I belive in those too. But i have not found evidence that islam denies that notion, and islam says we should study the secrets and wonders of the world, and science is a objective mechanism that works in that direction. The first man that came up with the scientific method was a muslims, islam made people more more rational, and humans became more intelligent in their thought patterns and used certain teqnuices to explore science to explain the natural world. There is currently no concensus on how compatible it is, but in the islamic community it varies from person to person. I mean, certain elements in darwinian evolution is disputable, but natural selection is a fact. And not all evolutionary biologist is a darwinist, so there is a lot of space to argue on what is true and what is not. But what im definently saying is, if you flat out deny all the parts of evolution, then you are ignoring many facts that has been proven through objective observations and experimentations that corresponds with the first hypothesis.
But there is many aspects of darwinian evolution which are higly questionable, and thus the theory itself is not a perfect scientiffic theory. But there are other evolutionary theories that also explains these phenomenons.
Homology is an assumption that the similarites is due to common descent. If you say that similiarities are due to common descent, and you say "hey, look there exist similarieties", and therefore it is due to common decent. And that is a wrong circular argument. And homology is one of the main thing in darwins theory which is all these similiarieties are due to common decent, but that fundation cannot be proven in of itself. Evolunionary biologist don't really use this argument, but populist do. It is an assumption, which means that the whole theory's fundation are un-proovablen. So we need to divorced evolution and darwinian evolution. It like if i ask, "is there a doctor in the house, we need a doctor" and there is a person that has a PHD in philosphy. It's not the same thing and you can't compare a doctor in medicine to doctor in philosophy. That is a fallacy of equivocation that the darwinist have beein doing. They're saying "look evolution is true, the cells are dividing, they're doing this, bacteria and micro biology, antibiotic medicine" and they use that to extrapolate to human chimp anscetry which is a fallacy of equivocation. The first asumption is naturalism, which says even if we don't find fosils of human link to the chimps, it would still be true due to natrualistic explanation. Second assumption is homology, third asumption is there is only one origin, which means everything has to be put together a dog, a human, a tree and a blade of grass because of the assumption of one origin. And the fourth assumption, even if the three previous assumptions didn't exist, this is the most fundamental assumption and the most challenged: to get from A to Z, we need a mechanism and that is natural selection. If the mechanism fails, the history fails. Imagine there is a bridge, and you've got two structures on the both sides, and you've got a beam across. These structures are the mechanism of natural selection, and the tree of life is the trajecotry (the beam). if these structures break, the tree breaks. The mechanism is being challenged by mainstream academics by other alternatives like evolution by self-organization, neo-mutationism, neo-lamarckism and there is also evolution by natural genetic engineering. These alternative are very fringe theories, but epistemically, something may be fringe, but epistemically equal.
The data that we have in front of us, can be interpreted in a range of different ways, and if we want to stick to the more fine structure of darwininan evolution, then we would want to create a line of best fit, you would actually see many dots on the scatter graph, it would not be a straight line. So the darwinian evolution has many recalcitrant facts, which is facts that resist the theory. We have recalcitrant facts in genetics, the fosil records on punctuated equilibrium, saltation evolution and random mutations in terms of natural genetic engineering, which means that the darwinist theory is not the only theory that is congruence. So you can come up with other theories besides that.
The darwinian evolution is a valid scientiffic theory and paradigm, but people often conflate science with truth. Science gives you workable models about reality, wich are falsified. It does not give you truth, but it keeps changing, it keeps evolving as we get new data. The same data can thus point to multiple conclusions. As a muslim i would believe it to be a valid theory, plausible theory, im not saying it's impossible, but it is not absolutely true.
Ehhm the titile is wrong it should say Cadan man saying goodbye to his bantu freind
