Orientalism and Islam v. Science
Wed, 2008-02-27 05:54
#1
Cueball
Orientalism and Islam v. Science
Wed, 2008-02-27 05:54
#2
Cueball
quote:
originally posted by Unionist:
So according to you, they teach Darwin in madrassas?Give me a break.
In Madrassas they usually teach people how to read. The first text they use for this is usually the Q'uran. It's combined reading and religious indocrination. You specified "science classes". Madrassas that also teach science, teach science, as far as I know.
The problem is really one of finding adequate teachers and resources. Maddrassas are often the stop-gap between professional schooling and no education whatsoever. Like with Christian missionizing, it is often only the Muslim Imams who take an interest in educating the poor, and it is an opportunity for them to spread their religion.
That said, there is no fundamental conflict, if the funding is there: [url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jan/22madarsa.htm]Government to fund maths and science in madrassas[/url]
quote:
Depending on the educational demands, some madrassas also offer advanced courses in Arabic literature, English and other foreign languages, as well as [b]science[/b] and world history
Geeze you are really steeped in some latently bigotted western mythologies. You may not be a racist Unionist, but you are definitely steeped in some very biased Orientalist misconceptions.
I suggest you read Edward Said's book on it. Have you? Reading is good for you.
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2008-02-27 06:09
#3
I think you're right there, Cueball. [url=http://www.chowk.com/articles/12839]Ahmar Mahboob[/url] says madrassas offer education as well as room and board for poor kids in Central Asia FOC. NeoLiberalizing jackals are probably more offended by that than the teaching of Islam. How can they create a society of have's and have-nots when freely accessible education is the rule?
Wed, 2008-02-27 06:17
#4
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Madrassas that also teach science, teach science, as far as I know.[/b]
My question was whether madrassas teach Darwin's theory of evolution.
My bet is that they don't.
You have no information on the issue - that's fine, I'll note your abstention.
Wed, 2008-02-27 06:28
#5
Look, Cueball and others, you're having such a hard time proving that Islam is beneficial to science, I'm starting to feel some pity welling up within me. So here's a helping hand:
[url=http://www.islamicvoice.com/may.2000/science.htm#his]From the thought-provoking pages of "Qur'an and Science"[/url]:
[b]A Brief History of Theory of Evolution[/b]
quote:
First and foremost, it has to be noted that the theory of evolution is not a scientific argument, but a dogmatic philosophy and a materialistic world view hiding behind the mask of science. However, it is not faith in this dogmatic philosophy, which has had a stimulating role on the birth and development of modern science, but faith in Allah.[b]Most of the people who have pioneered modern science believed in the existence of Allah[/b], and while studying science, they sought to discover the universe Allah has created, to see His laws and the details in His creation. Scientists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus, Keppler, Galileo, Cuvier (the father of paleontology), Linnaeus (the pioneer of botany and zoology) and Isaac Newton all studied science by faith. They believed in the existence of Allah and that the whole universe came into existence by His creation. Considered to be the biggest genius of our age, Einstein was another devout scientist who believed in Allah.
Nevertheless, the theory of evolution came into view by the re-awakening of ancient materialistic philosophies and became widespread in the 19th century. This philosophy supposes that matter is absolute and infinite. [unionist note: [b]SHOCKING! HERESY![/b] - actually, this "scholar" hasn't even read enough science to know that modern science considers matter to be quite finite in scope] [...]
Although Darwin’s hypothesis was not based on any scientific discovery or experiment, in time, he turned it into a pretentious theory with the support and encouragement he received from the famous materialist biologists of his time. [...]
All these developments should actually have caused Darwin’s theory to be banished to the dusty shelves of history. [...]
Perhaps you could find me some rival Islamic texts supporting Darwin's theory of evolution? No, not showing how the Holy Qur'an predicted it - but actually adopting it in clear opposition to creationism?
ETA: Interesting to note that even this "scholar" couldn't come up with a name of a Muslim scientist that he dared mention in his list. Not because there were no Muslim scientists - no, because there none that would stoop to ascribing their scientific work to Allah.
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Wed, 2008-02-27 06:39
#6
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]My question was whether madrassas teach Darwin's theory of evolution.
My bet is that they don't.[/b]
I think the greatest enemy of Islam right now is not a dead guy who developed a theory of evolving organisms. Ultra right-wing ideologues didn't care that the Nazis had their own extreme views on Darwinism, and that they believed it was feasible to tinker with evolution by eliminating the weak and anyone else that didn't fit in their scheme of things. So long as they were willing to wage war of annihilation against communism was all that mattered to western industrialists then. And I believe the same crusade against socialism in all its forms continues today. It's all the same anticommunist jihad.
Wed, 2008-02-27 06:43
#7
But didn't [b]you [/b]suggest that science and discovery advance [b]in spite [/b]of religion ?
Wed, 2008-02-27 07:01
#8
I think some of the blame for curbing stem cell research in the U.S., for example, can be blamed on religious fundamentalism. I'm sure a lot of it can be blamed on a political-economic ideology which seeks to establish exclusive ownership of scientific ideas for the sake of profiteering. Some scientists believe the capitalist profit motive and intellectual property laws are as irrelevant to science as are religious views.
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2008-02-27 07:04
#9
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Look, Cueball and others, you're having such a hard time proving that Islam is beneficial to science, I'm starting to feel some pity welling up within me. So here's a helping hand:[url=http://www.islamicvoice.com/may.2000/science.htm#his]From the thought-provoking pages of "Qur'an and Science"[/url]:
[b]A Brief History of Theory of Evolution[/b]
Perhaps you could find me some rival Islamic texts supporting Darwin's theory of evolution? No, not showing how the Holy Qur'an predicted it - but actually adopting it in clear opposition to creationism?
ETA: Interesting to note that even this "scholar" couldn't come up with a name of a Muslim scientist that he dared mention in his list. Not because there were no Muslim scientists - no, because there none that would stoop to ascribing their scientific work to Allah.
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ][/b]
Sure cherry pick all you want.
Your first Orientalist mistake is that Muslim's care about this issue, your second, that there is a unified opinion in Islam about it among the clergy.
In anycase, Muslim reaction to Darwin has been diverse, and there really has been "no decision" by Muslim scholars, some reject it, others support it, and some pick and choose what they like, rejecting randomized selection in favour of and "intellgent evolutionary design." However, the lack of a centralized authority in Sunni Islam means that there is no forced authentication determining the position of the whole religion.
Here is a discussion:
quote:
Thus the scientific impact of Darwinism on his contemporaneous Muslim world was minimal. Unlike the Christian world—which received his theory firsthand in the wake of a feverish scientific activity, which sought to provide answers to everything in an environment particularly suited for the rise of materialistic worldviews—the Muslim world had virtually no scientific activity in the nineteenth century.[SNIP]
A full treatment of this theme of accommodation was to find its way in the works of Abu al-Majid Muhammad Rida al-Isfahani, a Shicite theologian from Karbala, Iraq who wrote a book in two parts, Naqd Falsafat Darwin, Critque of Darwin’s Philosophy, in 1941.[10] Isfahani defended a God-based version of evolution and counted Lamarck, Wallace, Huxley, Spencer and Darwin among those who believed in God. He referred to the works of Imam Jacfar bin Muhammad bin al-Sadiq (especially to his Kitab al-Tawhid) and to those of Ikhwan al-Safa’ to point out anatomical similarities found in Man and apes, claiming that Darwin could never provide full treatment of these similarities as compared to the Ikhwan. But he disputed the embryological similarities between man and other animals. He affirmed that the structural unity of living organisms was a result of heavenly wisdom and not a consequence of blind chance in nature; he also demanded identification of first causes.[
[url=http://saif_w.tripod.com/curious/evolution/muz/muz-part3.html]Muslim Responses to Darwinism[/url]
Wed, 2008-02-27 07:06
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b] Thus the scientific impact of Darwinism on his contemporaneous Muslim world was minimal. Unlike the Christian world—which received his theory firsthand in the wake of a feverish scientific activity, which sought to provide answers to everything in an environment particularly suited for the rise of materialistic worldviews — [b][i]the Muslim world had virtually no scientific activity in the nineteenth century[/i][/b].[/b]
Thanks for the quote, Cueball.
Wed, 2008-02-27 07:18
#11
Cueball
I already established that era is irrelevant.
Its only you who seem interested in proving the superiority of Judeao-Christian culture, here.
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2008-02-27 07:34
#12
I think the origins of mathematical tools like algebra began with Arabic, Hindu and Chinese scholars prior to the first millenium. Without algebra, there would have been no upper level math for dudes like Newton to develop, no "ten equations" that changed biology, whatever those are. Biology and chemistry make extensive use of algebra and calculus in problem solving by what I've read. I'm not sure what it would have been like transposing and manipulating Roman numerals algebraically had it not been for the Moors and period of translation.
Wed, 2008-02-27 07:52
#13
Some Arabic words that came to Western usage through various disciplines of knowldge:
alchemy - al-ki:mi:a: - from Greek
alcohol - al-koh''l 'the kohl'
algebra - al-jebr 'reintegration' - jabara reunite
algorithm - al-Khowarazmi 'the (man) of Khiva'
almanac - (Andalucian Arabic) al-mana:kh,
amber - `anbar 'ambergris'
antimony - al-нthmid 'antimony trisulphide' - arsenal - dar as,s,ina`ah 'house of making', i.e. 'factory' - s,ana`a make
artichoke - al-kharshu:f
assassin - h'ashsha:shi:n 'hashish eaters'attar - `itr 'aroma'
azimuth - as-sumut 'the paths'; see also zenith
caliber - qali:b 'mold, last' -
candy - short for 'sugar candy', from sugar + qandi 'candied', from qand 'cane sugar' -
carat - qi:ra:t 'small weight' - from Greek
carafe - gharra:f - gharafa 'dip'
carmine - qirmazi: 'crimson'
checkmate - sha:h ma:t 'the king is dead' -Persian
chemistry - see alchemy
cipher - s,ifr 'empty'
civet - zaba
coffee - qahwah
Copt - quft - from Greek
cork - qu:rq
cotton - qutn
crimson - qirmazi:, related to the qirmiz, the insect that provided the dye
dragoman - tarjuma:n - tarjama interpret
drub - daraba 'beat'
El Cid - al-Sayyid 'the lord'
elixir - al-iksi:r 'philosopher's stone' - from Greek
fakir - faqi:r 'poor man' - faqura be poor
fardel - fardah 'load'
felucca - fulk 'ship' - falaka be round
garble - gharbala 'sift' - perhaps from Latin
gazelle - ghaza:l
genie - jinni: 'spirit'
gerbil - yarbu:`
ghoul - ghu:l 'demon' - gha:la take suddenly
giraffe - zara:fa
hashish - h'ashi:sh 'dried herbs, hemp'
hazard - yбsara 'play at dice'
henna - h'enna:`
jar - jarrah 'large earthen vase'
jasmine - ya:smi:n - from Persian
jinn - jinn 'spirits', plural of genie
kismet - qisma 'portion, lot' - qasama divide
kohl - koh''l 'kohl' - kah'ala stain, paint
lilac - li:la:k - from Persian
lemon - laymu:n - from Persian
lime - li:mah 'citrus fruit'
lute - al-`uD
macramй - miqramah 'striped cloth'
magazine - makha:zin 'storehouses' - khazana store
mancala - mank.ala - nak.ala move
mask - perhaps maskhara 'buffoon' - sakhira ridicule
mattress - matrah 'place where something is thrown, mat, cushion' - tarah'a throw
minaret - mana:rah - na:r fire
mohair - mukhayyar 'choice (goats'-hair cloth)' -
monsoon - mausim 'season' - wasama mark
mummy - mu:miya: 'embalmed body' - mu:m '(embalming) wax'
muslin - Maus,il 'Mosul'
nadir - nadi:r as-samt 'opposite the zenith'
natron - natru:n - from Greek
orange - na:ranj - from Sanskrit
ottoman - `uthma:n, a proper name
popinjay - babagha:
realgar - rehj al-gha:r 'powder of the cave'
ream - rizmah 'bundle'
rebec - reba:b
Rigel - rijl 'foot (of Orion)'
roc - rukh
safari - safari:y 'journey' - safara travel
saffron - za`fara:n
Sahara - зah'ra: 'desert'
Saracen - sharqi:yi:n 'easterners' -
sash - sha:sh 'muslin'
scarlet - siqilla:t '(cloth) adorned with images' - from Latin
sequin - sikkah 'die for coinmaking'
sherbet - sharbah - shariba drink
sect' - sha`a follow
shrub [drink] - shurb 'a drink' - shariba drink
sirocco - sharq 'east (wind)' - sha:raqa rise
sofa - s,uffah 'raised dais with cushions'
spinach - isfa:na:kh
Sufi - зu:fi: 'man of wool'
sugar - sukkar - from Sanskrit
sumac - summa:q
syrup - shara:b 'beverage' - shariba drink
tabby - `atta:biy, a neighborhood in Baghdad where taffeta was made
talisman - tilsam - from Greek
tamarind - tamr-hindi: 'date of India'
tandoori - tannu:r 'oven'
tare [weight] - tarh'ah 'rejected' -
tarah'a -reject
tariff - ta`ri:f 'notification' - `arafa notify
tarragon - tarkhu:n - possibly from Greek
tell [mound] - tall 'hillock'
zenith - samt 'path'
zero - sifr 'empty'
ETA: Too long. I took off some..
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Wed, 2008-02-27 07:54
#14
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
Its only you who seem interested in proving the superiority of Judeao-Christian culture, here.[/b]
Cueball, I know you and your progressive spirit from your many posts. Don't accuse me of racism or xenophobia, and I in turn will refrain from telling you in very colourful language what I think of lying filthy statements like that one. What really confuses me is how you can wilfully shut your eyes to my attacks on the Christian and Jewish "cultures" (big word for superstition) and only wake up and yell when I attack Islam.
Wed, 2008-02-27 07:55
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I think the origins of mathematical tools like algebra began with Arabic, Hindu and Chinese scholars prior to the first millenium. Without algebra, there would have been no upper level math for dudes like Newton to develop, no "ten equations" that changed biology, whatever those are. Biology and chemistry make extensive use of algebra and calculus in problem solving by what I've read. I'm not sure what it would have been like transposing and manipulating Roman numerals algebraically had it not been for the Moors and period of translation.[/b]
Fidel, FYI: These threads are about [b][i]RELIGION[/i][/b] and science. Everything you said above is entirely accurate. And irrelevant.
Wed, 2008-02-27 08:10
#16
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Cueball, I know you and your progressive spirit from your many posts. Don't accuse me of racism or xenophobia, and I in turn will refrain from telling you in very colourful language what I think of lying filthy statements like that one. What really confuses me is how you can wilfully shut your eyes to my attacks on the Christian and Jewish "cultures" (big word for superstition) and only wake up and yell when I attack Islam.[/b]
Errors of ommission are not necessarily errors of commision. This argument, is the same old same old if you condemn Israeli rocket attacks against civlians, you have to condemn suicide bombing at the same time.
Now, please explain why it is that their was a period of scientific achievement in early period of "Islamic" history, and less in the 19th century, and what this fact had to do with Islam? Anything?
Wed, 2008-02-27 08:15
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Errors of ommission are not necessarily errors of commision. This argument, is the same old same old if you condemn Israeli rocket attacks against civlians, you have to condemn suicide bombing at the same time.[/b]
For Christ's sake, man, that's what you and a.s. have been alleging about me (except that his attacks are rabid, so I won't answer them)! That's why I had to open that stupid thread about Judaism vs. science. Do you really mean what you're saying here?
quote:
[b]Now, please explain why it is that their was a period of scientific achievement in early period of "Islamic" history, and less in the 19th century, and what this fact had to do with Islam? Anything?[/b]
I explained many times. Humanity progresses, religion recedes. Knowledge expands, need for mystical explanations diminishes. It's not just Islam, but Judaism and Christianity which no longer favour any scientific advance.
Please bookmark this so I don't have to explain it again. You may disagree, but at least put it somewhere within easy reach.
Wed, 2008-02-27 08:25
#18
Cueball
Those are assertions.
Look. Its one thing to show a correlation. So, ice cream sales increase in detroit in 1966. At the same time the local hockey does well. Does this mean the ice cream sales cause the local hockey team to do well?
If you think it does, then in order to have a proper scientific method you must explain why.
Wed, 2008-02-27 08:33
#19
quote:
For Christ's sake, man, that's what you and a.s. have been alleging about me (except that his attacks are rabid, so I won't answer them)! -unionist
Not as rabid as your "F*** off and die".
You understand that first, your statement that Saudi Arabia's practice is "far worse than Nazi Germany" is wrong. And Second, your double standard (Saudi Arabia/Israel) is racist, in your implication that a Muslim state is more inclined to outdo Nazi germany than the Jewish state.
Wed, 2008-02-27 08:38
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]If you think it does, then in order to have a proper scientific method you must explain why.[/b]
I have cited examples of how Islamic writings run counter to science. You have cited absolutely nothing to show that Islam has promoted science. All you do is critique my examples.
I have asserted that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are inimical to science, because they posit the existence of supernatural and unverifiable causal elements in the world. I should have thought this was bleeding obvious to any progressive person.
Wed, 2008-02-27 08:50
#21
I never thought I'd see so many Babblers defending religion, what about Scientologists and their alien overlord Xenu - they been taking alot of bashing lately and they even have the word science in their name.
While you're all defending made up gibberish - can't you throw Tom Cruise and his followers a little love?
Wed, 2008-02-27 08:51
#22
I'm going to start a "Scientology vs. Science" thread soon, but I thought I'd dispose of the Big Three first.
Wed, 2008-02-27 08:56
#23
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I have cited examples of how Islamic writings run counter to science. You have cited absolutely nothing to show that Islam has promoted science. All you do is critique my examples.[/b]
Well, apparently many Muslim people feel that they do not.
I never said it "promoted" science. I said it was irrelevant to it, and that it did not get in the way of it. Apparently you also think that science progresses "despite religion". Your own words.
Yet, not promoting something is not the same as "opposing" it.
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:06
#24
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Yet, not promoting something is not the same as "opposing" it.[/b]
On this very page, I gave an example of a (pretty insipid) attack on Darwinian evolution by a Muslim scholar.
Your reply:
quote:
Sure cherry pick all you want.
I thought you'd follow up with a dozen or so examples of Islamic scholars who embraced Darwinian evolution.
Not.
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:07
#25
quote:
I never thought I'd see so many Babblers defending religion
You interpreted debunking an unsupported proposition and opposing prejudice as defending religion.
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:10
#26
Cueball
So what? That is people arguing about stuff. So what? People are allowed to argue, no?
Its not the same as throwing them in jail, or burning them or whatever.
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:17
#27
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]So what? That is people arguing about stuff. So what? People are allowed to argue, no?[/b]
An argument means someone is arguing [b]in favour[/b] of Darwin also - not just everyone arguing against. Which madrassa or Imam was doing that? I forget now.
quote:
[b]Its not the same as throwing them in jail, or burning them or whatever.[/b]
I'm not allowed to give those examples, because those are all false applications of the true Islamic doctrine, right?
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:27
#28
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I'm not allowed to give those examples, because those are all false applications of the true Islamic doctrine, right?[/b]
Well if you had bothered to read the article I posted rather than siezing on some stupid obvious fact that you thought supported your idea then you would see that there was some debate but no firm conclusion.
So you really can't say "Islam" as in the RELIGION, opposed it.
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:31
#29
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Well if you had bothered to read the article I posted rather than siezing on some stupid obvious fact that you thought supported your idea then you would see that there was some debate but no firm conclusion.[/b]
Do you have an example of Islamic support for Darwin's theory of evolution or not?
To remind you of what you actually said:
quote:
In anycase, Muslim reaction to Darwin has been diverse, and there really has been "no decision" by Muslim scholars, some reject it, [b]others support it[/b], and some pick and choose what they like, rejecting randomized selection in favour of and "intellgent evolutionary design."
You said it. Now humour me. One example. [b]NOT[/b] of a Muslim scientist, please, but of a Muslim scholar.
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:33
#30
Cueball
Read the link and stop coming up with what you think are clever arguements.
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:47
#31
Adam said - "opposing prejudice as defending religion."
Who's prejudice? Unionist? Me? How?
I suppose you'll be opposing prejudice against Intelligent Design next right?
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:51
#32
Madrassas have a long history of teaching science. A bit of basic goggle gives me a long list of literature, articles, etc. describing that basic fact.
Unionist, what has got you painting such broad stereotypes about a Madrassa?
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:53
#33
It's not about taeching science it's about what they teach in science class ?
Wed, 2008-02-27 09:53
#34
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
[b]Madrassas have a long history of teaching science. A bit of basic goggle gives me a long list of literature, articles, etc. describing that basic fact.Unionist, what has got you painting such broad stereotypes about a Madrassa?[/b]
Thanks for the detailed references to madrassas teaching Darwinian evolution, scooter. In light of your incontrovertible evidence, I hereby withdraw my slanders against religion and hail Islam for finally coming down in favour of modern science.
ETA: Don't bother reading the previous three threads on this same topic. It's very time-consuming.
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Wed, 2008-02-27 10:05
#35
Man, this is crazy trying to keep up with 300+ message multiple threads.
Wed, 2008-02-27 10:07
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Read the link and stop coming up with what you think are clever arguements.[/b]
It's a very lengthy essay.
There is a significant quantity of material wherein Islamic scholars attack Darwinism in one way or another.
There are also those who say it's all irrelevant.
Then there is one scholar, Dr. Hamidullah, who tries (rather feebly) to "accommodate" Darwinism within the Qur'anic framework - even citing evidence that Darwin was a man of faith, contrary to Islamic opinion that he was an atheist.
The author of the essay [b]dumps[/b] on Hamidullah, ridiculing and attacking him, even claiming that he delivered his lectures "without notes".
Finally, from [url=http://saif_w.tripod.com/curious/evolution/muz/muz-part4.html]the conclusion[/url] - and I think I will ask you, Cueball, to read this carefully, just as you asked me to read your link in the first place:
quote:
In 1981, Professor Nasr stated the need for a well-documented, contemporary response to evolution. “A complete response requires concerted effort on the part of a large number of Islamic thinkers working in harmony within the bosom of the Islamic tradition.”[46]In 1987, he mentioned in his Traditional Islam in the Modern World, the trend among modernized Muslims to accommodate evolution:
" …usually modernized Muslims have tried to come to terms with evolution through all kinds of unbelievable interpretations of the Noble Qur’an, forgetting that [b]there is no possible way to harmonize the conception of man (Adam) as he to whom God taught all the ‘names’ and whom He placed on earth as His Khalifah, and the evolutionists conception which sees man as having ‘ascended’ from ape[/b]. It is strange that except for a number of traditionalists and also ‘fundamentalist’ Muslim thinkers who have rejected the theory of evolution mostly on purely religious grounds without providing intellectual and rational arguments for their rejection of the theory, few Muslims have bothered to see its logical absurdity and to consider all the scientific evidence brought against it by such men as L. Bounoure and D. Dewar…[47]
Shame.
Wed, 2008-02-27 10:16
#37
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
I have asserted that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are inimical to science, because they posit the existence of supernatural and unverifiable causal elements in the world. I should have thought this was bleeding obvious to any progressive person.[/b]
You're saying religion is inimical or unfriendly to science. And yet the madrassas, as Cueball pointed out, are offering education to poor Muslims who would not be extended offers of free education by a western political and economic system that sometimes comes "highly recommended" to them in the form of shock doctrinaire capitalism. In this case, Islamic madrassas seem to be far less inimical to science and literacy in general than proponents of a political and economic belief system seeking to replace everything with those views, and who seek to include restrictions on academic and publicly-funded scientists for the sake of profit. It's no wonder scientists like Richard Levins have so little respect for the dominant world ism. Capitalism isn't always a violent and murderous religion, not when its followers choose to turn a blind eye to 30, 000 children dying of a merciless economic long run each and every day with Swiss precision. Capitalism isn't always an immoral belief system. Sometimes it's just amoral.
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2008-02-27 10:56
#38
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Shame.[/b]
Excelent so you read the entire piece I thought it was very intersting. And despite the obvious bias, it also seemed to try and be historically precise in terms of laying the arguements, and so on a so forth.
And you did ask me to find [b]a[/b] scholar who accepted Darwinian theory, now of course he took exception to some ideas in it, but then do you accept all Darwinian theory, in a rote sense?
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2008-02-27 11:43
#39
quote:
Who's prejudice? Unionist? Me? How? - I suppose you'll be opposing prejudice against Intelligent Design next right? -IbelongtonooneI
unionist's.
Wed, 2008-02-27 11:49
#40
quote:
Man, this is crazy trying to keep up with 300+ message multiple threads. - scooter
in opening the second thread, unionist had stated that he is 'in a crusade [sic]'.
Wed, 2008-02-27 11:52
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]And you did ask me to find [b]a[/b] scholar who accepted Darwinian theory, now of course he took exception to some ideas in it, but then do you accept all Darwinian theory, in a rote sense?[/b]
Cueball, not one of the scholars mentioned there, not even Hamidullah, accepts modern science. They argue with each other over who is diverging more from the Holy Qur'an than the others. And how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
The frenzied attack on Hamidullah is a living, shining example of how difficult it must be for a scientist who wants to be true to his Muslim faith to speak out openly.
The monolithic oppostion from official Islam is so clear from this article, for which I thank you.
Wed, 2008-02-27 14:12
#42
from one of the previous threads:
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Here's where the Qur'an unmistakeably foretold the discoveries of embryology, centuries before our mere mortal labs were able to confirm the results:[/b]
And I don't think any of the major religions were responsible for scientists standing firma behind a flat earth theory for a thousand years or so. Those were the good old days when the rich were rich and were learned, and the rest were just working class slobs taught no more than to trust and obey as the only way forward.
Wed, 2008-02-27 15:26
#43
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
And I don't think any of the major religions were responsible for scientists standing firma behind a flat earth theory for a thousand years or so.[/b]
Fidel, don't go there. What "scientists" are you talking about? The ancients knew the earth wasn't flat - Eratosthenes calculated its circumference to a high degree of accuracy about 2,200 years ago.
It was the great religions of the world which banned, banished, and burned the great minds, and tried to drag humanity back to darkness where so that they could rule unopposed.
Maybe start with cosmologist [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno]Giordano Bruno[/url] - burned at the stake after being found guilty on these "charges":
quote:
1. Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
2. Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
3. Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
4. Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
5. Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
6. Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
7. Dealing in magics and divination.
8. Denying the Virginity of Mary.
Then you might read up on a dude called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei]Galileo Galilei[/url]. They didn't burn him - because unlike Bruno, he "recanted" and said, "yeah, I was wrong, the earth really is the centre of the universe". He got off easy:
quote:
* Galileo was required to abjure the opinion that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, and that the Earth is not at its centre and moves; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." [...]
* He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
* His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
These atrocities and countless others took place in societies where modern science was flourishing. We have few records of those scientists in Christian, Jewish or Muslim contexts who just played it safe and kept their eyes on the holy book instead of the skies.
Wed, 2008-02-27 18:54
#44
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Fidel, don't go there. What "scientists" are you talking about? The ancients knew the earth wasn't flat - Eratosthenes calculated its circumference to a high degree of accuracy about 2,200 years ago.[/b]
These threads have a way of becoming absurd and tedious. Pythagorus ~500 B.C. apparently believed in spherical harmony of the heavens. He was a mathematician, philosopher, and spiritualist. Ancient Egyptians and even Mayan Indians knew about celestial events and how seasons are affected. But empirical proof wouldn't come until centuries later, after the written word would survive the dark ages, and the developement of higher level mathematics. Thank goodness for Muslims who taught paper-making to pre-renaissance Europeans and so forth. And as I was trying to say earlier, some of those scholars and later scientists became learned through the Church and by monks and rabbis and priests who minded the abbeys and doled out social services to poor people who were made desperately poor beggars post Henry the eighth and Liberal capitalists like John Locke and his private property laws, and the so-called intellectual arguments in favour of private property were anything but. The arguments were nothing more than clever legalese which deliberately misconstrued pre-existing natural laws for common rights granted by God to King, country and every citizen within the kingdom. The same Lockean and Smithean mumbo-jumbo is said to have been misinterpreted today by marauding capitalists and their hirelings in government as well as any biblical scribblings have by right-wing whackos everywhere.
And where would science be today without the public education of scientists like Rutherford, Bohr, and Einstein? What would have become of Isaac Newton had King's College not offered to waive tuition fees because of his family's poor circumstances?
I think bad people tend to do bad things when personal gain is the motivation. And apparently the one-dimensional self-interested homo economicus of the dominant ism is [i]inimical[/i] to the teachings of Islam. That greedy little turd is an abomination as far as Islamists are concerned. Blowback shadow gov gave us an anti-communist jihad in 1980s-90s Central Asia. Now it seems taxpayers in the west are ponying up for an anti-Islamic jihad. And this running conflict of isms seems to be one ongoing conflict in parallel with the overall war of annihilation against communism since the Digger movement in imperial Britain and even before that when Henry and Louis waged their little wars against the Church. Science has nothing to say about religion, really. There are few mainstream leading edge scientists whose raison d'etre is to prove or disprove the existence of God or the unknowable in general. Just be careful of whose cause you believe it is you are arguing for, is all I am trying to say.
[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Thu, 2008-02-28 13:30
#45
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_Iran]Science in Persia[/url]
quote:
In the 13th century, more than 600 years before Charles Darwin, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nas%C4%ABr_al-D%C4%ABn_al-T%C5%ABs%C4%AB#Bi... al-Dīn al-Tūsī[/url] developed a basic theory of evolution. Key differences exist between Tusi's approach and Darwin's The Origin of Species. While Darwin used deductive reasoning, gathering samples of plants and animals to work his way from facts to a theory, Tusi used a more theoretical approach. Tusi explained that "hereditary variability" was the leading force of evolution. He wrote that all living organisms were able to change and that the animate organisms developed owing to their hereditary variability, saying "the organisms that can gain the new features faster are more variable. As a result, they gain advantages over other creatures." This sounds remarkably like a simplistic form of Darwin's writings about mutations.
Hmmm
Thu, 2008-02-28 13:49
#46
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Hmmm
Well lots of people believed in evolution before Darwin - thousands of years before. Darwin's own grandfather wrote about it and it was much talked about in academic circles going back to the Greeks or maybe before. Darwin gets the credit because he provided not just the best mechanism for the cause, but compiled enough evidence to make the theory far more sensible than any other. Before Darwin it was just an idea (really more philosophy than science) - with no more evidence than of the other ideas like creationism, with Darwin it became a scientific theory.
[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
Thu, 2008-02-28 13:52
#47
[url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080205-science-video-ap.... Iran Pushes Science[/url]
"February 5, 2008—Embryonic stem cell research, animal cloning, and a controversial nuclear program are part of Iran's efforts to establish itself as a science and technology leader."
Thu, 2008-02-28 13:58
#48
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]Before Darwin it was just an idea - with no more evidence than of the other ideas like creationism, with Darwin it became a scientific theory.[/b]
I don't know what it is, but I'm suddenly not that high on Charlie. I'm beginning to think Persia is the cradle of western civilization, and that indigenous people around the world knew things about astronomy, keeping track of time and the seasons.
Thu, 2008-02-28 14:05
#49
Cueball
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-02-28 14:06
#50
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:I don't know what it is, but I'm suddenly not that high on Charlie. I'm beginning to think Persia is the cradle of western civilization, and that indigenous people around the world knew things about astronomy, keeping track of time and the seasons.
Lots of people had great ideas before charles darwin. Lots of amazing feats of science had been discovered. Certainly astronomy is a great example. But, the evidence collected in favour of evolution before Darwin would have no more than filled a pamphlet. Reading On the Origin of the Species makes one understand why it was such a monumental achievement. It was like he hit the reader with a sledge hammer. He provided hundreds of pages of proof - something no one before had done. That is why Darwin generally gets sole or most credit and Wallace doesn't get equal credit. Had Darwin not published Origins than people would have looked at Wallace's admittedly brilliant work and said nice hypothesis, now where is the evidence to support it? There is a reason why most every list I have ever seen ranking the all time greatest science books always place Origin at the top - it was that groundbreaking (edit - I don't know why I wrote most every list - in fact every single list I have seen places Origin at the top).
(Edit: It should also be mentioned that while Origin provided possibly 100 times more evidence in favour of evolution than everyone before him that is really understating his work. Origin was written as a popular science book for the public, the reality of his work output includes lengthy books on all kinds of evolutionary evidence probably totally 100 times that of Origin.)
[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
Thu, 2008-02-28 14:08
#51
Cueball
[img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]