1000 Years Before Darwin, Islamic Scholars Were Writing About Natural Selection

This is like saying the pre-socratic Greek philosophers &quot;discovered&quot; the atom. Their &quot;discovery&quot; was just vague speculation.<p>Darwin didn&#x27;t just say &quot;evolution happens&quot;, he demonstrated it. Before him no one else demonstrated it.<p>Surely, a lot scholars speculated about evolution long before Darwin. One of them was Erasmus Darwin, Charles grandfather.<p>But that misses the whole point: no other scholar was able to embed a theory of evolution into the scientific body of knowledge. More than discovering it, Darwin&#x27;s achievement was the clear and irrefutable formulation of it.

This Twitter thread[1] from a professor specializing in Islamic thought debunks these claims and links to a paper making the counterargument in more detail[2].<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;shahanSean&#x2F;status&#x2F;1314372114946895873" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;shahanSean&#x2F;status&#x2F;1314372114946895873</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.academia.edu&#x2F;39234303&#x2F;Old_Texts_New_Masks_A_Critical_Review_of_Misreading_Evolution_Onto_Historical_Islamic_Texts" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.academia.edu&#x2F;39234303&#x2F;Old_Texts_New_Masks_A_Crit...</a>

I&#x27;m currently reading &quot;Story of Philosophy&quot; by Will Durant and was struck by this even earlier reference to a process of evolution by natural selection:<p>&gt; Empedocles (fl. 445 B.C., in Sicily) developed to a further stage the idea of evolution. Organs arise not by design but by selection. Nature makes many trials and experiments with organisms, combining organs variously; where the combination meets environmental needs the organism survives and perpetuates its like; where the combination fails, the organism is weeded out; as time goes on, organisms are more and more intricately and successfully adapted to their surroundings.<p>Durant, Will. Story of Philosophy (p. 82). Simon &amp; Schuster. Kindle Edition.

I find this article to be questionable, if not outright misleading and incongruent to the creed of Islam. For one, the quote from Ibn Khaldun (the only reputable individual mentioned, albeit briefly in this piece) is taken out of context and mistranslated.[1] Evidence suggests that what Ibn Khaldun was in fact making reference to (the concept of the celestial spheres&#x2F;emanation) is antithetical to the theory of evolution or anything of its ilk. In fact, the passages that precede the quote that is referenced in this piece and others establish this evidence as clear. [2, pg. 137]<p>In investigating the remaining invididuals mentioned in this piece, it appears that not one of them is of a doctrinal pedigree similar to that of Ibn Khaldun&#x27;s (who is what the general public would refer to as a Sunni Muslim). To juxtapose the label of &quot;Islamic&quot; next to the opinions of Mu&#x27;tazilites, &quot;Neoplatonist&quot; and Shiites in regard to the theories of evolution, natural selection, et cetera, does not spell for a valid argument from a purely traditional point of view. The likes of those mentioned in this article would be deemed heretic at the least and out of the fold of Islam entirely at the most.<p>This article is a product of the misappropriation and degradation of Islamic scholarship and history in academia and abroad for the sake of &quot;pluralism&quot; and &quot;inclusiveness&quot;. It is unfortunate that Ibn Khaldun has to be shoehorned into these arguments. Anyone involved in these sort of studies would pain themselves to find reputable scholars of Sunni Islam propogating or inclining toward Darwinist thought to the degree of the aforementioned groups that are traditionally established to be deviated from the main stream.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.islamicboard.com&#x2F;health-amp-science&#x2F;134349270-ibn-khaldun-evolution-theory.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.islamicboard.com&#x2F;health-amp-science&#x2F;134349270-ib...</a> [2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;ibn_khaldun-al_muqaddimah_201611" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;ibn_khaldun-al_muqaddimah_201611</a>

I was excited to hear about this due to the golden age of science in the Arabic world, which was a high point of Arabic culture that has since then unfortunately declined. But wondering how the scholar was able to do this research despite Islam, it turns out that he made god responsible for the mutation, the animals just have a desire to adapt. The article makes it sound like that&#x27;s a trivial difference to Darwin, but I think there are worlds in between.

There is a verse in the Quran[1] about the origins of the universe and life:<p><i>And have not the ones who disbelieved seen that the heavens and the earth were an integrated (mass), then We unseamed them, and of water We have made every living thing? Would they then not believe?</i><p>Commentators observe that this verse at the same time lends support to the idea of the Big Bang, and the origins of life in water. Thus there is a lot of support for these theories among Muslims, including the idea of evolution of one kind or another.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;quran.com&#x2F;21&#x2F;30?translations=32,40,84,19,21,20,101,85,22,18,17,95" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;quran.com&#x2F;21&#x2F;30?translations=32,40,84,19,21,20,101,8...</a>

This Twitter thread <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;shahansean&#x2F;status&#x2F;1314372114946895873" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;shahansean&#x2F;status&#x2F;1314372114946895873</a> seems to do a good job explaining why this Vice article contains numerous misconceptions

Here is Aristotle describing evolution through natural selection some 1300 years before that (in Physics book 2).<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pbs.twimg.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;CptJLtvWcAAdIiS?format=jpg&amp;name=large" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pbs.twimg.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;CptJLtvWcAAdIiS?format=jpg&amp;name=...</a>

Wouldn&#x27;t it be more correct to refer to Al-Jahiz as an Arab scholar? It&#x27;s not like we call Darwin a Christian scholar.

It&#x27;s not just having the theory, Darwin&#x27;s contribution was collecting data to prove his theory.

Well Thousands of years before both Islamic scholars and Darwin, Evolution was beautiful described in Hinduism called &quot;Dashavatharam&quot;.<p>It&#x27;s even more important to note that many things in astronomy, science of many things, time period of planet Earth, eras of the Planet and how things will be, are described as well in the Vedas.

So what&#x27;s the precedent for rewriting the textbooks to reflect this new understanding? The ones that come to mind are Mendel, Democritus, Aristarchus of Samos.

Religions might accidentally guess the correct thing part of the time. But that would be despite the numerous examples of religions being extremely wrong most other times. Islam is no different. This feels like a massive stretch you&#x27;d expect from an apologist, not an actual scientist.

I saw that old explanation &quot;living things have an innate urge for survival&quot; in there. Its not necessary at all, and diminishes the idea of natural selection.<p>Creatures&#x2F;species don&#x27;t get selected because of what they want. The ones that behave to avoid early death (before reproduction) are represented larger in the population. The makeup of the population shifts over time. That&#x27;s it. That&#x27;s about all. No need to imagine an urge.<p>Further, some (many) creatures die during reproduction. They have no urge for survival at all - just the opposite.<p>To go on, plants are subject to selection. Do they have urges too? Insects can hardly be attributed complex emotions - more like little robots. They are subject to selection, with no need for urges.<p>No, its all a game of dice and happenstance.

Being a Muslim this is very exciting read. I didn&#x27;t know Muslims from that time were able to reach these conclusions at all. It&#x27;s amazing.<p>I once read something by another Muslim around same time discussing atoms. I believed that to be fake but now after reading this. I am going to look it up again.<p>Attribution to God is cultural. It&#x27;s done with literally everything (even to the food someone just made for you). As acceptance of the creator, it makes it very convenient to discuss nearly any subject while maintaining it.

&quot;She refused to accept the scientific theory until she learned that a proponent of the scientific theory was a Muslim like herself.&quot;<p>RIP Science.

The actual research paper is here:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sci-hub.se&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tandfonline.com&#x2F;doi&#x2F;abs&#x2F;10.1080&#x2F;00219266.2016.1268190?journalCode=rjbe20" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sci-hub.se&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tandfonline.com&#x2F;doi&#x2F;abs&#x2F;10.10...</a>

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newscientist.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;mg20126921-600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newscientist.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;mg20126921-600-why-darw...</a>

Did they follow the reasoning to the conclusion that humans and pigs have a common ancestor? Is this accepted by modern Islam?

If this surprises you, you’re going to be shocked about Gutenberg, Columbus, and Benjamin Franklin.

georges cuvier got fossil specimens as well as theories of their origins from native americans<p>which isn&#x27;t to say this came with a theory of natural selection

2000 years before Darwin the presocratics were proposing evolution. &#x27;Islamic&#x27; scholars where merely conquered philosophers continuing the Greek research.

1000 years ago Islam didn&#x27;t exist

It&#x27;s sad to see open hatred towards Islam (and religion in general) on my favorite <i>Hacker</i> forum.<p>Nitpicking any theory in support of God&#x27;s existence and not even consider any findings&#x2F;research&#x2F;point of view.<p>Isn&#x27;t this plain ignorance?