This is like saying the pre-socratic Greek philosophers "discovered" the atom. Their "discovery" was just vague speculation.
Darwin didn't just say "evolution happens", he demonstrated it. Before him no one else demonstrated it.
Surely, a lot scholars speculated about evolution long before Darwin. One of them was Erasmus Darwin, Charles grandfather.
But that misses the whole point: no other scholar was able to embed a theory of evolution into the scientific body of knowledge. More than discovering it, Darwin's achievement was the clear and irrefutable formulation of it.
Charles Darwins big idea was natural selection, the mechanism by which evolution happens. It was not a new idea that species had evolved over time from common ancestors (Larmarck is well known for example), but nobody had suggested a plausible mechanism for how it worked before Darwin and Wallace.
And yet their speculation gave us the conceptual apparatus to make sense of the data that lead to the discovery. Science never operates in a vacuum.
It's also interesting to note that Darwin's theory had to be reformulated several times before it could match contemporary data. I'm talking specifically the Modern Synthesis (Darwin + Mendel) but also more contemporary syntheses such as Koonin, Huneman & Walsh, etc. [1]
This Twitter thread[1] from a professor specializing in Islamic thought debunks these claims and links to a paper making the counterargument in more detail[2].
The argument in this article is not at all surprising coming from the likes of VICE, Vox, Buzzfeed and co. There's a particular narrative they seem to want to advance regardless of how well-supported their positions are.
I'm currently reading "Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant and was struck by this even earlier reference to a process of evolution by natural selection:
> Empedocles (fl. 445 B.C., in Sicily) developed to a further stage the idea of evolution. Organs arise not by design but by selection. Nature makes many trials and experiments with organisms, combining organs variously; where the combination meets environmental needs the organism survives and perpetuates its like; where the combination fails, the organism is weeded out; as time goes on, organisms are more and more intricately and successfully adapted to their surroundings.
Durant, Will. Story of Philosophy (p. 82). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.
Just commenting to say that this is a great book, and I would gladly recommend it to anybody wanting a basic overview of western philosophy. I don't know or care if it's the most academically or historically nuanced analysis; I just enjoyed getting a synopsis of different philosophers' lives and ideas.
I find this article to be questionable, if not outright misleading and incongruent to the creed of Islam. For one, the quote from Ibn Khaldun (the only reputable individual mentioned, albeit briefly in this piece) is taken out of context and mistranslated.[1] Evidence suggests that what Ibn Khaldun was in fact making reference to (the concept of the celestial spheres/emanation) is antithetical to the theory of evolution or anything of its ilk. In fact, the passages that precede the quote that is referenced in this piece and others establish this evidence as clear. [2, pg. 137]
In investigating the remaining invididuals mentioned in this piece, it appears that not one of them is of a doctrinal pedigree similar to that of Ibn Khaldun's (who is what the general public would refer to as a Sunni Muslim). To juxtapose the label of "Islamic" next to the opinions of Mu'tazilites, "Neoplatonist" and Shiites in regard to the theories of evolution, natural selection, et cetera, does not spell for a valid argument from a purely traditional point of view. The likes of those mentioned in this article would be deemed heretic at the least and out of the fold of Islam entirely at the most.
This article is a product of the misappropriation and degradation of Islamic scholarship and history in academia and abroad for the sake of "pluralism" and "inclusiveness". It is unfortunate that Ibn Khaldun has to be shoehorned into these arguments. Anyone involved in these sort of studies would pain themselves to find reputable scholars of Sunni Islam propogating or inclining toward Darwinist thought to the degree of the aforementioned groups that are traditionally established to be deviated from the main stream.
I was excited to hear about this due to the golden age of science in the Arabic world, which was a high point of Arabic culture that has since then unfortunately declined. But wondering how the scholar was able to do this research despite Islam, it turns out that he made god responsible for the mutation, the animals just have a desire to adapt. The article makes it sound like that's a trivial difference to Darwin, but I think there are worlds in between.
I grew up in a Muslim country, unlike Christianity, Islam accepts scientific discoveries but attributes them to God instead. For instance, we were taught about the Big Bang in an Islamic Thinking class but the trick was that "God was responsible for it".
> I was excited to hear about this due to the golden age of science in the Arabic world, which was a high point of Arabic culture that has since then unfortunately declined.
Nitpick, but much of the golden age of science in the Islamic world was not performed by Arabs, but by other Muslims (central Asians, etc).
There is a verse in the Quran[1] about the origins of the universe and life:
And have not the ones who disbelieved seen that the heavens and the earth were an integrated (mass), then We unseamed them, and of water We have made every living thing? Would they then not believe?
Commentators observe that this verse at the same time lends support to the idea of the Big Bang, and the origins of life in water. Thus there is a lot of support for these theories among Muslims, including the idea of evolution of one kind or another.
I find it interesting that the story of "Genesis" in the Bible basically goes through the order of operations for how the universe formed (aside from a couple of the days out of order...but it is very close).
It does lean towards at least a reasonable assumption of what came first. Makes me think there was some sort of "knowledge" being encoded in the story that was attempting to teach the uneducated of the time.
It's easy to make post-hoc interpretations of these kinds of verses to make them fit anything.
The reality is that there is quite a lot evolution denialism in the Islamic world - which should suggest that there is nothing obviously pro-evolution in the Quran.
Well, all the religious versets regardless of the religion make sense and provide great insights in hindsight with enough "mental gymnstastics".
One can find spiritual and astronomical significations even in children's books. Just watch Ancient Aliens! They are gold in this regard!
Well Thousands of years before both Islamic scholars and Darwin, Evolution was beautiful described in Hinduism called "Dashavatharam".
It's even more important to note that many things in astronomy, science of many things, time period of planet Earth, eras of the Planet and how things will be, are described as well in the Vedas.
not sure why you were down voted. Vedas have their own share of BS, but they do deserve credits for some serious scientific thought process. As per Dashavatharam, God is initially fish, then turtle, boar, lion-human and the remaining incarnations are human. This kind of resembles evolutionary process starting with fish, followed by amphibian, mammal and finally human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashavatara
Similarly, there are many surprising facts in astronomy. They found only the 6 planets though. Every celestial body other than a star was called as planet.. so, they had navagrahas (9 planets which included sun, moon along with other planets).. and their perfect calculations of eclipses, planetary distances, etc is itself amazing.
So what's the precedent for rewriting the textbooks to reflect this new understanding? The ones that come to mind are Mendel, Democritus, Aristarchus of Samos.
Religions might accidentally guess the correct thing part of the time. But that would be despite the numerous examples of religions being extremely wrong most other times. Islam is no different. This feels like a massive stretch you'd expect from an apologist, not an actual scientist.
Or, more frequently, a religious text may contain a story or a statement which can be subjectively interpreted as representing a modern scientific truth.
I saw that old explanation "living things have an innate urge for survival" in there. Its not necessary at all, and diminishes the idea of natural selection.
Creatures/species don't get selected because of what they want. The ones that behave to avoid early death (before reproduction) are represented larger in the population. The makeup of the population shifts over time. That's it. That's about all. No need to imagine an urge.
Further, some (many) creatures die during reproduction. They have no urge for survival at all - just the opposite.
To go on, plants are subject to selection. Do they have urges too? Insects can hardly be attributed complex emotions - more like little robots. They are subject to selection, with no need for urges.
When a person gives nature human-like qualities it always seems to upset some people. Consider that the people that are most concerned at our poor treatment of environment probably do so in part because they see nature as an extension of themselves and give nature human-like emotions despite knowing it's definitely not "real".
The purpose of educators and writers giving animals etc. human qualities is intentional - it makes people more focused and concerned about losing nature and preventing the possible collapse of the environment's food chains, not about intentionally miseducating the public.
Being a Muslim this is very exciting read. I didn't know Muslims from that time were able to reach these conclusions at all. It's amazing.
I once read something by another Muslim around same time discussing atoms. I believed that to be fake but now after reading this. I am going to look it up again.
Attribution to God is cultural. It's done with literally everything (even to the food someone just made for you). As acceptance of the creator, it makes it very convenient to discuss nearly any subject while maintaining it.
Human and pigs have a common creator according to the Islamic view. Even via observation, we can see that humans and pigs are similar in that they both need to eat, breathe, sleep, excrete. Both have eyes, lungs, hearts, brains... Is there a loss of dignity or some sort of implied conflation because of shared properties?
2000 years before Darwin the presocratics were proposing evolution. 'Islamic' scholars where merely conquered philosophers continuing the Greek research.
Well there was Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia, but generally I don't think there's much of a correlation between socialism and a belief in or skepticism of evolution. Although Karl Marx himself was a big believer in Darwin's theory and wrote about it in glowing terms
Funnily enough in modern America conservatism is very heavily correlated with creationism and Intelligent Design, through the Republican alliance with fundamental Christians and the influence of the Discovery Institute. Frankly as a British conservative who grew up in the Reagan/Thatcher days I look at modern US Republicanism with a mix of bemusement and horror, but that's beside the point.
diego_moita|5 years ago
Darwin didn't just say "evolution happens", he demonstrated it. Before him no one else demonstrated it.
Surely, a lot scholars speculated about evolution long before Darwin. One of them was Erasmus Darwin, Charles grandfather.
But that misses the whole point: no other scholar was able to embed a theory of evolution into the scientific body of knowledge. More than discovering it, Darwin's achievement was the clear and irrefutable formulation of it.
goto11|5 years ago
ARandomerDude|5 years ago
Not really. He described the idea in greater detail, but he didn't demonstrate it. It's actually quite similar to the pre-Socratics in that way.
amriksohata|5 years ago
andrewjl|5 years ago
It's also interesting to note that Darwin's theory had to be reformulated several times before it could match contemporary data. I'm talking specifically the Modern Synthesis (Darwin + Mendel) but also more contemporary syntheses such as Koonin, Huneman & Walsh, etc. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis_(20th_century...
thaumasiotes|5 years ago
Not even Alfred Russell Wallace?
bausano_michael|5 years ago
peter303|5 years ago
aborsy|5 years ago
noncoml|5 years ago
themgt|5 years ago
[1] https://twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1314372114946895873
[2] https://www.academia.edu/39234303/Old_Texts_New_Masks_A_Crit...
8f2ab37a-ed6c|5 years ago
est31|5 years ago
steveridout|5 years ago
> Empedocles (fl. 445 B.C., in Sicily) developed to a further stage the idea of evolution. Organs arise not by design but by selection. Nature makes many trials and experiments with organisms, combining organs variously; where the combination meets environmental needs the organism survives and perpetuates its like; where the combination fails, the organism is weeded out; as time goes on, organisms are more and more intricately and successfully adapted to their surroundings.
Durant, Will. Story of Philosophy (p. 82). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.
silicon2401|5 years ago
techbio|5 years ago
markdog12|5 years ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Civilization
ibn_khaldun|5 years ago
In investigating the remaining invididuals mentioned in this piece, it appears that not one of them is of a doctrinal pedigree similar to that of Ibn Khaldun's (who is what the general public would refer to as a Sunni Muslim). To juxtapose the label of "Islamic" next to the opinions of Mu'tazilites, "Neoplatonist" and Shiites in regard to the theories of evolution, natural selection, et cetera, does not spell for a valid argument from a purely traditional point of view. The likes of those mentioned in this article would be deemed heretic at the least and out of the fold of Islam entirely at the most.
This article is a product of the misappropriation and degradation of Islamic scholarship and history in academia and abroad for the sake of "pluralism" and "inclusiveness". It is unfortunate that Ibn Khaldun has to be shoehorned into these arguments. Anyone involved in these sort of studies would pain themselves to find reputable scholars of Sunni Islam propogating or inclining toward Darwinist thought to the degree of the aforementioned groups that are traditionally established to be deviated from the main stream.
[1]: https://www.islamicboard.com/health-amp-science/134349270-ib... [2]: https://archive.org/details/ibn_khaldun-al_muqaddimah_201611
eddhead|5 years ago
https://www.academia.edu/39234303/Old_Texts_New_Masks_A_Crit...
notsureaboutpg|5 years ago
[deleted]
eska|5 years ago
iguy|5 years ago
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/10/07/did-arabs-come-up-...
curiousgal|5 years ago
BeetleB|5 years ago
Nitpick, but much of the golden age of science in the Islamic world was not performed by Arabs, but by other Muslims (central Asians, etc).
sfjailbird|5 years ago
And have not the ones who disbelieved seen that the heavens and the earth were an integrated (mass), then We unseamed them, and of water We have made every living thing? Would they then not believe?
Commentators observe that this verse at the same time lends support to the idea of the Big Bang, and the origins of life in water. Thus there is a lot of support for these theories among Muslims, including the idea of evolution of one kind or another.
[1] https://quran.com/21/30?translations=32,40,84,19,21,20,101,8...
Ccecil|5 years ago
macspoofing|5 years ago
The reality is that there is quite a lot evolution denialism in the Islamic world - which should suggest that there is nothing obviously pro-evolution in the Quran.
thefounder|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
ammaristotle|5 years ago
GreenHeuristics|5 years ago
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CptJLtvWcAAdIiS?format=jpg&name=...
AdamN|5 years ago
technotony|5 years ago
ksaj|5 years ago
Venkatesh10|5 years ago
It's even more important to note that many things in astronomy, science of many things, time period of planet Earth, eras of the Planet and how things will be, are described as well in the Vedas.
guru4consulting|5 years ago
Similarly, there are many surprising facts in astronomy. They found only the 6 planets though. Every celestial body other than a star was called as planet.. so, they had navagrahas (9 planets which included sun, moon along with other planets).. and their perfect calculations of eclipses, planetary distances, etc is itself amazing.
j4nt4b|5 years ago
wait_a_minute|5 years ago
duskwuff|5 years ago
JoeAltmaier|5 years ago
Creatures/species don't get selected because of what they want. The ones that behave to avoid early death (before reproduction) are represented larger in the population. The makeup of the population shifts over time. That's it. That's about all. No need to imagine an urge.
Further, some (many) creatures die during reproduction. They have no urge for survival at all - just the opposite.
To go on, plants are subject to selection. Do they have urges too? Insects can hardly be attributed complex emotions - more like little robots. They are subject to selection, with no need for urges.
No, its all a game of dice and happenstance.
skim_milk|5 years ago
The purpose of educators and writers giving animals etc. human qualities is intentional - it makes people more focused and concerned about losing nature and preventing the possible collapse of the environment's food chains, not about intentionally miseducating the public.
smusamashah|5 years ago
I once read something by another Muslim around same time discussing atoms. I believed that to be fake but now after reading this. I am going to look it up again.
Attribution to God is cultural. It's done with literally everything (even to the food someone just made for you). As acceptance of the creator, it makes it very convenient to discuss nearly any subject while maintaining it.
reactspa|5 years ago
RIP Science.
da39a3ee|5 years ago
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10...
amriksohata|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
jobigoud|5 years ago
omarchowdhury|5 years ago
What's your intention behind this question?
zbq|5 years ago
awinter-py|5 years ago
which isn't to say this came with a theory of natural selection
yters|5 years ago
t0mmyb0y|5 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
koreanguy|5 years ago
02020202|5 years ago
[deleted]
simonh|5 years ago
Funnily enough in modern America conservatism is very heavily correlated with creationism and Intelligent Design, through the Republican alliance with fundamental Christians and the influence of the Discovery Institute. Frankly as a British conservative who grew up in the Reagan/Thatcher days I look at modern US Republicanism with a mix of bemusement and horror, but that's beside the point.
justicezyx|5 years ago
asadlionpk|5 years ago
Nitpicking any theory in support of God's existence and not even consider any findings/research/point of view.
Isn't this plain ignorance?