Islam and Science

I shall watch it with interest. Islamic scholars like to argue that parts of the Quran contain accurate descriptions of the development of the foetus, whereas these passages are actually quite vague and if interpreted as the scholars intend them to, biologically inaccurate. However, in the historical context (of which I have little knowledge) it may have been trailblazing compared to the common understanding of embryos and pre-natal development at the time.

How does Khazakstan's (is that the Islamic country with the highest figure for acceptance of evolution?) compare with, e.g. the US out of interest?

Islamic Creationism will originate from the fact that the Quran carries a very similar creation story to the Bible (Adam & Eve, created from clay, walked the Earth with all the animals as they are now and dinosaurs, etc). It's interesting about Yahya's adaptation of US Christian "theory" though. Building bridges, or what.

Yeah you could interpret that way but very few imams do, from what I understand and these are the people who are responsible for teaching Islam to kids in Islamic countries. If one chose to interpret it that way how does one interpret it saying Eve was made out of Adam's rib? I was taught that it definitely wasn't a metaphor for equality because that much is evidently not the case in the rest of the Quran (i.e. there is no equality of the sexes unless you take a very bastardised definition of the word "equality").

RE: the graph. "Fucking Iceland!!!" - JDMF, 2006

Refused

I shall watch it with interest. Islamic scholars like to argue that parts of the Quran contain accurate descriptions of the development of the foetus, whereas these passages are actually quite vague and if interpreted as the scholars intend them to, biologically inaccurate. However, in the historical context (of which I have little knowledge) it may have been trailblazing compared to the common understanding of embryos and pre-natal development at the time.

They really like to big it up too. There is quite a common story that Jacques Cousteau converted to Islam after discovering something in their about the currents in the Mediterranean. Unfortunately Jacques himself never heard anything about this story, and was quite bemused to be often asked about it.

Refused

How does Khazakstan's (is that the Islamic country with the highest figure for acceptance of evolution?) compare with, e.g. the US out of interest?

Kazakhstan isn't that Islamic either:

Wiki

Islam is the largest religion in Kazakhstan, followed by Russian Orthodox Christianity. Kazakhs are mainly Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi school, and the Russians are Russian Orthodox. In 1994, some 47 percent of the population was Muslim, 44 percent was Russian Orthodox, and 2 percent was Protestant, mainly Baptist.[29] Based on a 2007 data of, The Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the UK, Islam was practiced by 57% of the population, Christianity 40% and other religions 3%.[30]

Devrim

As Darwin and evolution is being discussed here as well as elsewhere, BBC Radio 4 ‘In Our Time’ is running something on it now. A great series of programmes actually for ‘coffee table’ intellectuals.

I would like to repost the following that may be of some interest.

The Origin Of Ideas?

by Dave B - world socialist movement

Wed Apr 02, 2008 22:02

manchester UK

On the statement that;

“Some claim that not Darwin nor Marx were the originators of the claims that made them so famous. The claim is that they got the fame because they packed old wisdom in a better way and even developed it some how”

I think that the idea that Darwin’s and Marx’s central ideas where not original and that they merely developed or built upon other peoples ideas is so true that it shouldn’t even be necessary to have to state it.

The idea of the evolution of species by natural selection had been kicking around for almost a 1000 years before Charles Darwin. Examples of pre Charles Darwinian ideas on evolution are too numerous to mention, however an interesting early example may be the one below;

{Al-Jahiz born in Basra, c. 781 –r 868

In the Book of Animals, al-Jahiz first speculated on the influence of the environment on animals and developed an early theory of evolution. Al-Jahiz considered the effects of the environment on the likelihood of an animal to survive, and first described the Struggle for existence Al-Jahiz' ideas on the struggle for existence in the Book of Animals have been summarized as follows:

"Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring." }

One could mention I suppose Charles Darwins Grandfather, Erasmus Darwin;

{Erasmus Darwin's most important scientific work is Zoönomia (1794–1796), which contains a system of pathology, and a treatise on "generation", in which he, in the words of his famous grandson, Charles Robert Darwin, anticipated the views of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who in turn is regarded to have foreshadowed the theory of evolution. Darwin based his theories on David Hartley's psychological theory of "associationism".The essence of his views is contained in the following passage, which he follows up with the conclusion that one and the same kind of living filament is and has been the cause of all organic life:

“Would it be too bold to imagine that, in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind would it be too bold to imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great first Cause endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions and associations, and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!”

Erasmus Darwin was familiar with the earlier evolutionary thinking of James Burnett, Lord Monboddo, and cited him in his 1803 work Temple of Nature.}

Karl Marx with his labour theory of value borrowed heavily from others but perhaps untypically he was usually generous to cite his predecessors. Eg early in Volume One;

“It is a man of the New World -- where bourgeois relations of production imported together with their representatives sprouted rapidly in a soil in which the superabundance of humus made up for the lack of historical tradition -- who for the first time deliberately and clearly (so clearly as to be almost trite) reduces exchange-value to labour-time.

This man was Benjamin Franklin, who formulated the basic law of modern political economy in an early work, which was written in 1729 and published in 1731. He declares it necessary to seek another measure of value than the precious metals, and that this measure is labour. “

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch01a.htm

And on Wiliam Petty;

Footnote 18

“The celebrated Franklin, one of the first economists, after Wm. Petty, who saw through the nature of value, says: “Trade in general being nothing else but the exchange of labour for labour, the value of all things is ... most justly measured by labour.” (“The works of B. Franklin, &c.,” edited by Sparks. Boston, 1836, Vol. II., p. 267.) Franklin is unconscious that by estimating the value of everything in labour, he makes abstraction from any difference in the sorts of labour exchanged, and thus reduces them all to equal human labour.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

Karl borrowed heavily on Ricardo amongst others, as he freely and frequently admitted.

In fact the labour theory of value in its essence is almost as old as capitalism itself and there was an earlier example of it again cited by Karl somewhere in Das Capital. However the name of the person that wrote it was unknown.

I have no idea where it is and can’t be bothered looking for it but I think it dated from the mid 1600’s.

Frederick Engels was familiar with Lamarkism and it formed part of his “The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man”.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm

Later he became familiar with Darwins work and basically accepted it with some caveats.

“On the other hand I cannot agree with you that the “bellum omnium contra omnes” was the first phase of human development. In my opinion, the social instinct was one of the most essential levers of the evolution of man from the ape. The first man must have lived in bands and as far as we can peer into the past we find that this was the case.... “

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_17-ab.htm

Predicting Kropotkins viewpoint, and brilliant piece of scientific thinking in my opinion, in his ‘Mutual Aid’.

Something followed up upon by Anton Pannekoek, another scientist and in this case a Marxist in his ‘Marxism And Darwinism’, 1912

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm

and in a superior form later in 1944, Anthropogenesis: A Study in the Origin of Man. Again following scientific etiquette in giving due credence to Kropotkin.

Incidentally I am a scientist myself and only started reading Engels about four years ago. I was quite staggered by his understanding of science and hadn’t even realised that the understanding of the natural sciences was that advanced in the late 19th century.

He really must have been up to date.

Related Link: http://www.worldsocialism.org/index.php

At;

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/8491

I do not know much about Islam but have been led to believe that there is quite a lot of cross over with it and Christianity and the old testament for that matter. As I understand it, it even accepts much of the Jesus story but just JC as another prophet and the Mary virgin birth story.

There is also the lost imam as well I think who is going to return to save us all, so when some bod returns riding on the clouds etc we can expect some unholy religious row to break out over which one it is.

Just another quote because I know this list is famous for its sense of humour.

Frederick Engels 1883, The Book of Revelation

One good thing, however, Ernest Renan has said:

“When you want to get a distinct idea of what the first Christian communities were, do not compare them to the parish congregations of our day; they were rather like local sections of the International Working Men’s Association.”

And this is correct. Christianity got hold of the masses, exactly as modern socialism does, under the shape of a variety of sects, and still more of conflicting individual views clearer, some more confused, these latter the great majority — but all opposed to the ruling system, to “the powers that be.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/religion/book-revelations.htm

My comrades in the SPGB hate me when I do that kind of stuff so it I just do it more often.

This shit is relevant to my interests,. Good stuff, people.

al-Jahith [Jahiz? which spelling is right?]

It depends on how you write it. There are more than ten different systems for transliteration from Arabic. To me changing 'z' to 'th' sounds a little strange, and it is not how I would write it. I can imagine how it could work in some system though.

The z is the common spelling though.

Devrim

Hi, I from Brazil. Maybe, still ocident. Well, We, the ocidents forget the rest of world almost always, until when we count - 0, 1, 2, 3... 9, 10 - this is arabian numbres, like the decimal sistem n' the idea of zero. That's freak, but real. And the reason to the creationism still exist. Who type of science, technology, is that? A kind of knowledge that forget who discover, who did, who make, who work. Is what Marx call "abstracty material" science, that's abstract, deny the realization - necessary (sine qua non) to the scientific activity - of the simple worker that are his side. That's fake knowledge!
The great realization of the modern industry is a realization of all mankind, is combined work of all the world. But with the private propriety and the forms of prodution relationships of capital: we think that the industrial revolution is a realization of the great capitalist commander.
In the same way, in teh same reason, the relativism of Levi-Strauss is teoric solution of the problem. But the real problem is the INDIRECTLY sociability that creat the world market, but divide the mankind and, even, oppose violent.

Love.