As I have argued before, the singular, decisive proposition that draws the proverbial line in the sand distinguishing traditional Islamic theological conceptions of Adam from modern evolution is whether or not the first human being had biological origins. Traditional Islamic thought says the first human being, Adam, was a special, miraculous creation of God, having no parents. Modern science says that it is impossible — theoretically, empirically, historically, etc., — that the first human being was not born of (non-human) parents.

So, what is really at stake with the claim that 1400 years of scholarship — involving hundreds of millions of teachers and students — was fundamentally mistaken about a critical component of theology, while the true, correct understanding could only fully be known through the “illumination” of the past 40-50 years of modern science? What kind of impact would there be to the collective Muslim psyche if it were accepted that 40 years of science trumps 1400 years of Islamic intellectual effort? In fact, what would this mean for the very notion of tradition itself? An epistemological coup d’état of this magnitude would no less than eviscerate the tradition-centric, transmission-based Muslim ethos at large. Unfortunately, this coup is well underway.


In Part 3, we interrogated Genealogical Continuity (GC) in order to uncover its metaphysical underpinnings. We determined that GC is not falsifiable. Nothing in the fossil record or historical records more generally could be interpreted by scientists as evidence of a miraculous event such as the “creation of man.” This is because it is axiomatic


In Part 2, we discussed falsifiability as a primary characteristic distinguishing science from metaphysics. The question, now, is whether we should understand Genealogical Continuity (GC), i.e., common descent, as falsifiable and, hence, scientific. The best way to see how GC is not falsifiable and, hence, is metaphysical is to consider what empirical state of affairs


In Part 1, we discussed how the theory of common descent and Genealogical Continuity (GC) originated well before the advent of science as we know it. Admittedly, the fact that GC predates science does not by itself establish that GC is metaphysical and a-scientific. However, the following considerations prove just that. Popperian Falsifiability First of


Opponents of Creationism often argue that Creationism is pure metaphysical dogma whereas the evolutionary account of the origins of species is based on scientific fact. This charge against Creationism, however, obscures important distinctions. As we discussed in this post, Evolution is composed of two separate theories: Genealogical Continuity (GC) and Natural Selection (NS). GC is

How much of Evolution can Muslims accept? Are there ways to reconcile theology and Evolution? Why do theists have such a big problem with Darwinism?

In Part 1, we discussed the importance of reframing Evolution. For the next three posts, we will be discussing exactly what the theory of Evolution is. Nothing here contravenes scientific consensus. We will merely set the stage for the critiques and refutations which will be presented in future posts. For further information on any of the below, I recommend

Debates between evolutionists and creationists often begin on the premise that Evolution is the position of science and reason while Creationism is simply dogma. Framing the debate in those stark terms forces creationists into a defensive posture from the start. By emphasizing the scientific basis of Evolution, evolutionists shift the burden of argument onto creationists,

This is a pressing question in the minds of many Muslims. Some Muslims have decided to leave Islam after reaching the conclusion that Evolution is not compatible with Islamic tenets. Also, critics of Islam argue that the religion is unscientific because it rejects Evolution. Muslims are thus put in the awkward position of defending their