https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2191-0778
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm by Shoaib Ahmed Malik is a significant contribution to religious studies, likely to shape scientific dialogues with Islam for some time to come. Malik takes a theology-centric approach, concluding that faithful exegesis requires that Adam and Eve are (1) genealogical ancestors of us all, and (2) were created de novo, without their parents. Key scientific developments show these two affirmations are consistent with evolution. In doing this, Malik's work shows how evolutionary science can be advanced in the Muslim world.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Shoaib Ahmed Malik, “Challenges and Opportunities in Teaching Interdisciplinary Courses on Islam and Evolution: A Theology-Centric Perspective,” Religions 14:1 (2023), 95.
2 Matthew Nisbet, “Scientists In Civic Life: Facilitating Dialogue-Based Communication.”
3 J. B. S. Haldane, “The Cost of Natural Selection,” Journal of Genetics 55:3 (1957), 511–24.
4 M. Kimura, “Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level,” Nature 217:5129 (1968), 624–26.
5 Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Cambridge University Press, 1983); M. Kimura, “The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution: A Review of Recent Evidence,” Idengaku Zasshi 66:4 (1991), 367–86.
6 Lindell Bromham and David Penny, “The Modern Molecular Clock,” Nature Reviews Genetics 4:3 (2003), 216–24.
7 Arlin Stoltzfus, “Constructive Neutral Evolution: Exploring Evolutionary Theory’s Curious Disconnect,” Biology Direct 35:7 (2021).
8 A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, 2001, https://dissentfromdarwin.org/.
9 Kevin Laland and others, “Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink?” Nature 514:7521 (2014), 161–64.
10 An excellent summary of these issues is visible in this series of articles. Arlin Stoltzfus, “Reactionary Fringe Meets Mutation-Biased Adaptation,” Sandwalk, 2019, https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2019/06/reactionary-fringe-meets-mutation.html.
11 Of course, creationists do in fact affirm some aspects of evolution (i.e. change over time and some evolutionary mechanisms), but they do not accept the common descent of humans and the great apes.
12 Ligon Duncan, Russell Moore and Tim Keller, “Non-Negotiable Beliefs About Creation,” The Gospel Coalition, 2017, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/tgc-podcast/non-negotiable-beliefs-about-creation/ (accessed July 26, 2022).
13 Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954).
14 Kenneth D. Keathley, “Antipodes and the Scandal of Particularity,” Peaceful Science, 2020, https://doi.org/10.54739/g98q; Kenneth W. Kemp, “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 85:2 (2011), 217–36.
15 Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution and Human Equality,” 1987, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsp2RAY2aIk.
16 Steve Olson, Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins, 2002; Joseph T. Chang, “Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals,” Advances in Applied Probability 31:4 (1999), 1002–26; Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson and Joseph T. Chang, “Modeling the Recent Common Ancestry of All Living Humans,” Nature 431:7008 (2004), 562–66.
17 Steve Olson, Press Release, Mapping Human History, http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/booksell-ers/press_release/olson/olson_mapping.pdf.
18 S. Joshua Swamidass, More Than Just Apes, 2016, http://peacefulscience.org/more-than-apes; Nathan Lents, Not So Different (Columbia University Press, 2017).
19 Neil Roughley, “Human Nature,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2021 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/human-nature/ (accessed July 19, 2023).
20 See a more complete discussion in S. Joshua Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry (IVP Academic, 2019).
21 Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve.
22 William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Eerdmans, 2021); Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity, ed. Joe Aguirre and Sandra Dimas, 2nd expanded ed. (RTB Press, 2015); William Lane Craig, “Preferring an Ancient Genealogical Adam and Eve,” Peaceful Science, 2020.
23 Dennis R. Venema, “Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence for Human-Ape Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62:3 (2010), http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Venema.pdf; Dennis R. Venema and Darrel R. Falk, “Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?” BioLogos, 2010, https://doi.org/10.54739/vqbj.
24 Richard N. Ostling, “The Search for the Historical Adam,” Christianity Today, 2011.
25 Barbara Bradley Hagerty, “Evangelicals Question The Existence of Adam And Eve,” National Public Radio, 2011, https://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve (accessed October 10, 2020).
26 Scott McKnight and Dennis R. Venema, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science, 2017.
27 Dennis R. Venema, “Vern Poythress, Population Genomics, and Locating the Historical Adam,” BioLogos, 2015, https://doi.org/10.54739/atjo.
28 Bradley Hagerty; Scott McKnight and Venema.
29 S. Joshua Swamidass, “The Misunderstood Science of Genetic Bottlenecks,” in Annual Meeting of The American Scientific Affiliation, 2022, https://doi.org/10.54739/1w7j; S. Joshua Swamidass, Three Stories on Adam, Peaceful Science, 2018, https://doi.org/10.54739/3doe.
30 Jack Elliot-Higgins and S. Joshua Swamidass, “Brief Population Bottlenecks Are Beyond The Genetic Streetlight,” 2021, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-817056/v1; Richard Buggs, “Adam and Eve: Lessons Learned,” https://richardbuggs.com/2018/04/18/adam-and-eve-lessons-learned/ (accessed July 8, 2022); Swamidass, Three Stories on Adam.
31 Buggs; Swamidass, “The Misunderstood Science of Genetic Bottlenecks”.
32 S. Joshua Swamidass, “A Genealogical Adam and Eve in Evolution,” Sapientia, 2017, https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/ (accessed July 4, 2022); S. Joshua Swamidass, “A Genealogical Rapprochement on Adam?” Peaceful Science, 2017, https://doi.org/10.54739/9mu3.
33 Dennis R. Venema, “Adam, Eve and Population Genetics: A Reply to Dr. Richard Buggs (Part 1),” BioLogos, 2017, https://doi.org/10.54739/ju3t; Dennis R. Venema, “Adam, Eve and Population Genetics: A Reply to Dr. Richard Buggs (Part 2),” BioLogos, 2017, https://doi.org/10.54739/2xqh; Dennis R. Venema, “Adam, Eve and Human Population Genetics,” BioLogos, 2014, https://doi.org/10.54739/d67o; Venema, “Vern Poythress, Population Genomics, and Locating the Historical Adam”; Dennis R. Venema, “Genetics and the Historical Adam: A Response to William Lane Craig,” BioLogos, 2015, https://doi.org/10.54739/hqh1.
34 S. Joshua Swamidass, “A U-Turn on Adam and Eve,” Peaceful Science, 2021, https://doi.org/10.54739/83rj.
35 Swamidass, “A U-Turn on Adam and Eve”.
36 S. Joshua Swamidass, “In Defense of Tim Keller,” Peaceful Science, 2017, https://doi.org/10.54739/p9cc.
37 S. Joshua Swamidass, “The Overlooked Science of Genealogical Ancestry,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 70:1 (2018).
38 Nathan Lents, “Upcoming Book Leaves Scientific Possibility for Existence of “Adam and Eve”,” USA Today, October 4, 2019, https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/04/upcoming-book-leaves-scientific-possibility-existence-adam-eve-column/3826195002/ (accessed July 14, 2023).
39 RTB’s position was extensively considered, but Craig’s position was less formed and still in development when he first made public comments.
40 Fazale Rana and Hugh N. Ross, Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (NavPress, 2005).
41 At first, RTB and Craig conflated genetic and genealogical ancestry. Once the distinction was made clear, they responded by emphasizing genealogical descent from Adam and Eve, though both their models ultimately allow universal genetic descent from Adam and Eve too.
42 This is connected to their understanding of the Image of God, and I am using the Catholic term here, though they have used various terms in their work. Moreover, both RTB and Craig agree that Angels have rational minds, but they are not physical creatures. Craig, “Preferring an Ancient Genealogical Adam and Eve”.
43 The single caveat would be that not everyone thinks Adam and Eve are real people in a real past. Even if they did not exist, however, there is every reason to believe that humans are genealogically linked together at some point in the past by common ancestors.
44 Rana and Ross, Who Was Adam?, 2015.
45 Swamidass, “The Misunderstood Science of Genetic Bottlenecks”.
46 Anjeanette Roberts, “Mosaic Eve: Mother of All (Part 1),” Reasons to Believe, 2020, https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/theorems-theology/mosaic-eve-mother-of-all-part-1 (accessed July 5, 2022); Anjeanette Roberts, “Mosaic Eve: Mother of All (Part 2),” Reasons to Believe, 2020, https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/theorems-theology/mosaic-eve-mother-of-all-part-2 (accessed July 5, 2022).
47 Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam.
48 Worthy of more exploration, there are subtle distinctions between Craig and RTB definitions of human on this point. Craig’s definition, when operationalized, may be meaning “sufficiently” human to meet particular cognitive criteria, while not necessarily meeting or surpassing the abilities of present day humans. In contrast, RTB seems to be emphasizing “fully” human beings, with respect to the archetype of present day humans. Consequently, Craig sees Neanderthals as sufficiently human to qualify as human, even if science were to show they are not as advanced or intelligent as Homo sapiens. In contrast, RTB judges that Neanderthals are not fully human (i.e. not fully Homo sapiens), in part because their anatomy (and arguably their cognition) is empirically distinct and separable from present day humans.
49 Craig, “Preferring an Ancient Genealogical Adam and Eve”.
50 Given the scientific account, and theological constraints, these descendents would (at least) entirely include all people in the present theological era. For Christians, perhaps this might be everyone across the globe since the time of Jesus, at approximately AD 1. For Muslims, perhaps other time points may be important.
51 There are, also, models that straddle human exceptionality and Adamic exceptionality. Andrew Ter Ern Loke, The Origin of Humanity and Evolution: Science and Scripture in Conversation (T&T Clark, 2022).
52 Anjeanette Roberts, “What If Big E Evolution is True?” Peaceful Science, 2021, https://peacefulscience.org/articles/if-big-e-evolultion-true/; Keathley.
53 Swamidass, “The Misunderstood Science of Genetic Bottlenecks”.
54 Swamidass, “The Overlooked Science of Genealogical Ancestry”; Chang; Rohde, Olson, and Chang.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
S. Joshua Swamidass
S. Joshua Swamidass is a physician-scientist, a computational biologist, who uses artificial intelligence to answer scientific questions at the intersection of biology, chemistry, and medicine. He is also the author of The Genealogical Adam and Eve, a book that explores how the science of ancestry impacts Christian theological concerns.