" about natural laws in the Islamic world. Heliocentrism used to be discussed without any fear for persecution.
As I have pointed out in my previous comment, freedom of speech seems to lead to more opposition to evolution. That is because freedom of speech means (political) discord with the West (which is real) can be freely discussed. That leads to stronger opposition to science.
What I think we should do, is to point out that science need not necessarily be seen as an enemy of religion. If religion as correct, and I believe it is, then it cannot be threatened by the pursuit of truth- sciences.
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Dec 19, 2008 12:30:49 PM
What I think we should do, is to point out that science need not necessarily be seen as an enemy of religion. If religion as correct, and I believe it is, then it cannot be threatened by the pursuit of truth- sciences.
I'm game---
Please explain that Flying Horse and Talking Snake. I'm from a world that refuses to make things up.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 19, 2008 12:50:05 PM
However, technology and the sciences that have practical benefit are exempt from that criticism because they are correctly perceived to be one of the major reasons why the West is so powerful militarily.
Even that wasn't there a few years ago. Loudspeakers and watches were labeled un-Islamic by some Muslims even a century back.
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Dec 19, 2008 12:51:21 PM
Dave,
I am sorry, but which talking snakes and flying horse? I don't understand which story you are referring to.
My opinion is- (and it is my own opinion) it is God who gave these laws and it is He who maintains the natural laws. And if God wants to change the law for a while, He can do that. Even though He doesn't do that very often.
"Miracles" are almost besides the point. Because the world we live in, what we are and what other animals we share this planet with are no less miracles.
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Dec 19, 2008 1:00:43 PM
"Because the world we live in, what we are and what other animals we share this planet with are no less miracles."
Amen, brother!
There is nothing to eat,
seek it where you will,
but the body of the Lord.
The blessed plants
and the sea yield it
to the imagination
intact.
-William Carlos Williams
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Dec 19, 2008 1:10:36 PM
Manas-
Mohammed's Flying Horse. And the Talking Snake in Eden.
Come now, you must be knowledgeable of these creatures, created by god, as they are a major part of the Bronze and Iron Age Fiction that forms the basis for religious ideology.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 19, 2008 1:20:22 PM
Dave,
I don't recall a flying horse for Muhammad. The snake I remember now, but that story is a Christian story. I am not sure what the story is in Islam. But for me, the most important aspects of religion are not flying horses and talking snakes. If God wants them to do that, they'll do that.
The assumption that natural laws as we know them hold at all times exclude the possibility of the existence of God. By definition, a god (small g) is somebody who made these laws, and it should be fairly easy for him to break them.
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Dec 19, 2008 1:38:26 PM
Manas, many thanks. Vick, that's gorgeous and haunting -- many thanks. Dave, those who "refuse to make things up" have neglected something important: that very refusal is a conjured attitude, for one cannot see deeply enough into the nature of matter to be certain of so much.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 19, 2008 1:45:28 PM
In themselves these numbers can hardly be surprising, though they're annoying. Has anyone seen trends on them?
Also, does education affect these numbers to the extent it does in the US? Are the intellectual elites themselves creationists in significant measure, for example? Where is creationism taught in national universities? Are any of these places pre Scopes trial?
Posted by: D | Dec 19, 2008 2:50:18 PM
"that very refusal is a conjured attitude, for one cannot see deeply enough into the nature of matter to be certain of so much."
Elatia seems to be repeating the common fallacy that just because one doesn't enough about matter yet, there is an equal probability of the talking snakes being true as there is for quantum loop gravity or for the neo-darwinian consensus. To paraphrase Carl Sagan: "It's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out".
Posted by: Pepito | Dec 19, 2008 4:11:12 PM
'loop quantum gravity", my bad.
Posted by: Pepito | Dec 19, 2008 4:13:30 PM
I've been noticing this "science doesn't make things up" trope lately. (I think I first noticed it at Pharyngula). This is what makes me so sad and discouraged about all this late scientific entrenchment against mythic thought: it's returning philosophy of science back to its naive 19th c. "copy theory" stance, reinvesting in its own puppetish fairy tales about "truth", after reaching such heights of sophistication and wisdom in the last century--all to try to get one up on the religious? It's a bad bargain.
Of course science makes things up. At least a flying horse is hypothetically possible, which you can't say about, say, the square root of -1. Heinrich Hertz was very plain about the fact that mass, force, and other scientific concepts were "fictions." Useful fictions, to be sure, but with no "actual" existence in the way we usually mean that word. (And before Dave R. brings up jet airliners again, yes, the ability to reliably fly in planes without crashing is what I mean by "useful.")
Science is a symbolic enterprise we use to make our experience in the world more predictable. Symbolic = made up. "Refusing to make things up" is just an abdication of our humanity. That's what humans do; we make things up. The harder we pretend that the facts of science are "really real" with or without us, the more difficult we make it for ourselves to stay open to better ways of understanding the world.
This also has more than a little to do with why, as Manas reports, many scientific doctrines are treated with skepticism in Islamic cultures, as they are believed to be contaminated by western imperialist thought. It doesn't help matters for us to pretend we didn't make these doctrines up, as though they were divined for us in some limpid mountain spring.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Dec 19, 2008 6:18:09 PM
Chris--
Ah, the New Criticism, and the liberal middle way.
Foucault, Derida, and Hardt and Negri. Must of come of age in the late 70's or 80's.
Pabulum for intellectuals.
No wonder Obama is held in such high regard.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 19, 2008 7:15:17 PM
How about another poem?
It even mentions god, just so Carlos and Manas won't fell left out (I want to liberal and politically correct).
Only if you don't know what flowers, stones, and rivers are
Can you talk about their feelings
To talk about the soul of flowers, stones, and rivers
Is to talk about yourself, about your delusions
Thank God stones are just stones
And rivers just rivers
and flowers just flowers
--Fernando Pessoa
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 19, 2008 7:29:05 PM
Thanks, Chris. Heinrich Hertz is sounding more than a little like Al-Ghazali here.
Pepito, I hope don't sound open-minded in Carl Sagan's special sense. The remark I made that you referred to was circular rather than fallacious -- "...those who 'refuse to make things up' have neglected something important: that very refusal is a conjured attitude, for one cannot see deeply enough into the nature of matter to be certain of so much."
What I meant (and still mean) is, you can't be so sure when you're making stuff up, because imagination and insight are funny things, so that refusing to make stuff up is a conceit that starts with itself: you have made up that you refuse to make stuff up. If only because the stance you've taken, that you refuse to make stuff up, is incapable of being truth-based. You wanna understand human nature some other way, however, you go right ahead. This is different from the solipsism of giving equal weight to all probabilities simply because none can be utterly disproved, and is not about talking snakes, but about how our minds work.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 19, 2008 7:40:26 PM
Elatia:
Then you seem to be making a point very similar to Chris'. Yes, science makes stuff up, but those 'fictions' are (mostly) elementary generalizations abstracted from our sensory perceptions. Notice the difference between that and a story with talking snakes, the sun stopping right during a battle between two groups of camel-herders or the sea being parted by a man conjuring tricks, fictions prompted most likely by fear and our infinite capacity for storytelling. Not every 'narrative' (as I suspect Chris' would have us believe) is equally valid. Otherwise Chris could have send his post by using the special powers of prayer, instead of a keyboard connected to a computer.
Posted by: Pepito | Dec 19, 2008 9:10:24 PM
Not every 'narrative' (as I suspect Chris' would have us believe) is equally valid.
This is the problem with the rampant relativism that the New Criticism has brought into the discussion.
As Chris pointed out, science is only necessary when "useful" (as in flying in airplanes), but can be discarded at whim to stick to pseudo moralism, or political correctness or ideology.
It is a weak intellectual exercise, that feeds the narcissistic and those alienated from the sensual world.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 19, 2008 10:15:43 PM
Pepito,
Elatia specifically wrote that she was not arguing for "the solipsism of giving equal weight to all probabilities simply because none can be utterly disproved," so why do you feel you must point out that "Not every 'narrative' is equally valid"? Somehow, even theists manage to figure out that they have to actually file their taxes, rather than having an angel do it for them. I don't know who Sagan was referring to, but most people with beliefs you abhor are perfectly capable of critical thinking, and demonstrate this ability daily. (And by the same token, plenty of people of a purely naturalist persuasion find their reasoning abilities disfigured by strange and tenacious emotional attachments.)
You seem to be implying that "elementary generalizations abstracted from our sensory perceptions" are some kind of hedge against bias. It's not clear why that would be so. (And aren't talking snakes also generalized out of sensory perceptions? Myth trades in abstraction as much as any other for of description.)
I'm not saying--would never say--"anything goes." But this obvious and inherent distinction you point to between mythic and scientific narratives is not immediately clear.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Dec 19, 2008 10:39:17 PM
Dave,
I generally make an allowance for you because you seem to have suffered some kind of trauma that impairs intelligent argument, but if you insist on misrepresenting what I write, I will respond that "New Criticism" (a literary movement associated with Robert Penn Warren and F.R. Leavis) has very little to do with Foucault or Derrida, nor with relativism generally, nor with the specific argument I am making. Note also that I didn't cite any pomo "frankaphoneys" in my comments, but Heinrich Hertz, the father of electromechanics.
It's OK not to be knowledgeable on every subject. We're all human. It's also OK to make stuff up, but let's try to keep it plausible, OK?
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Dec 19, 2008 10:49:40 PM
Ahhh, but Chris
This made my night, you being identified with the "rampant relativism" of the New Critics (man you're square daddy) surely you don't want to prick that bubble in Dave's bong, please let him keep it for crazy-ass birth of sky-daddy day's sake.
Posted by: Jesse | Dec 19, 2008 11:48:43 PM
Chris-
You are immersed in relativism, label what you like. (postmodernism, critical theory, etc.).
You are the poster boy for cognitive relativism.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 20, 2008 4:04:27 AM
Ah, the power of irrationality...
Pepito, perhaps you did not notice the post I was replying to?
Dave had asserted it was impossible for anyone who believed in the Judeo-Christian God to accept evolution. I was merely demonstrating that he was incorrect.
But I suspect that the willingness to doubt you bemoan as lacking in believers is something you feel you yourself are exempt from. Am I correct?
Posted by: Carlos | Dec 21, 2008 9:15:38 PM
Dave, if I am the poster boy for cognitive relativism, then the whole marketing department should be fired.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Dec 21, 2008 9:46:21 PM
Post a comment