darwin

In addition to biology, the theory of "evolution" created a huge revolution in various fields such as worldview and ethics. Darwin did not seek theological and philosophical conclusions of evolution, but his view became the basis for an atheistic interpretation of creation, which was based on the random formation of the order of the world. At the same time, theists and supporters of the "intelligent design" theory, with different modeling, show the astonishing insignificance of the possibility of random evolution and even its impossibility. The central issue of this article is to investigate the possibility of random formation of information in the DNA of organisms in the modern evolutionary synthesis. The current research is focused on the problems of the random creation of genetic information with the method of systematic and descriptive analysis and with the analytical statement of the stages of the evolution theory, and by critically examining the latest readings of evolution in the Western world, while rereading the "logical" and "psychological" certainty, it presents an innovative explanation of "cumulative reasoning" through which the logical certainty of the existence of a supreme origin and "intelligent design" beyond the wonderful order of the universe is proven. In fact, this essay examines the theological and philosophical elements of evolution.

One of the challenging instances of the confrontation between tradition and modernity is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Traditional critics of the theory of evolution generally point to Lamarck and Darwin’s drawbacks from the perspective of biologists and conclude that the theory of evolution is wrong. In the philosophical-theological circles of Iran, Neo-Darwinism has been neglected. Criticism of the theory of evolution by deliberately neglecting Neo-Darwinism deceives the researcher into the fallacy of attacking the straw man. This article is written to eliminate this shortcoming. To narrow the scope of the research topic, Neo-Darwinism has been compared with Mullā Ṣadrā’s views. In this article, after a brief historical account of the evolutional approaches to human creation, Ṣadrā’s view on the human generation is presented and the two opinions are compared in different parts of the article. By explaining the criteria of Mullā Ṣadrā and Neo-Darwinists about the origin of man, the present study came to this main conclusion that these two ideas are compatible in material (natural) aspects but are different in trans-material aspects. This difference, however, does not lead to the contradiction between the two views. The paper uses the descriptive-analytical library research method.

According to methodological naturalism, in scientific explanation we can only appeal to natural laws, forces and entities, without assuming any role for supernatural entities and parameters. Philosophical naturalism is an ontological view according to which there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and physical entities. To justify their views, naturalists usually use Darwin's theory of evolution and extend its domain over all phenomena. In this paper, we will explain Daniel Dennett's views on these issues and critically evaluate his arguments. Then, Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism will be discussed. The conclusion of the paper is that ontological naturalism is not a correct and tenable opinion.

Mohammad Shahrour and Allameh Tabatabai have been careful not to ignore the scientific theories in their interpretation of the holy Quran. The Darwinian evolution theory, which has been accepted by biologists, has taken the attention of these two commentators. The main idea of the theory of evolution, the gradual creation and derivation of living things from the same ancestors, dates back to ancient Greek. This idea and its alternative, that is, “stability of species” had been introduced to scientific circles before the decent of the holy Quran. The present paper is a comparative study of the way the theory of human evolution has been viewed by Allameh Tabatabai and Mohammad Shahrour in the interpretation of Quranic verses. According to Allameh Tabatabai, although it is stipulated in the verses of the holy Qur'an that human beings are traced back to Adam and Eve, this is subject to interpretation. The most explicit evidence referred to by Allameh Tabatabai is the analogy drawn between Jesus (pbuh) and Adam (pbuh) in the holy Qur'an. Nevertheless, it is not certain that the analogy is based on lack of father. Historical evidence shows that the point of similarity is the fact that both are human beings created by God. Believing in no contradiction, Shahrour tries to reconcile the difference, but in some cases his attempts are overshadowed with formalities. He believes that the blowing of the soul in Adam (pbuh) is a turning point that marks the beginning of emergence of contemporary man.

Initially, Charles Darwin put forward the ‘evolution theory’ as a biological theory in the scientific world. This sort of viewing the universe was not void of metaphysical results and had a great impact on humanities. Indeed, its effect on humanities was even more than its effect on biology. This study presents a report of evolution theory, its effect on anthropological foundations of humanities in five spheres, human’s truth, human’s status in the existence system, human’s will and liberty, human’s ultimate perfection and human’s creation to investigate them and show that the anthropological foundations of humanities emerged from the evolutionary view of the universe is not consistent with the anthropological foundations of Islamic humanities we support.

The Darwinian evolution hypothesis has always been contested by experts in the field of science and religion. In the meantime, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli assesses this hypothesis, relying on the rational foundations including essentiality of existence, gradationality of existence, substantial movement along with exegetic foundations such as the creation of the first human being from earthly elements and gradual state of human creation. The problem of this article is to analyze Darwin's theory based on Ayatollah Javadi Amoli's criticism in three fields of ontology, epistemology and linguistics by descriptive method. The most important approaches of this paper are: (in the field of ontology) impossibility of the causality of contradiction for movement, impossibility of an object as being the cause of movement, lack of a goal in perfectual movement, rational and empirical refusal of any revolution in human nature, epistemology`s state of not being limited to sensation, emperical findings` invalidity in the case of non emperical cases of knowledge and non equality between the value of emperical statements and rational ones. And finally, in the field of linguistics, a confusion of the cases of non-certainty with those of certainty and the Quranic refusal of Darwinian theory in the case of the first human being`s creation.

Many biologists believe that evolution is grant theory in modernbiology. Believing on the centrality of evolutionary theory to the rest ofbiology is a special case of a more general idea: nothing in biology canbe understood completely without attending to its history. According tothis idea, we should regard biology as a historical science rather than anomothetic one. But it may be supposed that as physics have beenchanged from a historical to nomothetic science, biology should also bechanged to a more “accurate” science; that is, a nomothetic science. Inthis essay, I try to reject this idea by presenting some historicalevidences to show that it is not because of evolutionary theory thatbiology is historical.

Darwin’s view on science was different from his inductivistcontemporaries. After a glimpse to this difference, in section one hisfirst three geological hypotheses will be refered. We could see therethat how did he understand that analoy cannot provide any proof for atheory. Section two is devoted to Darwin’s argument(s) in the origin ofspecies. We find there that his scientific method is in accordance withcritical rationalism.