Challenges and Opportunities in Teaching Interdisciplinary Courses on Islam and Evolution: A Theology-Centric Perspective

In the nascent discourse of Islam and science, the discussion of how to reconcile evolution with Islam is one of the most, if not the most, pressing concerns. This article reviews the various studies that have looked at the reception of evolution in multiple contexts to highlight the pedagogical challenges that materialise for Muslim students and teachers. It argues that, while recognising the obstacles and challenges mentioned in other studies, the crucial subject matter of Islamic theology (ʿaqīda) is not fully appreciated in those analyses. How and why theology is a vital discussion matter is examined, along with the benefits that it can offer. These insights could provide fodder for teachers and students when discussing the thorny topic of Islam and evolution in classroom settings. This paper’s deliberations could also be of interest to researchers examining the pedagogy and reception of evolution in Muslim contexts

AL-GHAZĀLĪ\u27S DIVINE COMMAND THEORY: Biting the Bullet

This article reviews al-Ghazālī\u27s conception of Divine Command Theory (DCT) in light of contemporary philosophical developments. There are two well-known objections against DCT. These include the problem of arbitrariness (PoA), which states that God randomly chose our moral framework for no reason given His capability to choose any moral commands; and the problem of God\u27s goodness (PoGG), which questions God\u27s goodness if morality could be other than what it is. Modern defenders of DCT have attempted to counter these objections through various strategies. This article juxtaposes al-Ghazālī\u27s interpretation of DCT with modern strategies to illustrate how these two issues are untroubling concerns in al-Ghazālī\u27s framework. In doing so, it highlights where and how they differ in their approaches. Additionally, it critiques interpretations suggested by some contemporary thinkers who suggest that al-Ghazālī may not be a strict proponent of DCT

OLD TEXTS, NEW MASKS: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF MISREADING EVOLUTION ONTO HISTORICAL ISLAMIC TEXTS: with Shoaib Ahmed Malik, “Old Texts, New Masks: A Critical Review of Misreading Evolution onto Historical Islamic Texts”; and James Henry Collin, “Soul Making, Theosis, and Evolutionary History: An Irenaean Approach.”

© 2019 by the Joint Publication Board of Zygon With the increasing interest in Islam and evolution, some Islamic thinkers have vehemently rejected evolution, while others have eagerly embraced it. However, those seeking to embrace evolution sometimes err in their interpretation of historical writings. Indeed, there are texts written by famous historical scholars of Islam who seem to suggest that humans have evolved from lower forms of species. These include Ibn Khaldūn, Jalāl ad-Dīn Rūmī, al-Jāhiz, and The Brethren of Purity (Ikhwān al Safā). Although this may be true, such readings are a mistaken interpretation of the aforementioned authors who are actually referring to some form of the scalae naturae (the Great Chain of Being). This reference to the Great Chain of Being is unknown to some contemporary readers who mistakenly believe these writers to be discussing an evolutionary or a proto-evolutionary theory. This article demonstrates how and why these historical records do not actually represent any notion of evolution as it is currently understood, in the hope of avoiding any further erroneous claims that seem to be proliferating among modern thinkers

Revisiting and re-representing scaffolding: The two gradient model

© 2017 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. In this paper I intend to illustrate Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and then extend the discussion to scaffolding and its relationship with the ZPD. This is then followed by some concerns raised in literature regarding scaffolding as a concept and as a metaphor which involves analysing the arguments for regarding the role of cultural tools and peers as scaffolds akin to instructors. In consideration of some of the criticisms directed at scaffolding, I introduce the concept of the Two Gradient Model (TGM) which is a descriptive model that attempts to clarify the interaction between the instructor and learner. Furthermore, the TGM also demonstrates the need to differentiate between instructors and cultural tools as scaffolds where the latter should be kept relegated as secondary components in the scaffolding process. Additionally, the TGM also differentiates between instructors and peers whereby the latter do not occupy the same interpersonal dynamics as the former in a pedagogical environment

Defining Atheism and the Burden of Proof

© 2018 The Royal Institute of Philosophy. In this paper I demonstrate how certain contemporary atheists have problematically conflated atheism with agnosticism (knowingly or unknowingly). The first type of conflation is semantic fusion, where the lack of belief in God is combined with the outright denial of God, under the single label of \u27atheism\u27. The second is morphological fission which involves the separation of atheism into two subcategories where lack of belief in God is labelled as negative atheism and outright denial of God as positive atheism - and while here they are more explicitly demarcated, they are still positioned under the broad notion of atheism. I argue in this paper that atheism should be better used as the propositional denial of God and that uncertainty and unknowability about God should be reserved to characterise agnosticism. Conflating these positions under the single term \u27atheism\u27 mischaracterises agnostics and inflates the territory of atheists. In clarifying these terms, I review how the nuances in the prefix a- in atheism have potentially contributed towards these misnomers. I also suggest the use of the categories \u27local atheism\u27 and \u27global atheism\u27 to clarify on whom the burden of proof lies within the discourse

How Much Should or Can Science Impact Theological Formulations? An Ashʿarī Perspective on Theology of Nature

There have been many developments in the field of science and religion over the past few decades. One such development is referred to as ‘theology of nature’ (ToN), which is the activity of building or revising theological frameworks in light of cont..

Koliko znanost treba ili može utjecati na teološke formulacije? Ashʿarījev pogled na teologiju prirode

There have been many developments in the field of science and religion over the past few decades. One such development is referred to as ‘theology of nature’ (ToN), which is the activity of building or revising theological frameworks in light of contemporary scientific developments, e.g., evolution, chaos theory, and quantum mechanics. Ian Barbour, John Polkinghorne, and Arthur Peacocke, all of whom are Christian thinkers, are the most well-known advocates of this kind of thinking. However, this discourse has not been examined from an Islamic perspective. Given this gap, in this article, we view this strand of thinking from the Ashʿarī school of thought that is part of the Sunnī Islamic kalām tradition. We first review how ToN manifests in the works of the thinkers mentioned earlier. Following this, we highlight the essential principles in Ashʿarism relevant to God, His interaction with the created world, and science. These are then compared with the ideas of the said thinkers. Two conclusions are reached. First, we demonstrate that atomism, which is generally understood as a long-held position in the Ashʿarī tradition, should not be held as a theological position but rather a philosophical or a scientific one. Second, an important distinction is made between science-informed theology (SIT) and contingency-informed theology (CIT). For Ashʿarīs, a CIT is sufficient for understanding God, but they would find the SIT displayed in ToN problematic. The motivation and methodology of localising or modifying God’s nature or attributes to fit the science of the day would be seen as theologically very costly and a form of scientism.U posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća svjedočimo velikom razvoju istraživanja na području znanosti i religije. Jedan takav razvoj naziva se \u27teologija prirode\u27 (ToN), što uključuje aktivnost izgradnje ili revizije teoloških okvira u svjetlu suvremenih znanstvenih razvoja, npr. evolucije, teorije kaosa i kvantne mehanike. Ian Barbour, John Polkinghorne i Arthur Peacocke, kršćanski mislioci, najpoznatiji su zagovornici ove vrste razmišljanja. Međutim, ovaj diskurs nije ispitan iz islamske perspektive. S obzirom na ovaj jaz, u članku razmatramo ovaj način razmišljanja iz perspektive Ashʿarī škole mišljenja koja je dio sunitske islamske kalām tradicije. Prvo ćemo razmotriti kako se ToN manifestira u djelima ranije spomenutih mislilaca. Nakon toga ističemo bitna načela ašʿarizma koja su relevantna za Boga, Njegovu interakciju sa stvorenim svijetom i znanost. One se potom uspoređuju s idejama navedenih mislilaca. Dolazimo do dva zaključka. Prvo, pokazujemo da se atomizam, koji se općenito shvaća općeprihvaćeno stajalište u Ashʿarī tradiciji, ne bi trebao smatrati teološkimgledištem, već prije filozofskim ili znanstvenim. Drugo, napravljena je važna razlika između znanstveno informirane teologije (SIT) i kontingentno informirane teologije (CIT). Za Ashʿarīje, CIT je dovoljan za razumijevanje Boga, ali oni bi smatrali da bi SIT prikazan u ToN bio problematičan. Motivacija i metodologija lokaliziranja ili modificiranja Božje prirode ili atributa kako bi odgovarali današnjoj znanosti smatrala bi se teološki vrlo spronim oblikom scijentizma

Does Belief in Human Evolution Entail Kufr (Disbelief)? Evaluating the Concerns of a Muslim Theologian

© 2020 by the Joint Publication Board of Zygon Nuh Ha Mim Keller, a contemporary Muslim theologian, argues against the compatibility of evolution and Islam. In this article we intend to critically evaluate his position in which he advances three separate arguments. First, he criticizes the science of evolution. Second, he demonstrates the metaphysical problems with naturalism and the role of chance in the enterprise of evolution. Third, he contends that evolution and the creationist narrative in Islamic scripture is irresolvable. Given these points, Keller concludes that believing in human evolution takes one outside the fold of Islam (kufr). After reviewing each of these points we argue that his claims are unwarranted because of other possibilities which Keller may have not considered. In effect, we argue that believing in evolution doesn\u27t necessarily or definitively entail kufr

Creatio Continua and Quantum Randomness

Some thinkers in the Christian and Islamic traditions assert that God doesn’t only create the universe ex nihilo, but that he also continuously recreates the universe in order to preserve its existence. This chapter will discuss randomness vis-à-vis the doctrine of continuous creation as understood in both religious traditions. We argue that the doctrine of continuous creation in its version that is held by both Christians and Muslims would preclude ontic quantum randomness. The reason is that in the doctrine of continuous creation, God is ultimately and meticulously responsible for the existence of objects and properties at every single moment

Accepting Evolution Entails Kufr ?: A Critical Appraisal of Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s Fatwa

Muslim scholars who oppose the compatibility of Islam and evolution usually advance three kinds of arguments: scientific, metaphysic, and hermeneutic. This paper will examine the position of Nuh Ha Mim Keller, a prominent Sunni scholar who employ these three lines of arguments and proposes that believing in human evolution entails kufr. In this article we will critically analyze Keller’s understanding of the science of evolution in which he claims that the theory of evolution is not robust. We argue that through the consilience of induction, evolution is the best explanation for the biological origins and diversity. We also argue that a more nuanced understanding of the metaphysical and hermeneutical aspects of Islam and evolution debate would reveal that Keller’s anti-evolution claims are unwarranted, including his accusation of kufr against those who accept human evolution