Thursday, December 3, 2009

Food for Thought

Ever since I started getting into these atheist-theist christian-muslim debates my mind has been ticking away like a maniac - and just more so everyday. I think there just might be such a thing as too much thinking.

Anyway here's a few thoughts regarding atheism..

1. Atheists talk a lot about not needing a concept of God to explain anything because there are naturalistic explanations for everything. But just from the very start my mind completely balked at that but I can't seem to phrase what I'm trying to say very well.. I ended up liking it to how knowing how a DVD player works doesn't mean it does away with the need for a DVD-player-maker but I'm not sure if that;s a legitimate analogy or not.
The primary balkableness is that when you understand how things work in the Universe it doesn't take the wonder away from it but rather increases your wonder at how fascinating it is.. But I think my mind's been working overtime because I can't seem to explain why natural processes aren't enough..

2. What initiates conscious thought? I mean what gets the nerves firing off? How does a thought that you want to move your hands start?

3. Why/how did atoms come to be? I remember studying the fusion of atoms in stars making heavier atoms but I can't remember how atoms became atoms?

4. Why is chance enough for atheists? How do blind, unseeing chance processes account for the existence of a living breathing thinking talking hearing seeing conscious being?

5. I like what brother Gary Miller said about the Universe being the extension of God's will.. hmm..

9 comments:

  1. hmmm. interesting.

    also your name phalanges always reminds me of phoebe from friends.lol

    ReplyDelete
  2. :O thats so weird!! my cousins always call me phoebe lool

    ReplyDelete
  3. hydrogen atoms fused to form helium and helium atoms fused to form carbon and so on and so forth. It seems that there are natural laws for every process. I think I have to come to believe that humans really did emerge via evolution, the evidence cannot be ignored. Just like when we say God created me. But did He really? He utilized the process of spermatogenesis, ovulation, mating, fertilization, gestation, labor etc to create me. Why cannot he use natural selection and mutation to create us.
    wsalam

    ReplyDelete
  4. Salam coco jumbo,
    Erm, I think I might disagree with saying that God "utilized the process" but I get what you're saying.. However, it is clear from the Qur'an that the creation of Adam PBUH was a miraculous event, and shaikhs have said it is not acceptable to say that we have been created 'via evolution'. I would also disagree with you when you say that the evidence cannot be ignored; the more I look into it, the more it seems that the so-called 'evidence' for the evolution of man requires a lot of imagination and a good handful of faith to believe in it..

    Here are a few good links if you're interested:

    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html

    Also, the lecture by Abdur Raheem Green, "Evolution Origin: Man or Monkey" - or something like that. You can find it as an MP3 or on Youtube.

    Salam

    ReplyDelete
  5. w salam,
    jazakAllah for the links, Ive listened to Abdur Raheem Green's lec. I have been looking into for 2 years now at the expense of other "festivities" of life, and have dedicated much time to it, Allhamdulillah, but I have reached only one conclusion .... :(

    Of course I do not completely agree with Darwinian evolution i.e. I am iffy if humans evolved from lower animals. The evolution within humans (micro-evolution) is there for us to see though, denying it is a signature of schizophrenia, I am sorry to say. Let me give you an example ....

    2% of Caucasians are resistant to HIV. Why is that? because there is a mutation in their CCR5 receptor. The normal CCR5 receptor is used by R5 tropic HIV to enter the cells. So if the CCR5 is mutated and is non-functional, you become resistant. Now if HIV was to spread in whole population, all will get AIDS except these 2% and after our death, the new generation of humans will be resistant to R5 tropic HIV. But the HIV will have found other means to infect them, its a perpetual war between nature and life.

    Another live and real example of evolution which can be seen by eyes and tested in lab is that of flu virus. Each year we get new vaccines. Why is that? because each year the influenza virus changes itself by mutation and hence previous years' antibodies dont work! Have to create new ones ....

    There are many examples of evolution that we know of among humans. Our cultures have evolved. Our behaviors. Our languages. Even our solar system evolved from interstellar cloud. One of Allah's name is the Evolver. Beautiful.

    Allah (swt) does say in the Quran that Adam was created from Earth. The question then is how did Adam go to heaven? Evolution itself is miraculous! Imagine, how against all nature forces, some part of nature still forms life ... this is indeed beautiful ...

    ma salam

    ReplyDelete
  6. Regarding the article by Sh. Nuh, he says:
    "Speaking for myself, I was convinced that the evolution of man was an unchallengeable "given" of modern knowledge until I read Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". The ninth chapter (The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Ed. J.W. Burrow. London: Penguin Books, 1979, 291-317) made it clear, from what Darwin modestly calls the "great imperfection of the geological record" that the theory was not in principle falsifiable, though the possibility that some kind of evidence or another should be able in principle to disprove a theory is a condition (if we can believe logicians like Karl Popper) for it to be considered scientific. By its nature, fossil evidence of intermediate forms that could prove or disprove the theory remained unfound and unfindable. When I read this, it was not clear to me how such an theory could be called "scientific". "

    The thing is that of course there are errors in Darwin's original book. Darwin's theory has been modified over 150 years or so as new evidence has emerged. So refuting modern understanding of evolution by using Darwins' 150 year old thesis is not a good idea.

    Again, even if Homo sapien arose from monkeys, which I am suspicious about at this time in my life, it arose in its own perfect form. The theory of evolution can only be refuted if these sheikhs bring a similar scientific evidence which points to the loop-holes in the theory. I respect them all but they are not in a position to speak about scientific matters. may Allah further increase our knowledge.

    Salam

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh my Lord. I just wrote a seriously long reply and it disappeared.

    Okay let me try again. First off, Sh. Nuh is a scientist so he's not your average scholar (even though he might not be a biologist). Although the theory of Evolution has evolved, it's base still lies in Darwinism (hence - neo-darwinism). But anyway the point he was making was about the theory not being 'in principle' falsifiable. And without having a falsifiability test its not scientific - this still holds true today as far as I'm aware.

    I really would urge you to read the whole article through; I found it really compelling. And he brings up a lot of the points you discussed. He and Sh. Green both say that Evolution is not haram in principle - only with regards to humans because of the clear statements in the Qur'an about the 'special creation' of the Prophet Adam PBUH.

    Even the narrowest of opinions of scholars, (namely Harun Yahya) don't deny micro-evolution.

    Another point Sh. Nuh raised that I found really important myself as I was studying it - is that the theory gives you no warranty to apply it universally, i.e. for all species. What I mean to say is that even when there's a clear line of descent from one species to another in one case, it doesn't really give me any reason to believe it happened for all the other species. For example, it's pretty easy to believe that a large group of butterflies speciated into two different species, but aquatic to terrestrial?? Or hippos and whales being related??? Seriously??
    Those are hypotheses. When studying evolution one has to differentiate between what could have happened and where theres actually evidence that it did happen. Do you get what I'm saying?

    Loop-holes? There's plenty! I gave you a link about the origins of man. I don't know if you've read anything similar, but I mean if it's that bad for the evolution of man - one of the hottest topics (research-wise) then I wonder what it's like for the rest of the species! The problem arises because the theory spreads itself too vastly - it tries to predict the origins of all species. Even trying to understand or even hypothesise how families of organisms arose is difficult. And they really are just hypotheses because theres no evidence. All they can talk about is the similarity of gene frequencies or DNA or proteins - but not actually proving the descent of one species from the other, which appears to me that the only way you can do that is to produce intermediate forms.
    In all this time Lake Turkana (Sh. Nuh article) is all they can provide?
    Someone said somewhere that the longer you search for something without finding it, the lower the probability of it actually existing. With all these scientists out searching and not finding intermediate forms - I think that says something.

    Harun Yahya's got some great stuff. Try checking out:
    www.evolutiondeceit.com and check out the books he's got there if you haven't already. He might not be a scientist but he's not providing his own information - but that of scientists who have researched it. It's pretty good stuff.

    Hope that covers all the points.
    Salam

    ReplyDelete
  8. assalam alaikum,

    Yes, being able to falsify is very important in the scientific discourse. If you cannot falsify anything, it is not considered scientific.

    With all due to respect to Sh. Nuh, I really liked reading his conversion story. He is a good writer. The article you provide is also well-written. The problem, again, is that he is not an evolutionary biologist and he cannot be trusted "blindly." This is actually a principle from Islam which asks us not to trust anyone blindly.

    I understand that we lack intermediate fossils. Since I am not an archaeologist and paleontologist, I cannot criticize what the scientists claim to be few intermediate forms that they do have. But I can raise objections. One of my objections is of course why do we have so few intermediate fossils compared to the number of species? That is actually also one of my concerns.

    Regarding becoming terrestrial from aquatic, its not hard at all. If you can admit that a group of butterflies can divide into two species, why cannot an aquatic animal become terrestrial over millions of years? Keep in mind the time scales it requires for evolution. We are talking about millions of years, not thousands. It is entirely logical if a terrestrial animal emerges from a completely aquatic animal through a slow process over millions of years.

    Another example of evolution is inter-breeding of animals. Humans interbred animals of their favorite traits and viola, we can select which features we want. What does this tell you? Cannot nature do the same thing over millions of years? And nature is controlled by God.

    I was reading about how our solar system was formed and the most accepted theory is that of proto-nebular formation. If you study all these processes in universe, everything goes through modification. Fine balances. Natural forces working in tandem with each other. One day when our Sun dies, Earth's life will vanish too because Sun is the primary source of energy on earth. If all things go through steps, why cannot humans?

    Evolution is falsifiable. If somehow we can show that there was a wide gap between the death of our immediate ancestors and our emergence then it means that we did not rise from proto-humans. Rather proto-humans died and we emerged from no-where. That fits in with the "special creation."

    I seriously want to believe that Adam was a special creation and 40 feet tall. But rational thinking and lack of evidence stops me from doing so. I actually do believe that Adam was 40 feet tall even though I have no evidence. But regarding creation of Adam, I think that evolution can be as "Islamic."

    I remember hearing the views of Dr. Israr Ahmed and he said that evolution is perfectly Islamic. Please read his comments here: http://sciencereligionnews.blogspot.com/2009/08/dr-israr-ahmed-and-evolution.html

    I am still open in regards to human evolution. We know that human evolution is still occurring. In our behaviors! Imagine how the concept of privacy has evolved! 1500 years ago it was okay for people to intermingle in lives of others, people also do that in villages. But as you move towards cities where educated people (relatively) live, the concept of privacy becomes strong. Also, parents could dictate to their children 2000 years ago what to do but today kids want their own autonomy. There are many other such behaviors which are norm today but are deviations from behaviors of humans from 2000 years ago. This is cultural evolution, a further layer of beauty upon genetic evolution.

    jazakAllah khairun for typing you response the second time after you lost the whole thing the first time.

    Walaikum Assalam.

    ReplyDelete
  9. wa alaikum issalam,

    As for Sh. Nuh, you're right he's not an evolutionary biologist and I agree with you that we should not "trust him blindly" - but the point is, you shouldn't even trust evolutionary biologists blindly either. I recommend you reading "What is the origin of man?" by Maurice Bucaille. The first part of the book is all about Evolution in general. I've quoted from it in a post "Evolution is not random" in my other blog. I'm sure you'll find the book very interesting as it shows you the ideas of other evolutionary biologists that have different ideas about how evolution actually happens - because as it turns out not all of them are neo-Darwinists. However I don't really agree with the second part of Bucaille's book as he is a firm proponent of the evolution of man. It's still a good read though.

    Secondly, you see the problem I see with evolutionary thought is that it reduces all of the wonders of Allah SWT's creation to "random mutation and natural selection". I just cannot believe that the exceedingly intricate features of all of these species was "random" - neither from the rational point of view nor from a muslim point of view either. We cannot, as muslims, believe that anything is "random" anyhow - as nothing can occur except by Allah SWT's permission.

    However, I don't think there's anything wrong with believing that things progress over time. Does it not always catch your attention that Allah SWT says He created the Heavens (or the Heavens and the Earth I can't remember) in 6 days? Although we know that if He had willed it would only be a matter of His willing it to come into existence - but it argues for some kind of process of creation or "evolution" of the Heavens - wallahu a'lam.

    Have you read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box"? MashaAllah it's a really good book.

    Do you have any suggestions?

    Thanks.
    Waalaikum issalam

    ReplyDelete

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Food for Thought

Posted by Aisha at 9:13 AM
Ever since I started getting into these atheist-theist christian-muslim debates my mind has been ticking away like a maniac - and just more so everyday. I think there just might be such a thing as too much thinking.

Anyway here's a few thoughts regarding atheism..

1. Atheists talk a lot about not needing a concept of God to explain anything because there are naturalistic explanations for everything. But just from the very start my mind completely balked at that but I can't seem to phrase what I'm trying to say very well.. I ended up liking it to how knowing how a DVD player works doesn't mean it does away with the need for a DVD-player-maker but I'm not sure if that;s a legitimate analogy or not.
The primary balkableness is that when you understand how things work in the Universe it doesn't take the wonder away from it but rather increases your wonder at how fascinating it is.. But I think my mind's been working overtime because I can't seem to explain why natural processes aren't enough..

2. What initiates conscious thought? I mean what gets the nerves firing off? How does a thought that you want to move your hands start?

3. Why/how did atoms come to be? I remember studying the fusion of atoms in stars making heavier atoms but I can't remember how atoms became atoms?

4. Why is chance enough for atheists? How do blind, unseeing chance processes account for the existence of a living breathing thinking talking hearing seeing conscious being?

5. I like what brother Gary Miller said about the Universe being the extension of God's will.. hmm..

9 comments on "Food for Thought"

Constructive Attitude on December 13, 2009 at 4:43 PM said...

hmmm. interesting.

also your name phalanges always reminds me of phoebe from friends.lol

phalanges on January 29, 2010 at 3:04 AM said...

:O thats so weird!! my cousins always call me phoebe lool

coco jumbo on February 3, 2010 at 10:05 PM said...

hydrogen atoms fused to form helium and helium atoms fused to form carbon and so on and so forth. It seems that there are natural laws for every process. I think I have to come to believe that humans really did emerge via evolution, the evidence cannot be ignored. Just like when we say God created me. But did He really? He utilized the process of spermatogenesis, ovulation, mating, fertilization, gestation, labor etc to create me. Why cannot he use natural selection and mutation to create us.
wsalam

phalanges on February 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM said...

Salam coco jumbo,
Erm, I think I might disagree with saying that God "utilized the process" but I get what you're saying.. However, it is clear from the Qur'an that the creation of Adam PBUH was a miraculous event, and shaikhs have said it is not acceptable to say that we have been created 'via evolution'. I would also disagree with you when you say that the evidence cannot be ignored; the more I look into it, the more it seems that the so-called 'evidence' for the evolution of man requires a lot of imagination and a good handful of faith to believe in it..

Here are a few good links if you're interested:

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html

Also, the lecture by Abdur Raheem Green, "Evolution Origin: Man or Monkey" - or something like that. You can find it as an MP3 or on Youtube.

Salam

coco jumbo on February 4, 2010 at 1:00 PM said...

w salam,
jazakAllah for the links, Ive listened to Abdur Raheem Green's lec. I have been looking into for 2 years now at the expense of other "festivities" of life, and have dedicated much time to it, Allhamdulillah, but I have reached only one conclusion .... :(

Of course I do not completely agree with Darwinian evolution i.e. I am iffy if humans evolved from lower animals. The evolution within humans (micro-evolution) is there for us to see though, denying it is a signature of schizophrenia, I am sorry to say. Let me give you an example ....

2% of Caucasians are resistant to HIV. Why is that? because there is a mutation in their CCR5 receptor. The normal CCR5 receptor is used by R5 tropic HIV to enter the cells. So if the CCR5 is mutated and is non-functional, you become resistant. Now if HIV was to spread in whole population, all will get AIDS except these 2% and after our death, the new generation of humans will be resistant to R5 tropic HIV. But the HIV will have found other means to infect them, its a perpetual war between nature and life.

Another live and real example of evolution which can be seen by eyes and tested in lab is that of flu virus. Each year we get new vaccines. Why is that? because each year the influenza virus changes itself by mutation and hence previous years' antibodies dont work! Have to create new ones ....

There are many examples of evolution that we know of among humans. Our cultures have evolved. Our behaviors. Our languages. Even our solar system evolved from interstellar cloud. One of Allah's name is the Evolver. Beautiful.

Allah (swt) does say in the Quran that Adam was created from Earth. The question then is how did Adam go to heaven? Evolution itself is miraculous! Imagine, how against all nature forces, some part of nature still forms life ... this is indeed beautiful ...

ma salam

coco jumbo on February 4, 2010 at 1:08 PM said...

Regarding the article by Sh. Nuh, he says:
"Speaking for myself, I was convinced that the evolution of man was an unchallengeable "given" of modern knowledge until I read Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". The ninth chapter (The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Ed. J.W. Burrow. London: Penguin Books, 1979, 291-317) made it clear, from what Darwin modestly calls the "great imperfection of the geological record" that the theory was not in principle falsifiable, though the possibility that some kind of evidence or another should be able in principle to disprove a theory is a condition (if we can believe logicians like Karl Popper) for it to be considered scientific. By its nature, fossil evidence of intermediate forms that could prove or disprove the theory remained unfound and unfindable. When I read this, it was not clear to me how such an theory could be called "scientific". "

The thing is that of course there are errors in Darwin's original book. Darwin's theory has been modified over 150 years or so as new evidence has emerged. So refuting modern understanding of evolution by using Darwins' 150 year old thesis is not a good idea.

Again, even if Homo sapien arose from monkeys, which I am suspicious about at this time in my life, it arose in its own perfect form. The theory of evolution can only be refuted if these sheikhs bring a similar scientific evidence which points to the loop-holes in the theory. I respect them all but they are not in a position to speak about scientific matters. may Allah further increase our knowledge.

Salam

phalanges on February 6, 2010 at 1:19 AM said...

Oh my Lord. I just wrote a seriously long reply and it disappeared.

Okay let me try again. First off, Sh. Nuh is a scientist so he's not your average scholar (even though he might not be a biologist). Although the theory of Evolution has evolved, it's base still lies in Darwinism (hence - neo-darwinism). But anyway the point he was making was about the theory not being 'in principle' falsifiable. And without having a falsifiability test its not scientific - this still holds true today as far as I'm aware.

I really would urge you to read the whole article through; I found it really compelling. And he brings up a lot of the points you discussed. He and Sh. Green both say that Evolution is not haram in principle - only with regards to humans because of the clear statements in the Qur'an about the 'special creation' of the Prophet Adam PBUH.

Even the narrowest of opinions of scholars, (namely Harun Yahya) don't deny micro-evolution.

Another point Sh. Nuh raised that I found really important myself as I was studying it - is that the theory gives you no warranty to apply it universally, i.e. for all species. What I mean to say is that even when there's a clear line of descent from one species to another in one case, it doesn't really give me any reason to believe it happened for all the other species. For example, it's pretty easy to believe that a large group of butterflies speciated into two different species, but aquatic to terrestrial?? Or hippos and whales being related??? Seriously??
Those are hypotheses. When studying evolution one has to differentiate between what could have happened and where theres actually evidence that it did happen. Do you get what I'm saying?

Loop-holes? There's plenty! I gave you a link about the origins of man. I don't know if you've read anything similar, but I mean if it's that bad for the evolution of man - one of the hottest topics (research-wise) then I wonder what it's like for the rest of the species! The problem arises because the theory spreads itself too vastly - it tries to predict the origins of all species. Even trying to understand or even hypothesise how families of organisms arose is difficult. And they really are just hypotheses because theres no evidence. All they can talk about is the similarity of gene frequencies or DNA or proteins - but not actually proving the descent of one species from the other, which appears to me that the only way you can do that is to produce intermediate forms.
In all this time Lake Turkana (Sh. Nuh article) is all they can provide?
Someone said somewhere that the longer you search for something without finding it, the lower the probability of it actually existing. With all these scientists out searching and not finding intermediate forms - I think that says something.

Harun Yahya's got some great stuff. Try checking out:
www.evolutiondeceit.com and check out the books he's got there if you haven't already. He might not be a scientist but he's not providing his own information - but that of scientists who have researched it. It's pretty good stuff.

Hope that covers all the points.
Salam

coco jumbo on February 6, 2010 at 9:15 PM said...

assalam alaikum,

Yes, being able to falsify is very important in the scientific discourse. If you cannot falsify anything, it is not considered scientific.

With all due to respect to Sh. Nuh, I really liked reading his conversion story. He is a good writer. The article you provide is also well-written. The problem, again, is that he is not an evolutionary biologist and he cannot be trusted "blindly." This is actually a principle from Islam which asks us not to trust anyone blindly.

I understand that we lack intermediate fossils. Since I am not an archaeologist and paleontologist, I cannot criticize what the scientists claim to be few intermediate forms that they do have. But I can raise objections. One of my objections is of course why do we have so few intermediate fossils compared to the number of species? That is actually also one of my concerns.

Regarding becoming terrestrial from aquatic, its not hard at all. If you can admit that a group of butterflies can divide into two species, why cannot an aquatic animal become terrestrial over millions of years? Keep in mind the time scales it requires for evolution. We are talking about millions of years, not thousands. It is entirely logical if a terrestrial animal emerges from a completely aquatic animal through a slow process over millions of years.

Another example of evolution is inter-breeding of animals. Humans interbred animals of their favorite traits and viola, we can select which features we want. What does this tell you? Cannot nature do the same thing over millions of years? And nature is controlled by God.

I was reading about how our solar system was formed and the most accepted theory is that of proto-nebular formation. If you study all these processes in universe, everything goes through modification. Fine balances. Natural forces working in tandem with each other. One day when our Sun dies, Earth's life will vanish too because Sun is the primary source of energy on earth. If all things go through steps, why cannot humans?

Evolution is falsifiable. If somehow we can show that there was a wide gap between the death of our immediate ancestors and our emergence then it means that we did not rise from proto-humans. Rather proto-humans died and we emerged from no-where. That fits in with the "special creation."

I seriously want to believe that Adam was a special creation and 40 feet tall. But rational thinking and lack of evidence stops me from doing so. I actually do believe that Adam was 40 feet tall even though I have no evidence. But regarding creation of Adam, I think that evolution can be as "Islamic."

I remember hearing the views of Dr. Israr Ahmed and he said that evolution is perfectly Islamic. Please read his comments here: http://sciencereligionnews.blogspot.com/2009/08/dr-israr-ahmed-and-evolution.html

I am still open in regards to human evolution. We know that human evolution is still occurring. In our behaviors! Imagine how the concept of privacy has evolved! 1500 years ago it was okay for people to intermingle in lives of others, people also do that in villages. But as you move towards cities where educated people (relatively) live, the concept of privacy becomes strong. Also, parents could dictate to their children 2000 years ago what to do but today kids want their own autonomy. There are many other such behaviors which are norm today but are deviations from behaviors of humans from 2000 years ago. This is cultural evolution, a further layer of beauty upon genetic evolution.

jazakAllah khairun for typing you response the second time after you lost the whole thing the first time.

Walaikum Assalam.

phalanges on February 8, 2010 at 12:55 AM said...

wa alaikum issalam,

As for Sh. Nuh, you're right he's not an evolutionary biologist and I agree with you that we should not "trust him blindly" - but the point is, you shouldn't even trust evolutionary biologists blindly either. I recommend you reading "What is the origin of man?" by Maurice Bucaille. The first part of the book is all about Evolution in general. I've quoted from it in a post "Evolution is not random" in my other blog. I'm sure you'll find the book very interesting as it shows you the ideas of other evolutionary biologists that have different ideas about how evolution actually happens - because as it turns out not all of them are neo-Darwinists. However I don't really agree with the second part of Bucaille's book as he is a firm proponent of the evolution of man. It's still a good read though.

Secondly, you see the problem I see with evolutionary thought is that it reduces all of the wonders of Allah SWT's creation to "random mutation and natural selection". I just cannot believe that the exceedingly intricate features of all of these species was "random" - neither from the rational point of view nor from a muslim point of view either. We cannot, as muslims, believe that anything is "random" anyhow - as nothing can occur except by Allah SWT's permission.

However, I don't think there's anything wrong with believing that things progress over time. Does it not always catch your attention that Allah SWT says He created the Heavens (or the Heavens and the Earth I can't remember) in 6 days? Although we know that if He had willed it would only be a matter of His willing it to come into existence - but it argues for some kind of process of creation or "evolution" of the Heavens - wallahu a'lam.

Have you read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box"? MashaAllah it's a really good book.

Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks.
Waalaikum issalam

Post a Comment