• StaySquared@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    No… not necessarily. Why can’t God command the creation of something and then allow the natural process to create said thing? Evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of God.

    • BitSound@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      At some point you’re advocating for Deism. Which is fine enough, but doesn’t really provide any satisfactory answers. You need to define exactly what you mean by “God” before any further useful conversation can be had.

      The scientific process, including evolution, has dispelled the myths found in any religious textbook ever written, including their particular definitions of “God”. I’d suggest you just drop the word and the associated baggage, and start from scratch. Come up with a new word, and define properties for it that make a coherent argument.

      • StaySquared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Well for one, I would recommend you drop the idea of what is God from the Christian perspective, they’re clueless. That much is true. Islam is far superior in terms of intellect and sophistication, after all the Quran is the literal Word of God. Unlike the Bible, authored by pagan and anti-Christ men who had a liking to Egyptian mythologies.

        (Quran 21:30) Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the Earth were of one connected entity, then We separated them and We made every living thing out of water? Will they not then believe?

        (Quran 24:45) And Allah has created from water every living creature. Some of them crawl on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Surely Allah is Most Capable of everything.

        (Quran 64:3) He designed you then made your design better.

        (Quran 40:64) He formed you then made your forms better.

        (Quran 71:17) And Allah has caused you to grow from the earth a [progressive] growth.

        (Quran 76:28) We created them and strengthened their forms.

        (Quran 82:6-9) O mankind, what has deceived you concerning your Lord, the Generous, Who created you, then proportioned you, and then balanced you; in whatever form He willed has He assembled you.

        Going to be blunt, if you read these verses (and there’s more verses) and don’t believe that this aligns with a creation of something, which in turn evolves (strengthens in its form) then it was meant to be. There’s nothing under the sun I could tell you that will pique your interest.

        God has Willed it. This is the way.

        • BitSound@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          He designed you then made your design better. He formed you then made your forms better. We created them and strengthened their forms.

          That’s not how any of this works. None of these require the process of biological evolution, they’re clearly written as the islamic equivalent of intelligent design. Those describe some wizard creating something and then working to make it better, which is the opposite of how biological evolution works. Relying on “evolves” having several different meanings (evolves (strengthens in its form)) is not an argument that is made in good faith. The process of biological evolution is not described in any religious literature, including yours.

          And Allah has created from water every living creature

          I assume you bolded this because it’s important somehow. It’s not, though. It’s a vague allegory that has no predictive power, is not science, and has nothing to do with the process of biological evolution.

          • StaySquared@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Religions don’t teach science. However, in Islam, we are obligated to learn science amongst other subjects. The verses you and I quoted do NOT conflict with evolution.

            Many scientists believe that life on Earth originated in the ocean, and that all life was aquatic for the first 90% of Earth’s history. Some scientists think that life may have begun near deep sea hydrothermal vents, which are chimney-like vents that form when seawater mixes with magma on the ocean floor, creating superheated plumes. The chemicals and energy from these vents could have fueled chemical reactions that led to the evolution of life. For example, a 2017 study found tube-like fossils in rocks that are at least 3.77 billion years old that resemble microorganisms that live near hydrothermal vents today.

            Furthermore, using the DNA sequences of modern organisms, biologists have tentatively traced the most recent common ancestor of all life to an aquatic microorganism that lived in extremely high temperatures — a likely candidate for a hydrothermal vent inhabitant!

            But like I said before, there’s nothing under the sun that I can tell you that will sway you.

    • oo1@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The “god” part becomes an unnecessarily complex explanation. I prefer simpler explanations when they fit the data just as well as the complex ones. It also reduces te risk when trying to broaden out to other lines of enquiry.

      As johsny said It makes the god explanation redundant for the large topic of species of life. There’s no need to waste time or energy “disproving” god. The whole concept of god is simply useless to understanding - and so is a waste of time or mental energy.

      But the so called explanations referncing god are typically such bullshit anyway nothing testable, no evidence, just “god did some shit”, “isn’t god cool/powerful”. So they never were actually useful to scientific reasoning. However much they may pretend otherwise religions are so much more aligned with laws and social structures and norms of behaviour than they are about advancing science.