- Let’s be honest. There’s a clear link with Islam (£) by David Aaronovitch, The Times
- Intellectual property is an innovation killer by Joshua Lachkovic , KernalMag
- Dumb Idea Hall of Fame by Aaron David Miller, Foreign Policy
- Nadine Dorries threatens Cameron's Party Leadership by Nadine Dorries, Daily Mail
- Boris set for party leadership? by Traci Watson, USAToday
- Anti-Israel students deface Star of David at student conference by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post
- Jihadist Videos on University Facebook by Rupert Sutton, Huffington Post UK
- Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose by Alex Massie, Spectator UK
- Green tax on conservatories by James Slack and Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail
- Saudi princess: What I'd change about my country by Staff writers, BBC
Evolution and Muslim students at UCL
When facts are at odds with religion, we must be be prepared to challenge religious dogma and those self-centred leaders who use it to manipulate others and maintain ignorance
It is being widely reported that a select number of conservative Muslim Biology students at University College London (UCL) have began boycotting lectures on evolution. This, if true, is deeply depressing and indicates a broader trend towards religious absolutism that has taken root amongst a significant minority of young Muslims in the UK.
The fact that all living species are inter-related and evolved from simpler life forms to more complex ones over millions of years through a process known as natural selection has been well established and is widely accepted by leading biologists from all over the world. Recent fossil finds and advancements in our understanding of DNA have further strengthened the case for evolution to the point that denying the entire theory would be tantamount to denying the existence of gravity.
I can remember attending lessons which covered evolution during my GCSE Biology as a fairly devout young Muslim. I can remember being fascinated by the evidence I was presented with and it prompted many heated debates with the teacher. What I didn’t do was walk out of the lesson or boycott it. I had enough confidence in my own intelligence not to be misled by pseudo-science and enough of a desire to seek the truth to expose myself to alternative perspectives.
Regardless of my interest in certain aspects of Biology, I decided to study a social science (Psychology) for my undergraduate degree. At the time I was criticised by some of my more conservative Muslim friends for this decision. They viewed the social sciences as anti-religion and believed that they had very little to offer in terms of real knowledge. Their sceptical attitude towards the social sciences was undoubtedly informed by their conservative religious values which were threatened by disciplines that seek to answer questions which they view at the preserve of an almighty being.
Many of these conservative religious friends chose to study hard sciences instead, believing that they were going for disciplines rooted in real knowledge and indisputable facts. This tendency towards hard sciences was also indicative of the fact that they had very fragile comfort zones and very little confidence in their ability to face information which could contradict their traditional values. It may also come as no surprise that the vast majority of extremists study hard sciences in further education.
Historically, religious dogma has always been an enemy of scientific progress. The Muslim and Christian obsession with a geo-centric universe held science back for centuries and led to the persecution of many scientists. However, we can have religion without religious dogma. An increasing number of Muslim scientists have begun to accept evolution and still hold on to their religious convictions. The two are not necessarily incompatible. Evolutionary creationists exist and are increasing despite the best efforts of some zealots to promote classical creationism and intimidate them.
In the end, we must be guided by the facts regardless of which deeply held religious belief they may contradict or who they may offend. We must maintain an open minded approach to knowledge seeking and not be afraid of hearing views which may challenge our beliefs.
Most importantly of all, we must always be prepared to challenge religious dogma and those self-centred leaders who use it to manipulate others and maintain ignorance.
Ghaffar Hussain is a leading independent counter-extremism expert
Print
Much though it pains me to take issue with Mr Hussain's analysis, I would question the theological grounding of any of this. My battered copy of Akbar Ahmed's (2001) "Islam Today" reads on p. 31:
"The Quran constantly emphasizes that God's measure is not like ours while suggesting idea of man's creation from water and clay. While stating that creation took six days (Q7:54), the Quran explains that one of God's days may be like a thousand years (Q22:47) or even fifty thousand years (Q70:4) of ours; clearly Darwin may be accommodated."
This dispute is not about evolution, but about cultural separation, supremacism and dominance. It roots lie more not in what the Quran and Sunna have to say about cosmogony, but how these say Muslims should actively differentiate and separate themselves from non-Muslims.
Evolution is not an observable cause and effect science but a theory dependent on a good stretch of imagination and faith. In other words, it's a religion.
Dai,it appears that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both evolutionary theory and the term theory within a scientific context. Their is no faith involved in the fossil record and genetic similarities of every living thing on earth. These are observable truths I'm afriad.
Dai, thank you for giving an excellent example of how people fail to grasp the evolutionary theory.
Do us all a favour and read books on the subject before coming on lecturing about it. There's a good boy.
George Igler says:
"This dispute is not about evolution, but about cultural separation, supremacism and dominance. It roots lie more not in what the Quran and Sunna have to say about cosmogony, but how these say Muslims should actively differentiate and separate themselves from non-Muslims."
I find your point impossible to accept. It doesn't make sense. If these Muslims want to separate themselves from non-Muslims, why would they mix with others by attending a university in the first place? Why don't they just stay at home? And how could they expect to attain supremacism and dominanance over others if they deliberately deny themselves the same level of education that others receive?
The ungrateful spoilt brats should be kicked out of the university.
This is little more than politics in the realm of science and reality.
People think they are being clever by being a little less right wing about reality than their friends. So now we have yet another version of 'Gods days are really long, so we don't have to worry'. Feeling good about yourself compared to religious 'hardliners' doesn't mean you have taken all the steps towards honesty and intellectual competence.
That aside though, scientists are safer in that world than the one where children are taught the complete opposite of what the evidence says, and that has to be less dangerous and stifling to progress - so its akin to people stepping slightly to the side, rather than getting onboard. And if course, if scientists are safer than it probably is a function of everyone being safer. If less people are taught to dislike the reality being revealed and to sink into rather bizarre, pointless and arbitrary falsehoods then hopefully less anger, disappointment, stress, wasted effort and pointless inefficiencies (that ultimately result in various harms to welfare) will result.
So if this is what it takes to be a little less right wing about reality then I accept it, thought it is still necessary to have people argue the now obvious realities we live in if only because if it stops Churches and Mosques will continue their crusade of lies and the conversation and debate, while it doesn't affect everyone, does still affect some people positively. Baby steps.......
Even oil and water will mix if you shake them continually. Attempts to reconcile the facts (which indicate evolution) to the Quran (or the Bible) are doomed to failure. How does a god who makes apparently random copying errors (most of which are known to be neutral or harmful) differ from no god at all? Not very convincing, is it? Evolution necessarily entails suffering, and is the last mechanism that a loving god would use. As for harmonising the Quran's claim that the sun sets in a spring of murky waters (al-Kahf 18: 86a) with modern science, good luck with that!
@Simon So what you're asking me to do, is explain why theology has a tendency to be irrational? :D
Editors Note: Sounds like an article in the making!Pity most of your correspondents didn't see Stephen Hawkins last night on 'did god create the universe@. The one point that registered with me, a non-mathematician, was that time did not exist before the big band, god could not have created the universe.
This whole article is based on the assumption that the students boycotted the lesson mindlessly because they were unwilling to learn about evolution. There may have been several other explanations- perhaps an aggressive or proselytizing teacher..?
"Elutionary creationists exist and are increasing despite the best efforts of some zealots to promote classical creationism and intimidate them." Excuse me: 'volutionary creationists'? How's that for a contradiction in terms.
There are a number of fallacies in your report. Your take on a Geocentric universe shows your lack of basic science, namely relativity, which states that it’s valid to describe motion from any reference frame. Note that the Bible does not teach either geocentrism or heliocentrism. It was just the accepted theory of the day.
You also fail to notice that the persecution of Galileo by the Church of Rome is something that is not new to those scientists of our time who do not believe in evolution (and for very good reasons - Search Creation dot com). The mainstream media promotes evolution as fact.
Lastly, macro evolution (as opposed to micro evolution) is not an observable event; therefore, whatever we dig up from the ground requires 'interpretation'. To do this, an evolutionist would interpret the fossils using his world-view - that of evolution; whereas, a creationist (Muslim, Christian, ...) would interpret the fossils from a different world-view. You'll be surprised to find that the evidence (when interpreted correctly) fits a creation model much better than it does an evolutionary model.
Paul, Evolution is a scientific theory AND a fact. It makes predictions and can be falsified, creation can do neither. Would you please provide citations for your claims other than the lies spread by YEC and creationist websites. Where scientific facts are concerned it is not a "world-view", a phrase, meant to denigrate science, which was coined by religious extremists and shows the depth to which they will sink to prop up their slowly diminishing religions.
That's fine. Let them fail their course. They can see if they're willing to boycott it again next semester when they have to repeat the unit. Pay fees, don't turn up, fail, repeat. It's a good cash cow for the university, no worries.
Real science is verifiable and falsifiable. In Darwin's original book he did what a good scientist should. He set tests for his theory as better instruments were invented and more discoveries were made in the future. The only one I can think of off-hand was that when we got better microscopes and could truly "get into" the inside of the single cell...if it is not EXTREMELY SIMPLE I AM WRONG! Question: Is it extremely simple or extremely complex? With Darwin's own test the issue is decided. I'll stop now. I could go on.
"Many of these conservative religious friends chose to study hard sciences instead, believing that they were going for disciplines rooted in real knowledge and indisputable facts"
Well, the boycott suggests they don't think they are being taught the facts.