Evolving Islam? In contrast to their forebears, modern Muslims have a childlike view of science, especially evolution.

This needs to change began the opening lines of a piece written by Usama Hassan, founder of the City Circle in the Guardian. He argues that Muslims should move on from their children's madrasa-level understanding of creation before going on to champion the theory that man evolved from apes using extracts from evolutionist Richard Dawkins. He goes on to describe the obstacles that are hindering the Muslim community from absorbing these theories are publications such as the ones produced by 'fundamentalist' Muslims like Harun Yahya. Fundamentalist? Why use such a taxing term? At most, the likes of Usama Hassan can only claim that Harun Yahya's engagement with the scientific discourse was simplistic and unsuccessful at forwarding a case against the theory of evolution. He is hardly worthy of the 'extremist' label so easily meted out these days. But, does that mean Muslims should blindly accept criticism from secular scientists and modify Islamic doctrines? I think not. We should ask then, why does there seem to be a mindset amongst modern theologians such as Usama Hassan to adopt baselessscientific theories into Islamic scriptures? It is only when we delve briefly into history, are we then able to appreciate the reasons behind the success of Darwinism in the first place and how their success is intrinsically linked to a specific European problem. The problem? The clash between the Catholic Church and the people who carried ideas that was incongruous with the Churchs doctrine and philosophy. The medieval Catholic Church never recognised other dogmas and beliefs regardless of their rational merit. It frequently persecuted those who sought to promulgate non-Catholic ideas and practices in the public square. The horror of the huge scale of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity resulted in the formation of several parties to bring about reconciliation. It is in this climate where new understandings of law lead to the philosophical basis for Liberalism. This meant that Gods perceived will for society was separated away from the rights of a human being. In this new climate, the young Charles Darwin arrived with his theory - to the delight of European secularists. Finally, despite the limited technological atmosphere and flimsy foundations from which the theory emerged, there seemed to be an alternative to the Adam and Eve narrative. Ironic then, that after a long battle to prevent a clergy system imposing unfounded ideas on the masses, the opposition began to do exactly the same under the guise of science!

It is no surprise then when we read famous evolutionists, bringing attention to this point: "Evolution is unproved and improvable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." Sir Arthur Keith "We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports the story of gradual adaptive change, all the while really knowing that it does not." - Dr. Niles Eldredge [World-famous palaeontologist of the American Museum of Natural History] Or the fact that Darwin himself admitted: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." [Charles Darwin, 1902 edition] Despite this, in order to stay relevant, the fall of the Church meant that it was now resigned to accommodate unsubstantiated assumptions by western thinkers. It seemed as if the Church was now impulsively looking to banish all memories of its insecurities it felt from valid observations of the past paradoxically, by adopting all invalid observations of the present! The Islamic Caliphate on the other hand, did not carry this historical baggage that the West was carrying. In fact, it is well known that astronomy, mathematics and medicine amongst other fields flourished vastly under the Islamic doctrine there was never a conflict between promising new scientific ideas that had a proven intellectual basis and the Deen. All scientific theories subject to scrutiny, their adoption based on their conceptual integrity. So why should we now attempt to incorporate deficient theories into the verses of the Quran? It is unfortunate that Usama Hasan seems to be carrying the apologetic stance of the Church and is obliging the Muslims to unreasoningly accept anything that comes out of the ever-changing scientific realm! Thanks but no thanks.