What is wrong in believing that God almighty has created life through evolutionary process? I don't understand how "evolution" is contradictory to "creation". Creation depicts the overall end product while evolution signifies the methodology or mechanism of creation. For example, God in the Qur'an says "He sends rain". Now, it does not mean that He does so without a method based on a cause-and-effect chain.

So, "Creation" and "Evolution" are the manifestations of two Names of God almighty: al-Khaliq (The Creator) and Rabb (The Sustainer or Evolver), used in the Holy Qur'an.

There have been so many Muslim scholars who propounded the concept of evolutionary creation much before Darwin gave his views. The evolution as a "method of God" is in exact conformity with how the Qur'an looks at the creation. According to the Qur'an God is Rabb, that is , the one who brings into being a thing through an evolutionary process.

Mustafa Akyol: "It is good to see that Nature is taking a note of the universality of the argument from design (for God) and the cross-cultural implications of the modern theory of Intelligent Design."

Modern theory of what?

Phillip Johnson: "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world." (Michelangelo D’Agostino (Spring 2006). In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley. Berkeley Science Review 31-35.)

Johnson confesses that there isn't a real theory. Which "modern theory of intelligent design" you are talking about?

In 2006 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) produced a book entitled The Evolution Dialogues, Science, Christianity, And The Quest For Understanding. Written by Catherine Baker, the editor was James B. Miller.

The following excerpt appears in The Evolution Dialogues. It is a discussion between a student, a Muslim professor, a Rabbi, and a Christian theologian. In Chapter 8, Contemporary Stances Toward Evolution, pages 149 - 152, the dialogue with student Angela Rawlett continues:

Angela Rawlett stepped into the foyer of the campus ministry building just as her religious advisor Phil Compton was stepping out of his office. In one hand he held a coffee mug. With theother he held open the door for two people coming behind him. An attractive woman wearing a headscarf was followed by an intense looking older gentleman in a dark suit.

Phil smiled when he saw his student. "How nice that you happened to come by just now," he said. "I would like you to meet Dr. Fatima Ibrahim and Rabbi Jacob Weiner. They are partnering with me for next fall's senior seminar."

Angela shook hands with the two visitors. "Will you be a senior next year, Angela?" Dr. Ibrahim asked. "No," the student answered. "I'll just be a sophomore."

"Wat a terrible shame!" Rabbi Weiner exclaimed. "You won't be able to join our seminar. Perhaps we can make an exception?" He turned to Phil. Angela could not tell if he was serious or joking.

"It may not interest her." responded Phil.

"What's your topic?" asked Angela.

"The official title is 'Peoples of the Book: Points of Divergence and Convergence'" said Phil. "Basically, it is a dialogue. We will talk about what we have in common. Where we disagree, we will keep talking."

"There will be debate," said Rabbi Weiner.

"If history is our guide, there may be some heated exchanges," Phil said, adopting a conciliatory tone. "But that's assuming we have students of all three faiths registered in the course. We could end up with a conclave of Lutherans if we don't get this campus exchange going."

"Yes, I'll work on that at my end," noted the rabbi. "But even if we had a roomful of Presbybterians, you would have your heated exchanges."

Phil smiled in acknowledgement. He turned to Angela. "What brings you by?"

The student blushed slightly. "I didn't mean to interrupt you. I wanted to drop off a flier about something the biology department is sponsoring next week. Since you might be interested." She offered Phil a sheet of blue paper. He moved his coffee cup to his left hand so he could accept the paper with his right.

"'The Evolution of Life Elsewhere,'" Phil read aloud. "Sounds intriguingly speculative."

"Evolution," said Dr. Ibrahim, turning to the minister. "Now there's a topic that raises more fireworks in your community than it does in mine."

"Or mine," said Rabbi Weiner.

"Why is that?" asked Angela.

"The science does not conflict with our parable of creation," explained Dr. Abrahim.

The rabbi nodded his head. "Likewise. To the extent that the science helps inform interpretation of our sacred stories, we welcome it."

"There is a strain within the Christian tradition that strives toward certainty," added Phil. "Certainty demands literalism. Evolutionary theory and literal constructions of genesis are what make the fireworks."

"Evolution science raises new questions with every new finding," the Muslim professor noted. "That's how science works. Every scientific discovery begets new scientific questions and at the same time provokes new conceptualizations of our religious texts."

"I suppose some people find that spiritually energizing," said Angela. "But it can be very disturbing."

"What we all have in common," interjected Dr. Abrahim, "is that we are all seekers of the truth. Evolutionary theory does not fit the truth as it has been revealed to some people. Or at least, it does not seems to fit."

"It can be an ill-sized shoe, even for me," said Rabbi Weiner. "It's as real as leather, I know that, but it sometimes rubs against my heel."

The part of the entry germane to Islamic teaching ends here. The entry continues with a discussion between Angela and Phil, the Christian professor of theology.

One should consider that at one time Emil Fisher (or is it Fischer?), the inventor of organic chemistry, once said that there are no molecules with carbon chains greater than 40. Obviously biochemistry had not become a scientific theory at that time. It doesn't mean biochemistry didn't exist. It meant further research was needed.

My question for Muslims is as follows. When Dr. Abrahim says, "The science does not conflict with our parable of creation." etc etc, how accurate is this position?

Would the vast majority of Muslims consider this to be an accurate characterization of Muslim teaching?

I realize there are perhaps a spectrum of views within the Muslim world on any given topic, but surely only a small minority of Muslims are open to the idea of scientific materialism as the sole explanation for all of reality. The problem isn't that there isn't a Muslim to be found somewhere to agree with Dr. Abrahim. The problem is the AAAS is representing to the world that Dr. Abrahim's teaching is the primary view of the Muslim faith.

Inquiring minds want to know, "Isn't there a problem with this?"

As far as it can be determined, Dr. Abrahim is a fictional character, not a real Muslim spokes person. She represents nobody. Not a Muslim scientific organization. Not a Muslim theological organization. No even the man in the street. Yet here is the AAAS telling American Christians they (Christians) are too radical if they dare to dissent from materialism. And also that even Islam itself doesn't teach against materialism. Isn't this a bit deceptive? Or am I missing something?

When it comes to the relationship between Muslim theology and science, wouldn't it be best if this was be explained to the world by Muslims weighing in on the matter? Not by a materialism promoting organization such as the AAAS? This book was intended to be used in Christian Sunday School classes. It was written by liberal Christian theologians. It demonstrates what American liberal Christian teachers think of most God fearing Christians. And it also shows their view of the Muslim world.

Darwin, Evolution and God
By: Dr. Dildar Ahmed Alavi

The year 2009 marks the 200th birth anniversary of the great scientist Charles Darwin who was born on February 12, 1809, and, coincidently, the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species (published on 24 November 1859).
Charles Darwin is undoubtedly one of the most influential scientists of the modern times. Although many conservatives often use it in a derogatory sense, Darwinism, or even his name, has become synonymous with evolution. His work, or perhaps an interpretation of it, has influenced the Western way of thinking more than any other scientist’s. The matter of the fact, however, is that Charles Darwin is not the first person in the world history who propounded the idea of evolution. He is even not the first in Europe. The French naturalist Jean-Babtiste Lamarck (1744-1829), for example, had already given his theory of evolution called inheritance of acquired character. It is notable that generally people fail to distinguish between evolution as a concept and theories of evolution. The idea that all plants and animals (including humans) which we see around us today have gradually evolved from lower life forms in a long span of time (some 3.5 billion years) is accepted by almost all scientists – biologists, paleontologists, geologists, etc - of the world. This is almost taken as a reality. All biology text books are written with this concept taken as an obvious, as if self evident, fact. The roots of this concept go long into the history, and, for example, a number of outstanding Muslim intellectuals and thinkers from the Middle Ages through the present, shared this idea in one form or the other. The idea of evolution is now not limited to the living world only. The whole universe is thought to have been evolved gradually in billions of years, the process that is still going one.
But, how has organic evolution, the evolution of living things, taken place? This is the subject-matter of the theories of evolution. Darwin’s work, like that of Lamarck, does not primarily concern with evolution as a concept which as we have seen is an old idea, but with its explanation. He put forward the theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest to explain how evolution of plants and animals has taken place through ages. Opposed to the concept of evolution is idea of special creation which says that all the species of plants and animals have been created in the forms they have today. Species are immutable: one cannot transform into another. Scientists and intellectuals generally do not accept this.
Evolution is also sometimes confused with the denial of God, which has nothing to do with reality. Science as we know does not deal with the question who has created the world. It simply tends to know how it has come into existence, and how it behaves. And, it is what science possibly can, and should, do. God almighty could have created the life forms through special creation, bringing into being all species separately, or He could have brought them into being through an evolutionary process. A great number of facts have been presented to support the latter idea. The believers in God can thus take evolution as process or method He has chosen to create living things. Coming into existence of things according to some mechanism does not disprove the existence of a Creator, whose will operates in the universe through laws of nature which none but He himself has established. One can even further argue that the existence of a system itself is an evidence of the existence of God almighty. In fact, evolution gives an explanation of how God has brought into being the living organisms. Sometime people regard evolution as contrary to human dignity. “God has created man in His own image, how could he be evolved from lower forms”, or “man is the vice-regent (khalifa) of God, evolution would place him among animals”. Such are the voices we often listen. The lowly history of his creation, however, does not negate man’s special status. Our well known humble origin as individuals, for instance, does not degrade our worth as intellectual, moral beings. It is the final state and not the history or process, of coming into existence of a being that determines its position. Although he had stopped believing in the religion, Charles Darwin, as research has revealed, was not an atheist. He was a true scientist and a seeker of truth. His thoughts have even helped us in understanding scientifically how God’s will operates in the universe. In the famous words of Albert Einstein, God does not play dice. His will, or irada in Arabic, does not act haphazardly. He is not a magic man or a juggler, but omniscient, omnipotent (al-Hakim, al-Qadir, al-Khabir) Sustainer (al-Rabb – the Evolver) of the cosmos who created and still continues to create things through a system.
Charles Darwin(died on April 19, 1882)’s contributions to science and learning will hopefully continue influencing human thought pattern for long time to come.
(The writer is an Associate Professor in Forman Christian College University Lahore)