IF FOX INTERVIEWED A MUSLIM ON EVOLUTION

[TheRealKing]

 

[knowledge88]

 

[Citizen X]

Oh so this is the video by Moroo, I was wondering why I was seeing so many videos against moroo by traditional kandoori moulvis all of a sudden in facebook and youtube feeds. I was like WTF this guy just makes funny sketches, now what did he do that the mullahrazzi is against him.

 

[desan]

Well explained with good analogies and great graphics...

However, here is a better explanation about overall concordance and discordance between Islam and Science.

 

[Citizen X]

However, here is a better explanation about overall concordance and discordance between Islam and Science.

Meh, he just talked in general. I liked morros which is basically Javed Ghamdis explanation word for word.

 

[shujauddin]

A theory is a not a scientific fact. Moro is wrong. Theories can be true only if proven through experimentation. Example Boyle Law states that the pressure of a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to its volume at a constant temperature. This is proven through experimentation in the lab and hence become a scientific law. Theories on the other hand are not as credible and can be proven wrong at a later stage !

 

[shujauddin]

very good video but expected to fly off the average minds of this forum due to mental incapacities.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Scientific theories, facts and laws are different things.

If you are saying a scientific theory is not a fact then it shows you do not understand those definition and should search it up.

A scientific theory is more important than scientific fact. Its very difficult for a concept to go from being a hypothesis to becoming a theory. Also, you do not prove hypothesis, you test them to see if they align with the facts, laws and predictions it is making.

Think of a house. Each brick in the house is a fact. But the house itself is a scientific theory.

Laws are concepts that are explained mathematically. They are mathematical measurements that are known to hold true under certain conditions, for example gravity.


If you want to read more about it I have posted a link below.

Nature of Science

www.nsta.org

Laws
Laws are generalizations or universal relationships related to the way that some aspect of the natural world behaves under certain conditions. They describe relationships among what has been observed in the natural world. For example, Boyle’s Law describes the relationship between pressure and volume of a gas at a constant temperature (Feynman 1965; Harre 1983; National Academy of Sciences 1998)

Scientific Theories
Theories are inferred explanations of some aspect of the natural world. They provide explanations for what has been stated in scientific laws. Theories do not become laws even with additional evidence; they explain laws. However, not all scientific laws have accompanying explanatory theories (Feynman 1965; Harre 1983; Mayr 1988; National Academy of Sciences 1998; Ruse 1998).


Scientific theories are basis of science but sadly I have spoken to only a handful of Pakistanis who understand the definition of a scientific theory. There is so much misinformation in Pakistan because so many contradictions between science and religion.

A theory is a not a scientific fact. Moro is wrong. Theories can be true only if proven through experimentation. Example Boyle Law states that the pressure of a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to its volume at a constant temperature. This is proven through experimentation in the lab and hence become a scientific law. Theories on the other hand are not as credible and can be proven wrong at a later stage !

 

[Vitamin_C]

1:11 - 1:19
Science does not give absolute concrete knowledge

First of all science does not work with absolute knowledge because absolute knowledge does not exist.

You can disprove things to be false but you can never prove anything to be 100%. You can be 99.9999% sure but you have to leave a bit of slack because our understanding of the universe is always improving. This is a benefit of science not a disadvantage. The cars, rockets, computers, medicine made using this method shows that its a robust method of knowing the truth about our universe and making it work for us.

This constraint is purely by definition and not by practice. We can be certain that our space ship will launch but we cannot be 100% certain due to the nature of the universe there will always be variables that cannot be predicted and can cause failure. It does not mean space rockets do not work, it just means we are being realistic by leaving some slack to unforeseen events. Its dishonest to use this as an argument against scientific method.

1:19 - 1:25
We know with absolute certainty that Quran is true

The claim that Quran is true with absolute certainty is based on faith not on evidence. Faith by definition is not a reliable method to reach the truth. All religions use faith to come to a completely different conclusion, where as evidence only leads to consensus on one scientific theory. Evidence is a superior method to reach truth rather than faith.

1:25 - 2:14
Quran and Science cannot contradict because one is God's word and the other is Quran's creation

Confirmation bias. This is the problem with the approach of starting with a conclusion and then finding evidence to confirm it. Do you know what other group of people who use this approach?Flat Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, Alien conspiracy theories and basically all other religions. We know that its the wrong method yet people like this guy still proudly use it to make their arguments.

Rational people follow the evidence first to reach the conclusion.

2:15 - 4:30
Big bang model confirms universe has a beginning like Quran does

Cherry picking. Big bang is just the beginning of this universe, we do not know whether or not it is the beginning of existence. The universe may have a beginning but there is still a possibility that existence itself is eternal and universes like this come in and out of existence all the time. Although Multiverse is not a scientific theory yet, there is some very compelling science behind it and there is a chance it might become a theory in the future.

4:30 - 5:17
All swans are white

Bad example. As I said before science does not work with absolute truths. The statement all swans are white is not even a theory, its a fact that the last 500 swans we observed are white. A theory is not a fact, theory is an explanation of a fact. So 500 white swans are an observation, evolution would be the theory to explain why they are white.

5:18 - 5:50
Science is always changing

Thats the reason why you should trust science over other sources. If Einstein realizes he is wrong about static universe, he updated his model to correct his mistake. If Quran is wrong about embryology and evolution, it cannot be changed to correct itself.

5:50 - 6:48
Either we have misunderstood the Quran or we misunderstood the science

That's a false dichotomy. Its not the only options we have there could be several others. Maybe the Quran got it wrong just like every other religious text. The catholics admitted to it and changed their beliefs to be upto date with science why cant we?

6:49 - 7:48
Evolution is a weak theory

First of all there is no such thing as a weak theory. Scientific models change but theories rarely change, they might get updated but its extremely rare that a scientific theory gets completely turned on its head.

The fact that life forms have been changing over time is a fact not a theory. The theory simply explains how this change happens. We can update this explanation as more knowledge is available but the fact that life forms have been changing is going to remain fact 500 years from now or 1000 years from now, Subhoor is misguiding people.


PS. It was fun reading the comment section of the video, its good to see many people educating themselves more about how science works to call out people like Subhoor and how they are misinforming the population.

Hope one day Muslims will wake up from this dark age and become leaders in science and technology as they once were before. These preachers are creating followers with misinformation at the cost of the education of our youth.

Well explained with good analogies and great graphics...

However, here is a better explanation about overall concordance and discordance between Islam and Science.

 

[shujauddin]

Scientific theories, facts and laws are different things.

If you are saying a scientific theory is not a fact then it shows you do not understand those definition and should search it up.

A scientific theory is more important than scientific fact. Its very difficult for a concept to go from being a hypothesis to becoming a theory. Also, you do not prove hypothesis, you test them to see if they align with the facts, laws and predictions it is making.

Think of a house. Each brick in the house is a fact. But the house itself is a scientific theory.

Laws are concepts that are explained mathematically. They are mathematical measurements that are known to hold true under certain conditions, for example gravity.


If you want to read more about it I have posted a link below.

Nature of Science

www.nsta.org

Laws
Laws are generalizations or universal relationships related to the way that some aspect of the natural world behaves under certain conditions. They describe relationships among what has been observed in the natural world. For example, Boyle’s Law describes the relationship between pressure and volume of a gas at a constant temperature (Feynman 1965; Harre 1983; National Academy of Sciences 1998)

Scientific Theories
Theories are inferred explanations of some aspect of the natural world. They provide explanations for what has been stated in scientific laws. Theories do not become laws even with additional evidence; they explain laws. However, not all scientific laws have accompanying explanatory theories (Feynman 1965; Harre 1983; Mayr 1988; National Academy of Sciences 1998; Ruse 1998).


Scientific theories are basis of science but sadly I have spoken to only a handful of Pakistanis who understand the definition of a scientific theory. There is so much misinformation in Pakistan because so many contradictions between science and religion.

Theories change , evolve and get rejected overtime. Therefore not necessarily scientifically correct. This is basic knowledge and every student of science knows that.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Thats not true. Where did you get that information?

Theories change , evolve and get rejected overtime. Therefore not necessarily scientifically correct. This is basic knowledge and every student of science knows that.

 

[Citizen X]

A theory is a not a scientific fact. Moro is wrong. Theories can be true only if proven through experimentation. Example Boyle Law states that the pressure of a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to its volume at a constant temperature. This is proven through experimentation in the lab and hence become a scientific law. Theories on the other hand are not as credible and can be proven wrong at a later stage !

Do jamata pard lenda te aaj tera eh haal na hounda.

 

[shujauddin]

Thats not true. Where did you get that information?

It's common knowledge in science and known by all students of science. I can give you some examples of theories that got rejected or superseded.

Here's a list of all those that are longer valid ! :

Biology

• Spontaneous generation – a principle regarding the spontaneous generation of complex life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). Falsified by an experiment by Louis Pasteur: where apparently spontaneous generation of microorganisms occurred, it did not happen on repeating the process without access to unfiltered air; on then opening the apparatus to the atmosphere, bacterial growth started.
• Transmutation of species, Lamarckism, inheritance of acquired characteristics – first theories of evolution. Not supported by experiment, and rendered obsolete by Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, though some elements of Lamarckian evolution are coming back in the area of epigenetics.
• Vitalism – the theory that living things are alive because of some "vital force" independent of matter, as opposed to because of some appropriate assembly of matter. It was gradually discredited by the rise of organic chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology, fields that failed to discover any "vital force". Friedrich Wöhler's synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate was only one step in a long road, not a great refutation.
• Maternal impression – the theory that the mother's thoughts created birth defects. No experimental support (a notion rather than a theory), and rendered obsolete by genetic theory (see also fetal origins of adult disease, genomic imprinting)
• Preformationism – the theory that all organisms have existed since the beginning of life, and that gametes contain a miniature but complete preformed individual, in the case of humans, a homunculus. No support when microscopy became available. Rendered obsolete by cytology, discovery of DNA, and atomic theory.
• Recapitulation theory – the theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". See Baer's laws of embryology.
• Telegony – the theory that an offspring can inherit characteristics from a previous mate of its mother's as well as its actual parents, often associated with racism.
• Out of Asia theory of human origin – The majority view is of a recent African origin of modern humans, although a multiregional origin of modern humans hypothesis has much support (which incorporates past evidence of Asian origins)
• Scientific racism – the theory that humanity consists of physically discrete superior or inferior races. Rendered obsolete by Human evolutionary genetics and modern anthropology.[2]
• Mendelian genetics, classical genetics, Boveri–Sutton chromosome theory – first genetic theories. Not invalidated as such, but subsumed into molecular genetics.
• Germ line theory, explained immunoglobulin diversity by proposing that each antibody was encoded in a separate germline gene.[3][4]

Chemistry

• Caloric theory – the theory that a self-repelling fluid called "caloric" was the substance of heat. Rendered obsolete by the mechanical theory of heat.
• Classical elements – All matter was once thought composed of various combinations of classical elements (most famously air, earth, fire, and water). Antoine Lavoisier finally refuted this in his 1789 publication, Elements of Chemistry, which contained the first modern list of chemical elements.
• Phlogiston theory – The theory that combustible goods contain a substance called "phlogiston" that entered air during combustion. Replaced by Lavoisier's work on oxidation
• Point 2 of Dalton's Atomic Theory was rendered obsolete by discovery of isotopes, and point 3 by discovery of subatomic particles and nuclear reactions.
• Vitalism – See section on biology.

Physics

• Emission theory of vision – the belief that vision is caused by rays emanating from the eyes was superseded by the intro-mission approach and more complex theories of vision
• Aristotelian physics – superseded by Newtonian physics
• Ptolemy's law of refraction, replaced by Snell's law
• Luminiferous aether – failed to be detected by the sufficiently sensitive Michelson-Morley experiment, made obsolete by Einstein's work.
• Caloric theory – Lavoisier's successor to phlogiston, discredited by Rumford's and Joule's work
• Contact tension – a theory on the source of electricity
• Vis viva – Gottfried Leibniz's elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy
• "Purely electrostatic" theories of the generation of voltage differences.
• Emitter theory – another now-obsolete theory of light propagation
• Balance of nature – superseded by catastrophe theory and chaos theory
• Progression of atomic theory
  • Democritus, the originator of atomic theory, held that everything is composed of atoms that are indestructible. His claim that atoms are indestructible is not the reason it is superseded—as it was later scientists who identified the concept of atoms with particles, which later science showed are destructible. Democritus' theory is superseded because of his position that several kinds of atoms explain pure materials like water or iron, and characteristics that science now identifies with molecules rather than with indestructible primary particles. Democritus also held that between atoms, an empty space of a different nature than atoms allowed atoms to move. This view on space and matter persisted until Einstein described spacetime as being relative and connected to matter.
  • John Dalton's model of the atom, which held that atoms are indivisible and indestructible (superseded by nuclear physics) and that all atoms of a given element are identical in mass (superseded by discovery of atomic isotopes).[5]
  • Plum pudding model of the atom—assuming the protons and electrons were mixed together in a single mass
  • Rutherford model of the atom with an impenetrable nucleus orbited by electrons
  • Bohr model with quantized orbits
  • Electron cloud model following the development of quantum mechanics in 1925 and the eventual atomic orbital models derived from the quantum mechanical solution to the hydrogen atom
• All of classical physics, including Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics. However, classical physics is a limiting case of the latter two theories, and it is often a very good approximation.

 

[shujauddin]

Do jamata pard lenda te aaj tera eh haal na hounda.

sorry not interested.

 

[shujauddin]

Thats not true. Where did you get that information?

more of rejected ones below :

Geology

• Abiogenic petroleum origin
• Catastrophism was largely replaced by uniformitarianism and neocatastrophism
• Cryptoexplosion craters, now discarded in favour of impact craters and ordinary volcanism.
• Flood geology replaced by modern geology and stratigraphy
• Neptunism replaced by plutonism and volcanism
• Granitization a discredited alternative to a magmatic origin of granites
• Monoglaciation
• Oscillation theory of land-level rise and subsidence during deglaciation
• The following were superseded by plate tectonics:
  • Elevation crater theory
  • Expanding Earth theory (superseded by subduction)
  • Contracting Earth
  • Geosyncline theory
  • Haarman's Oscillation theory
  • Various lost landmasses including Lemuria

Psychology[

• Pure behaviorist explanations for language acquisition in infancy, falsified by the study of cognitive adaptations for language.[8]
• Psychomotor patterning, a pseudoscientific approach to the treatment of intellectual disabilities, brain injury, learning disabilities, and other cognitive diseases.[9]

Medicine

• Theory of the four bodily humours (see also Four temperaments)
  • Heroic medicine – a therapeutic method derived from the belief in bodily humour imbalances as the cause of ailments.
• Miasma theory of disease – the theory that diseases are caused by "bad air". No experimental support, and rendered obsolete by the germ theory of disease.
• Phrenology – a theory of highly localised brain function popular in 19th century medicine.
• Homeopathy – a theory according to which a disease can be cured by infinitesimal doses of the substance that caused it
• Eclectic medicine – Transformed into alternative medicine, and is no longer considered a scientific theory
• Physiognomy, related to phrenology, held that inner character was strongly correlated with physical appearance
• Tooth worm, an erroneous theory of the cause of dental caries, periodontitis, and toothaches

 

[Vitamin_C]

Those are hypothesis and not theory.
Homeopathy is not even part of science. Its pseudo science.
Bro just do us both a favor and learn the proper definitions of theory, hypothesis, law and fact.

more of rejected ones below :

Geology

• Abiogenic petroleum origin
• Catastrophism was largely replaced by uniformitarianism and neocatastrophism
• Cryptoexplosion craters, now discarded in favour of impact craters and ordinary volcanism.
• Flood geology replaced by modern geology and stratigraphy
• Neptunism replaced by plutonism and volcanism
• Granitization a discredited alternative to a magmatic origin of granites
• Monoglaciation
• Oscillation theory of land-level rise and subsidence during deglaciation
• The following were superseded by plate tectonics:
  • Elevation crater theory
  • Expanding Earth theory (superseded by subduction)
  • Contracting Earth
  • Geosyncline theory
  • Haarman's Oscillation theory
  • Various lost landmasses including Lemuria

Psychology[

• Pure behaviorist explanations for language acquisition in infancy, falsified by the study of cognitive adaptations for language.[8]
• Psychomotor patterning, a pseudoscientific approach to the treatment of intellectual disabilities, brain injury, learning disabilities, and other cognitive diseases.[9]

Medicine

• Theory of the four bodily humours (see also Four temperaments)
  • Heroic medicine – a therapeutic method derived from the belief in bodily humour imbalances as the cause of ailments.
• Miasma theory of disease – the theory that diseases are caused by "bad air". No experimental support, and rendered obsolete by the germ theory of disease.
• Phrenology – a theory of highly localised brain function popular in 19th century medicine.
• Homeopathy – a theory according to which a disease can be cured by infinitesimal doses of the substance that caused it
• Eclectic medicine – Transformed into alternative medicine, and is no longer considered a scientific theory
• Physiognomy, related to phrenology, held that inner character was strongly correlated with physical appearance
• Tooth worm, an erroneous theory of the cause of dental caries, periodontitis, and toothaches

 

[shujauddin]

Those are hypothesis and not theory.
Homeopathy is not even part of science. Its pseudo science.
Bro just do us both a favor and learn the proper definitions of theory, hypothesis, law and fact.

now your are playing with words (going left n right). Lets leave it there and part our ways on this one. When we were kids , John Dalton , Rutherfords model etc were taught as theories in science and not hypothesis. I took you to the river now if you don't want to drink it then its your call and I am fine with it.

Bye for now.

 

[Vitamin_C]

If I ask to you to show me a tiger and you show me fish, thats not playing with words.

Thats you either not knowing a tiger is different from a fish or you being dishonest.

now your are playing with words (going left n right). Lets leave it there and part our ways on this one. When we were kids , John Dalton , Rutherfords model etc were taught as theories in science and not hypothesis. I took you to the river now if you don't want to drink it then its your call and I am fine with it.

Bye for now.

 

[shujauddin]

If I ask to you to show me a tiger and you show me fish, thats not playing with words.

Thats you either not knowing a tiger is different from a fish or you being dishonest.

I gave you a long list and this is what you come up with? fish and tiger lol. Lets depart my friend perhaps another time and on another topic.

 

[Vitamin_C]

I did not ask you for a laundry list. Your list does not contain a single Scientific theory that was completely over turned. It contains things like Homeopathy which is not even a science.

Other unscientific bullshit in your list are things like Heroic medicine. Are you being serious? The current scientific models was only adopted few centuries ago, why are you giving me examples from Aristotle time?

I am being reasonable but you are either dishonest or willfully ignorant.

I gave you a long list and this is what you come up with? fish and tiger lol. Lets depart my friend perhaps another time and on another topic.