We'd like to know the opinions of enlightened Malaysians everwhere: what do you guys think about evolution? (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

Do you reject evolution? Or do you believe in the theory? Are you mostly confused? Do you think that there might be truth in it, but are still unconvinced?

Let loose on this board! Tell us why you do (or don't) believe in it. Or perhaps, you have stories of people who madly reject the very idea.

Anything goes, but please be civil and courteous with other people's opinions. Replies will be screened and irrelevant ones will be deleted, but we assure you, we LOVE freedom of speech and thought.

when every piece of evidence points one way you are simply burrowing in the sand if you ignore it. sadly i know too many people, otherwise educated and rational, who are in that category. i have completely lost respect for them.

the real question is how do you square it with your religious faith while looking unflinchingly at the evidence?

I dont believe that evolution is just a physical force of nature its also a part of how we think as human beings.

evolution to me is a very slow metaheuristic optimization that seems to be natural in process.

I don't "believe" in evolution. There is nothing to believe.

Evidence suggests that all life on Earth was subject to, and is still subject to, a process that determines, if you wish to use such an anthropo-centric term, whether it is able to pass on its traits to its descendants. That it is actually still possible for a system to change without intervention by an anthropomorphic entity.

This provides the people who do not immediately reject such a model with a series of tools that are _incredibly_ useful: technologies like medicine and treatments that may save one's lives and the lives of one's descendants, and provides a useful model to explain HOW exactly a system may change when placed under environmental pressures, which come in handy not only when studying organisms, but also in seeing how systems that you may design in the future may change.

@Sharon: I do it by abandoning an anthropomorphic God altogether. What does someone who is locked in time and space, finite in scope and existence, know about anything but their own limited experiences? All we can do is speak in metaphor, in allusion, and use interpretation; do I even pretend that I KNOW what Muhammad knows and experiences? No.

Discussions about the existence of or nonexistence of God, or what God is like is pointless, pointless, pointless. My focus in MY religion, apart from "none of your damn business, Russell's teapot be damned", has always been "what do I do now?" instead of trying to explain the universe using a theistic model. Who gives a shit about that? Who fucking cares?

In a thousand years I'll be dead, you'll be dead, maybe, and our descendants, if you and I have any, may not even think the way I do. May not even "think" as we conceive it.

Shall I subject them to points of view that _I_ share -- a tyrannous voice from the grave, limiting how they think without even being ABLE to conceive the situations they are in? Shall _you_?

@Sharon: That is the most important question faced by the enlightened religious public, and you are hardly alone.

A significant number of people who accepted the theory have already discarded their beliefs in favour of science, but there is a growing number who tries their best to reconcile religious concepts and scientific. Can we hear some thoughts from people from this school of thought?

@Niki: Can you tell us more about evolution as a way of thought?

@Ihsan: What do you mean by a "metaheuristic optimisation"? Care to explain more in layman terms?

- Z

example, a pencil for most of us is an evolving tool(technology).The hand that uses it complies to its own machinery of thought by the brain.The more we use the tool to innovate is a fact that evolution does exist.

but here is the joke, isn't mohammed illiterate? To be persuaded by an illiterate doctrine tells us that religion does not play a role for us to evolve.

@Niki: He was illiterate, couldn't find his own camels, was not physically strong, did not rule his wives with an iron fist, married a nine-year old and slaughtered the males of an entire Jewish tribe.

He also united an entire Arabic peninsula into a cohesive whole with very little warfare on his part -- something the Byzantines and Persians could NOT do -- as a matter of fact, within a hundred and fifty years, they ironically had it DONE to THEM.

That "illiterate" religion then proceeded to store and expand upon the knowledge saved from the collapsing Roman Empire, work on mathematics and scientific theories, while in Europe Kings murdered each other in illiterate splendor.

We can spend hours talking about this right here, right now. But we're here to talk about evolution, not slag off other people's choices. You want to do that, waste your own damn time, not mine.

whoa, chill down there.Ive done my part of the question asked.

one can 'believe' in evolution without having to launch into intense mental acrobatics in reconciling religious faith. Ok, maybe I'm being facetious, but reconciling the two isn't hard, if you're prepared to end up in a place where your religious faith follows non-majority theology.

thanks Nur.An interesting secular reply.

What bugs me is the assumption that you either choose between religion or choose the scientific theory of evolution.

I mean, why? What's the point? Because contemporary religious "scholars" insist that evolution "contradicts" religion? That religion describes the universe in its full? That proponents of both religion and atheism frame it as an either-or choice, and nothing else?

There was a time when someone who was "enlightened" was someone who was a polymath, who could juggle various complex theories and come up with a nuanced view of the world, not some easy black-and-white and primary-colors view of the world that breaks at points because that's what mental models do.

But no. Either you believe in great big beard in sky, or you believe there's no great big beard in the sky, unlike those morons who obviously live in the middle ages and are mentally ill / stupid.

What's so enlightened about that?

And what do you mean by "secular", Niki?

ok im not choosing sides here. Im also interested in the concept and also the theory in evolution(except the theory of the universe i find it too overwhelming sometimes for my stature).Secularism is an acceptance of religious beliefs as a personal subject for the individual.It does not intervene with other beliefs(christian,Hindu,Islam..etc.).Religion also should not be ruled by the state because the state should be secular. The rule of law is above sharia law or any religious law including "the law to rule"(it seems that the Malaysian Govt.is promoting).

Nushafenath: saya setuju

You know what bugs me these days, speaking as a Malaysian Muslim? A lot of the anti-evolution rhetoric I hear from the Muslim side is word-for-word copy of the rhetoric spoused by evangelical (American-centric) Christians.

Anyway, that's a derail, but I felt like sharing this grouse.

*high-fives Norsafriman*

@Niki: Oh, phew, that's a relief.

At least we aren't talking about the mistake of defining secularism as an absence of religion, just the fact that any state authority should not have a hand in any religion.

There's plenty of reasons why it shouldn't be the case -- as we can already see from the abuses that local religious authorities have over people who don't exactly jive with their beliefs.

...which is par the course with what I believe, so I'll leave it at that.

@Nurshafenath: I notice a lot of people mispelling your name, poor dear XD

And the bit about how Muslims appropriate Christian and Western ideology for their own purposes? Happens the same way with Muslim anti-Semitism.

I'm like, OMG, grow your own polemic, can or not? No, have to steal from Protocols of the Elders of Zion, listen to Western Conspiracy Theorists.

Best Muslim FAIL-Appropriation I know about: Someone quoting MORMONS in defense of Muslim polygamy.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/polygamy3.htm

I mean, what la! FAIL.

@Niki & @Tariq: I think it is safe to assume that the definition of "secularism" is the separation of state and religion. However, I have heard many times where people (mostly religionists) who equates "secularism" with "atheism" (rejection of religion) in order to fit their arguments.

@Tariq: Are you proposing that you can "believe in great big beard in sky" AND "there's no great big beard in the sky" at the same time? How does that work? The closest we can get to being on the fence is agnosticism.

@Nurshafenath: You're making a lot of sense there. Many Muslim creationists nowadays worship Harun Yahya without knowing that his books are ghost-written by a team of writers who plagiarise the works of Christian creationists, then adding Quran verses wherever it fits.

- Z

@Tariq Interesting. So where actually do you stand in this debate? I'm trying to get a clearer picture. Do you think humans are excluded from evolution altogether?

2 of the main reason why religion contradicts with evolution is because evolution is not predictable and where does the first modern human fits in the picture.

An interesting point to ponder.Lets think about a thought experiment by philosopher Stephen Jay Gould.
For evolution to occur, variation is needed. Variation in the population would allow the best adapted individual to reproduce and survive. If in the early course of evolution or the tape of life is rewound and replayed. Would the repetition bear any resemblance to the to what we have now?

Stephen suggested that it would not be the same. But we now know that given same environmental constraints, animals would evolve to have similiar physical attributes (i.e marsupial mouse and placental mouse are hardly distinguishable).
So people would it mean evolution is "predictable" in some way?

And what is your take regarding mitochondrial Eve and chromosomal Y Adam? http://bit.ly/LA1q http://bit.ly/2O4Lk9

Is there such thing as "evolution is partly true?"?

-H

@UM: No, you _don't_ believe in a great big beard in the sky -- i.e. stop believing in an anthropomorphic god, with a distinct personality, view of time, actual "voice".

It's rather easy if you read some transhumanist sf. If you can conceive minds that do not perceive time the way we do (consider Notees, otherwise known as Zerotees: http://u.nu/9y4s3), or who do not have personalities, or who have multiple, or who have different selves, or the fact that the human idea of "self" is illusory.

You _can_ do those things, you know. Even if you're a Muslim. Religion arises to clarify the _experiences_ you have, which may not correspond to actual events. Ever had an epileptic fit, or an orgasm where time ceases to have meaning? Taken drugs? Experience amnesia? You know how subjective experience is.

Do I think that humans are excluded from evolution? No, I don't. There's evidence that humans still go through selective pressure, and it doesn't conflict with my religious beliefs.

(because, yet again, I don't use religion to explain How The Universe Works. I use religion for purposes that are completely personal and are none of your damn business).

Actually, there is a likely possibility that _intelligence_ would not have arisen -- after all, there is evidence that humans went through a recent genetic bottleneck due to a disaster.

You need to ask yourself -- when you rewind the tape, do the same things happen again and again? If you picture the universe as purely deterministic -- i.e. if the universe itself is a giant tape being played, then yes. If your view of a universe is like me -- i.e. a giant game where dice gets rolled in the background a trillion times... the answer could very well be no.

m-Eve and Y-Adam are metaphors, like LUA, are metaphors and do not necessarily refer to a LITERAL organism.

Evolution is a theory: when it comes to theory, words like "true" are somewhat imprecise. Evidence seems to support evolution to a significant degree, yes. True? Not sure if it has meaning.

If I may add my own two cents to the post above mine, I do think a lot of the supposed conflict is when either system of belief (for lack of a better term) applies its internal logic and philosophy to the other and found it wanting. For better or worse, most of religion, especially when you talk about codified theology (and again, my description here comes from my familiarity as a Muslim; iirc, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism for eg have different ways of grappling with the idea of an Almighty), deals with absolute truths. Science doesn't do well with absolutism - in this specific instance, evolution is not so much as 'true' as simply a theory with plenty of corroborating evidence. So a lot of anti-evolution argument seems intensely focused on disproving some small bit which will somehow lead to the conclusion that evolution's wrong.

Of course I wanted to say that on the other hand, scientifically-inclined people are apt to assume religiously-minded people are comfortable in critically assessing their faiths. But I realise that's unfair, as there's no lack of people of faith who are critical of their own beliefs. Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say fundamentalists of all stripes - certainly they are won't to take scripture literally.

On the matter of reconciling God with evolution, I also am of the opinion that the mistake people make is having an idea of God within a very human-centric narrative. In the truest sense, God is ineffable. Evolution is uncomfortable to contemplate if we come with the perspective that humans are central to the story of life. But so what, if in the thought experiment, it wasn't homo sapiens that was the end result? In what I grew up learning is that God is the Creator and we as part of His creation ought to submit to him. The interchangeable integer is us, not God. XD

@Nurshafenath: Right now, most of science is kind of tied to something called the anthropic principle, either by basing a lot of the reasoning because of it, or trying to transcend it and figure out a reason behind the reason of our existence.

Well, what if we weren't here? Would there still be a God?

My answer's two-fold: on the one hand, no. And on the other, yes.

HO HO HO HO HO PARADOX.

Is this one of those quantum things? I don't truck with quantum. :P

Would it still be within the parametres of the principle (if i'm getting this correctly) if I maintain the point is that if we don't exist, but that some other intelligence or being would be around (not necessarily to 'replace' us) would go on believing in a God?

God is the fixed integer to my mind. He'll be around whether we are or not.

(THIS IS STILL TANGENTIALLY RELATED TO THE TOPIC AT HAND I SWEAR)

@Nur,"Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say fundamentalists of all stripes - certainly they are won't to take scripture literally."

i dont believe so.At the moment Globally, there is a strict line now for fundamentalists creating islamaphobia around the world. If you think they take this seriously then why on earth are they being some how banned around the rest of civilization?(so to speak on whats going on outside the box). I have read too many articles from writers to bloggers to news casts(seemingly over-exaggerated) seem to disregard them as false believers and doctrines of hate.

i think we have already humiliated ourselves in the eyes of foreign company..picture from Tarek Fatah Author of "chasing a Mirage".

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=54818&id=817652588#/photo.php?pid=9437107&id=232098235463

this is pretty funny not religious though but more spiritually inclined to support atheism...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE5M8743a1s

@Niki - sorry about my typo, I meant to say: "certainly they are wont to take scripture literally." Now, about the rest of your posts:

1. I enjoyed the yt vid, thank you.
2. Can't open the gdocs link.
3. I... honestly cannot understand the rest of what you're trying to say. Sorry.

gdocs link cant be open? i thought so.Try again, open the HTML file instead.Apparently, the man that wrote the article is not liked in the muslim community because he's a secular muslim(i dont think that might be the only reason).The article can cover up my explanation in regards to your previous comment though and mine before.

but how about the image picture? did you find it funny?