Islam:

The phrase “science does not contradict Islam” is often tossed around by Muslims, but how accurate is it?

When dealing with Islam, it’s difficult for me to generalize. I humbly offer my opinion of the major beliefs regarding science and evolution: Any mistakes are my own and any benefits are due to God’s grace.

The premise that the rise of the scientific age needs to be addressed by Islam is laughable by presuming science is a threat. Muslim scientists and scholars were at the forefront of learning and laid the foundation of the scientific revolution.

The heart of the scientific method — experimentation — was formalized by Muslim scientists in the 10th and 11th centuries by figures such as ibn Al-Haytha, the father of optics. Theologian Al-Haytham cited the Quran as inspiration for his work and desire to be objective.

This leads to an important point: Islamic tradition encourages the pursuit of knowledge, and verses in the Quran support skepticism: “And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that,” (chapter 17, verse 36).

The injunctive to seek knowledge and the geographic qualities of the Muslim world, a crossroads of civilization, led to a rapid expansion in all types of learning and the golden age of Muslim science, which lasted from the eighth and 13th centuries, and later transferred to Europe.

The level of debate with evolution versus intelligent design has not reached the same intensity in Muslim discourse as it has in the West. As one Muslim scholar commented, this isn’t our debate and is more of reconciliation for science and Christian theology than Muslim theology. But the issue from the Islamic perspective is growing more prominent.

The basis of Muslim understanding comes from our belief that God created everything, and that every discreet physical phenomenon exists and occurs only because God wills it to happen: It is God’s prerogative to suspend or change it as he wills.

Most Muslims believe that the Quran can be allegorical, such as the belief that God created the universe in six days, a “day” being an epoch. This gives more flexibility to Islam than to Christian creationism.

This allegorical nature has allowed scholars such as Maurice Bucaille to use creation verses from the Quran to support the Big Bang theory, the tectonic plate theory and the idea that life came from the ocean.

Because Islamic discourse is so wide, there are different opinions where evolution is concerned. The majority of Muslims believe that evolution exists and is one of the ways God fashions the world, except with human evolution. Their reasoning is that there is nothing against animal evolution in the Quran, and there may be support for it in Quranic verses.

Most Muslims are adamantly against the concept of human evolution. Their justification comes from the verses in the Quran where God speaks about creating Adam and Eve from clay or dust, and giving humans reason.

Other Muslims look at these verses and interpret them allegorically, arguing that near-humans evolved, but it was only when God bestowed a spirit upon a pair of them that Adam and Eve became the first humans. The other view includes Muslims who reject the concept of evolution.

Regardless of where we come from, we can agree that we have achieved more than other beings on Earth. But we’re also in the unenviable position of trashing our planet, and unless we get our act together, our questions of origin becomes moot.

[Reach columnist Zakariya Dehlawi at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]

Judaism:

Let me start by saying that I don’t represent all Jews. I have had 12 years of Jewish education, and I’m neither a scientist nor a scholar, but I can give you some insight into both worlds. The beauty of Judaism is that it doesn’t require a leap of faith; Torah learning is about questioning, knowledge and making sense of the world around us.

Belief in a creator and science are not exclusive. In Genesis, a gradual process is described: first, a mass of swirling gases, followed by plants, animals and then humans: the same evolutionary process described by science. The Torah refers to a “day” before the creation of the sun; at that point there was no 24-hour period known as a day. Maimonides, one of the greatest Jewish thinkers of all time, thought that within certain parameters a non-literal understanding of the Torah is OK when a literal one goes against reason. Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, a Jewish scholar, explains that a Biblical day represents a mix of raw materials followed by bursts of development. The six days are epochs: The Torah view has always been the same, and science has come to match it.

Albert Einstein’‘s theory of general relativity only works if the universe is expanding in all directions at high speed. Previously, there were three theories:

— a static universe, one that may or may not have been created by G-d

— an oscillating universe, one that expands and contracts, a universe that could have also existed without G-d

— an open universe, one that expands and never implodes. This theory begged the question of how the universe began.

General relativity was the first step in proving that the universe wasn’t static. Edwin Hubble found more evidence for an expanding universe. Using the largest telescope in the world, he found that every galaxy within 100 million light years of the Earth was receding.

In 1955, scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were testing a microwave detector and heard a background noise, a steady 3K “hum.” After further study, they found that this noise was coming from outside the Earth’s atmosphere and was heard in every corner of the universe: the “echo” of the Big Bang. This led to interest in other predictions based on relativity. Because of the hot temperatures in the moments after the Big Bang, the universe should be made up of 75 percent hydrogen and 25 percent helium. This was also confirmed, further undermining the idea of a static universe.

But will the universe explode only once or will it explode an infinite number of times? This could be determined by the universe’s average density. In 1986, Stephen Hawking confirmed these studies. Fifteen years of research found that the numbers were much smaller than necessary for the universe to collapse, ruling out an oscillating universe.

Scientists were skeptical. As Hawking put it, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” Why would a dot containing all matter and energy, one that sat quietly for eternity, suddenly explode? There isn’t a natural explanation. G-d created the world and established nature’s system. This is not to say that G-d created the world and then left it. Rabbi Yehuda Halevi writes that the world only exists because of G-d’s presence.

Scientists such as Hawking were searching for truth, just as those learning the Torah are searching for it, and they came to the same conclusion. Judaism doesn’t deny science, but embraces it in order to grow closer to G-d.

[Reach columnist Natalie Sikavi at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]

Christianity

When I was in junior high, I jumped on the creation science bandwagon. I bought a bunch of poorly designed books and listened to lectures dedicated to explaining away basic evolution arguments.

The ironic part about most of creation science is that it doesn’t do any “real” science — it just questions the work already done by evolutionists.

Their persistence, however, is like ants in a California ghetto, which is probably why so many science professors take a magnifying glass to not just them, but all Christians.

When I first started taking college classes, I argued with everything and conceded nothing.

After a while, I realized our debates had little to do with finding truth, and everything to do with proving who was smarter. At times I sensed I didn’t even care, as long as I won.

In my pride, I thought if I could prove evolution was a farce, people would suddenly want to know Jesus. Looking back, I loathe every one of those debates.

Evolution hasn’t kept people from God. People do that well enough without science, and creationism hasn’t brought anyone closer to knowing Jesus — only he has.

The problem with a Protestant accepting evolution is that it assumes a doctrine that denies the truthfulness of scripture.

Catholics don’t struggle as much, because they have the pope to direct them, but most Protestants believe in reformer Martin Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura, translated to “scripture alone,” as authority in the church. Basically, the Bible would become an open document, the Gospel would change to a point of no recognition, and people would cling to a belief that is no closer to saving them than science.

Can a person be a Christian and an evolutionist? I haven’t a clue, and I’d condemn myself to guess. I don’t do the saving — Jesus does. I find that the general attitude of students in the classroom is to cling to the more qualified person or to the scientific “facts.” This works pretty well in school but looks little like real life.

The apostle John talked about how Jesus took a couple loaves of bread and a few fish and multiplied it so that it fed thousands. After the miracle, Jesus took off in a boat, and the disciples followed him.

When they found Jesus, he said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled”(John 6:26).

When I fully grasped this scripture, I was struggling with doubt. I realized that some of the best, most convincing arguments don’t always translate into Truth.

So if I can’t trust the conclusions and arguments that sound the best, I believe not because I saw or heard how Jesus is alive — I believe because I took some fish and bread, I ate (and no matter my circumstances) and I am continually filled — that’s about as empirical as it gets.

[Reach columnist Celeste Flint at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]