|
Author
|
Topic: Intelligent Design Paradigm and Quran
|
Zia H. Shah
Member
Member # 284
|
posted 11. June 2002 08:01
As "Neo-Darwinism" is not only a theory of evolution of living beings but by forming a part of "Scientific Materialism" it becomes a way of thinking or a paradigm. This paradigm has far reaching effects on “Ethics” and many other aspects of human life. Likewise “Intelligent Design” (ID) is a “Paradigm” or a way of thinking. This proposes telos or purpose in the creation of Universe, human life and human affairs. So far I have stated what is obvious to the Intelligent Design Theorist.
The paradigm of “Intelligent Design” needs to be supported by scientific data, philosophy and religion and any other sphere of human interest. In this thread I propose that we dwell on what support we can muster from monotheist religions for our paradigm. I have no intention of making it a religious discussion or debate, but only what is shared by all the monotheist religions in this regards. Such support from different monotheist religions or other religions, for that matter, would in future provide us insight as to how to proceed with collecting scientific data to support our paradigm. So, I hope that this can be useful discussion, as long as we keep it positive and focus more on the commonality among religions as it pertains to our ID paradigm.
The Quran gives the highest compliment of “Men of Understanding” to “Intelligent Design Theorists” and excludes “Neo-Darwinist” from this compliment. What it says about the "Neo-Darwinist" could be the subject of a different thread.
Quran says:
Indeed in the creation of the Heavens and of the earth, and in the alternation of the night and of the day, are there signs for Men of Understanding (ID theorist). They who, standing, sitting or reclining, bear God in mind and reflect on the creation of the Heavens and of the earth, saying: "O our Lord! You have not created this in vain or without purpose." (Chapter 3 Verse 189-190).
At another occasion the Quran says:
You see not any imperfection in the creation of the Gracious God. Return your gaze, do you see any flaw. Then return your gaze again and again. Your gaze comes back to you dazzled, perplexed and fatigued, having found no incongruity. Chapter 67 Verses 4-5
The challenge in this verse should not be taken literally but in principle in terms of beautiful order and organization in the Universe both in God's animate and inanimate creation.
I hope other members will quote the support that our paradigm can get from other religions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 11. June 2002 09:18
I know many Christians who fully accept the scientific enterprise as currently practiced, who accept the theory of evolution as currently understood, and who hold deep and orthodox Christian beliefs.
I think they would not be willing to accept that the phrase "Men of Understanding" was equivalent to "ID theorist."
Furthermore, a scientific acceptance of "neo-Darwinism" is not equivalent to a philosophical acceptance of "scientific materialism."
There are many metaphysical ways to understand the presence of God, or more general metaphysical forces, in the world. Not all of them posit a special intervention in order to create novelty and complexity.
Those people who believe that the diversity and complexity of life can be accounted for by the general forces of evolution as currently known, or by organizational principles currently unknown but fundamentally grounded in nature, can still be commited theists.
So I think what you offer is a false dichotomy - ID theorists don't have the monopoly on theistic belief, nor does theistic belief compel one to ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 11. June 2002 09:57
This thread does not contribute to our scientific understanding of complex systems. This topic may be valid in other contexts, and on other discussion boards but not at Brainstorms.
In particular, I found the following comment distasteful:
quote:
The Quran gives the highest compliment of “Men of Understanding” to “Intelligent Design Theorists” and excludes “Neo-Darwinist” from this compliment. What it says about the "Neo-Darwinist" could be the subject of a different thread.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic