Islam and evolution

[siam]

In my response please note the highlighted above. I understand very well the teachings of the Quran concerning science. It is true that Islam and Christianity revered, respected and endorsed science up until the late 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Islam like Christianity considers the Pentateuch as God revealed scripture, which is the foundation of the YEC Creationist worldview. The problem becomes 'What aligns with the Truth' as revealed in scripture. The advent of the science of evolution, and the science of a physical existence billions of years old, brought science in conflict with the belief in a literal Creationist world view. This is one of problems of where Christianity and Islam has become divided and in contention over the issue of what is the 'Truth' of Science and scripture concerning the nature of the history of life, humanity and our physical existence.

The issue remains inconsistent interpretation and guidance relying on Revelation in the ancient literature of the Bible and the Quran, that divides the religion and leads to conflict and contention. One aspect of this is the failure to recognize 'Methodological Naturalism' as an independent methodology independent of theological presuppositions. The wide spread accusation by many Christians and Muslims is that the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old is an atheist science, and without God, because it is in conflict with the Pentateuch.

This is only one of many issues in the modern world that leaves religions divided in conflict and contention and failing to provide a unified consistent guidance for humanity, because the foundation is in ancient scripture only.

YEC (Creationism)---It would be impossible to hold YEC for a Muslim because the Quran specifies that the word "Youm" translated as "day" does not refer to earth time---rather it means a fixed amount of "time" (space-time) as God wills--so the whole "6 days" stuff is never understood literally as referring to earth-time/earth day.... Muslims do not have a problem with big bang and general evolution etc...so YEC is not a part of Muslim understanding of either scripture or science. There is some discussion of HUMAN evolution---but I already explained about this....
Perhaps Science conflicts with the Pentateuch---how Jews or Christians feel about that is their bussiness...we Muslims do not have a problem with Science in general because it has not conflicted with the Quran (but then...the Quran is not a science text....)

Guidance---You seem to say Science is Guidance?---If so can you elaborate? ....at the moment I do not consider science as Guidance but I might change my mind upon further consideration...the Quran calls it(nature) ayah (signs). Nature/all creation are signs that point to God. Guidance are ethico-moral principles (abstracts/unseen) for the benefit of human beings and all of God's creations (because human beings are trustees of God) Both science and scripture are knowledge and in order to discharge our responsibilities of trusteeship, we need knowledge---the knowledge of God's creation (seen) and of God's laws/ethico-moral principles (unseen).

Humanism---a philosophy that places primacy on the Human being and on Human agency. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
Islam considers itself a religion suited to "Human nature"--that is, not in conflict with human nature. As such one might say Islam is humanistic. However, since this is an embedded part of Islam...there is no need for a hyphenation such as Islamic-Humanism" or Muslim-Humanism.......However, Human Beings are not primary---God is the only Supreme power and all creation is neither superior nor inferior to each other---All are equal under God. Human beings are different (different does not mean inferior/superior) from other creation in that they have been given more responsibility (by God) than other creation. (Trusteeship--Khalifa)

[robrecht]

Humanism---a philosophy that places primacy on the Human being and on Human agency. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
Islam considers itself a religion suited to "Human nature"--that is, not in conflict with human nature. As such one might say Islam is humanistic. However, since this is an embedded part of Islam...there is no need for a hyphenation such as Islamic-Humanism" or Muslim-Humanism.......However, Human Beings are not primary---God is the only Supreme power and all creation is neither superior nor inferior to each other---All are equal under God. Human beings are different (different does not mean inferior/superior) from other creation in that they have been given more responsibility (by God) than other creation. (Trusteeship--Khalifa)

I think many Christians would agree, and some go further and even reject humanism as fundamentally opposed to their view of God or atheistic. I think the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, however, points toward a greater complementarity in humanist Christianity. We believe God revealed himself most completely in the person of Jesus Christ and his life and ministry, death and resurrection. As one of our earliest theologians said,

Gloria Dei est vivens homo.

The glory of God is living humanity, or as frequently translated, man fully alive.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Book 4, Chapter 20

[shunyadragon]

Not all Christians and Muslims are humanists so your data are impertinent.

This does not make sense?!?!?

I defined two ways that 'humanist/Humanism is used. How are you using it here? Please clarify. High fog index here.

Christians and Muslims are NOT philosophical humanists. There, of course may be a few closet philosophical humanists (metaphysical naturalists) in Christianity and Islam.

Note: (Philosophical) Humanism-a philosophy that places primacy on the Human being and on Human agency. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Believers are primarily atheists, agnostics, and the dominant view of Unitarian Universalism.

Virtually the overwhelming majority, 99%+ of those believing in philosophical humanism and the Baha'i Faith endorse the science of evolution without Theological presuppositions.

Your reference to Christian or Muslim humanists is too vague to apply to this discussion. The problem is many and possibly most Christians and Muslims reject the science of evolution, based on the belief of the primacy of the literal interpretation of the scripture of their religion

[shunyadragon]

YEC (Creationism)---It would be impossible to hold YEC for a Muslim because the Quran specifies that the word "Youm" translated as "day" does not refer to earth time---rather it means a fixed amount of "time" (space-time) as God wills--so the whole "6 days" stuff is never understood literally as referring to earth-time/earth day.... Muslims do not have a problem with big bang and general evolution etc...so YEC is not a part of Muslim understanding of either scripture or science. There is some discussion of HUMAN evolution---but I already explained about this. .

OK Muslims do not have a problem with old age. There is more then some discussion on the subject of Evolution in Islam. There is a considerable rejection of the science of evolution as cited.
..

Perhaps Science conflicts with the Pentateuch---how Jews or Christians feel about that is their bussiness...we Muslims do not have a problem with Science in general because it has not conflicted with the Quran (but then...the Quran is not a science text....)

We are not talking about science in general. We are talking about the rejection of evolution based on Theological presuppositions. When Jews, Christians and Muslims reject evolution this impacts the scientific and the curriculum and funding of educational institutions worldwide. It breeds a dishonest view of science.

Guidance---You seem to say Science is Guidance?---If so can you elaborate? ....at the moment I do not consider science as Guidance but I might change my mind upon further consideration...the Quran calls it(nature) ayah (signs). Nature/all creation are signs that point to God. Guidance are ethico-moral principles (abstracts/unseen) for the benefit of human beings and all of God's creations (because human beings are trustees of God) Both science and scripture are knowledge and in order to discharge our responsibilities of trusteeship, we need knowledge---the knowledge of God's creation (seen) and of God's laws/ethico-moral principles (unseen).

No, I did not refer to science as Guidance. I referred to Religion as guidance, and science as revealed knowledge of the physical world.

1) Humanism---a philosophy that places primacy on the Human being and on Human agency. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. 2)Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

Note two different uses of humanist/humanism.

[robrecht]

This does not make sense?!?!?

I defined two ways that 'humanist/Humanism is used. How are you using it here? Please clarify.

Christians and Muslims are NOT philosophical humanists. There, of course may be a few closet philosophical humanists (metaphysical naturalists) in Christianity and Islam.

Note: {Philosophical) Humanism-a philosophy that places primacy on the Human being and on Human agency. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Believers are primarily atheists, agnostics, and the dominant view of Unitarian Universalism

I am sorry you are having difficulty. Perhaps if you studied the history of humanism a bit more you might be less inclined to impose simplistic definitions. Take a look at those figures in the history of philosophy who considered themselves both humanists and Christians. You may start with Erasmus, whom the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy refers to as "the most famous and influential humanist of the Northern Renaissance" and work your way through to Jacques Maritain, who professed what he called "integral Christian humanism," 'though one might also refer to his philosophy as personalist or personalism. He was very much involved in the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights. For Jewish humanism, take a look at the work of Emmanuel Levinas. I am not familiar with any Islamic representatives, but here are some references for those who are interested in learning more:

Arkoun, M. (1982). L’humanisme arabe au IVe/Xe sičcle: Miskawayh, philosophe et historien (2nd ed. Rev.). Paris: Vrin.

Arkoun, M. (2005). Humanisme et Islam: Combats et propositions. Paris: Vrin.

Marcel Boisard, M. (1987) Humanism in Islam. Oak Brook, Ill: American Trust Publications.

Goodman, L. E. (2003). Islamic humanism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kraemer, J. (1986). Humanism in the renaissance of Islam: The cultural revival during the buyid age. Leiden: Brill.

Makdisi, G. (1990). The rise of humanism in classical Islam and the Christian West: With special reference to scholasticism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Zayd, N. H. A. (2004). Rethinking the Quran: Towards a humanistic hermeneutics. Utrecht: University of Humanistics.

http://link.springer.com/referencewo...020-8265-8_539

[shunyadragon]

I am sorry you are having difficulty. Perhaps if you studied the history of humanism a bit more you might be less inclined to impose simplistic definitions. Take a look at those figures in the history of philosophy who considered themselves both humanists and Christians. You may start with Erasmus, whom the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy refers to as "the most famous and influential humanist of the Northern Renaissance" and work your way through to Jacques Maritain, who professed what he called "integral Christian humanism," 'though one might also refer to his philosophy as personalist or personalism. He was very much involved in the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights. For Jewish humanism, take a look at the work of Emmanuel Levinas. I am not familiar with any Islamic representatives, but here are some references for those who are interested in learning more:

Arkoun, M. (1982). L’humanisme arabe au IVe/Xe sičcle: Miskawayh, philosophe et historien (2nd ed. Rev.). Paris: Vrin.

Arkoun, M. (2005). Humanisme et Islam: Combats et propositions. Paris: Vrin.

Marcel Boisard, M. (1987) Humanism in Islam. Oak Brook, Ill: American Trust Publications.

Goodman, L. E. (2003). Islamic humanism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kraemer, J. (1986). Humanism in the renaissance of Islam: The cultural revival during the buyid age. Leiden: Brill.

Makdisi, G. (1990). The rise of humanism in classical Islam and the Christian West: With special reference to scholasticism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Zayd, N. H. A. (2004). Rethinking the Quran: Towards a humanistic hermeneutics. Utrecht: University of Humanistics.

http://link.springer.com/referencewo...020-8265-8_539

The definitions I gave in a previous post are simple and straight forward, and you are ignoring them and deviating from the purpose of the thread.

Again, again and again you are referring to the second definition of humanism above and OFF TOPIC. Lots of wasted effort and reference and none refer to the reasons why believers accept evolution or not.

The problem is the nature of the primacy of scripture as guidance from Theistic scripture, ie Revelation, the guidance of scripture in the Baha'i Faith, or from 'Philosophical Humanism as to how views evolution and the science of an ancient physical existence billions of years old.

For the purposes of this thread this is the definition of humanism that applies: (Philosophical) Humanism-a philosophy that places primacy on the Human being and on Human agency. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Believers are primarily atheists, agnostics, and the dominant view of Unitarian Universalism.

The comparison is what is the consequences of those that believe in the guidance of 'primacy' of the scripture of the Bible in their view of the science of evolution in Christianity and Islam where many believers reject evolution. The polls show that the stronger the belief the higher the rate of rejection. As I previously described some believers in Christianity and Islam defer to the 'primacy' of Philosophical Naturalism over the 'primacy' of scripture to support evolution science only. The divergent views in Christianity and Islam result in division and conflict.

The two contrasting views are the Baha'i Faith, and Philosophical Humanism as previously defined in relation to the support of the science of evolution.

[robrecht]

The definitions I gave in a previous post are simple and straight forward, and you are ignoring them and deviating from the purpose of the thread.

Again, again and again you are referring to the second definition of humanism above and OFF TOPIC. Lots of wasted effort and reference and none refer to the reasons why believers accept evolution or not.

How could I be both ignoring your definitions and referring to the second definition? You are contradicting yourself. Have you read any of the philosophy of, eg, Jacques Maritain or Emmanuel Levinas? If you would, I think you would see that your definitions are, like most definitions of various philosophies as '-isms', rather simplistic.

The problem is the nature of the primacy of scripture as guidance from Theistic scripture, ie Revelation, the guidance of scripture in the Baha'i Faith, or from 'Philosophical Humanism as to how views evolution and the science of an ancient physical existence billions of years old.

For the purposes of this thread this is the definition of humanism that applies: (Philosophical) Humanism-a philosophy that places primacy on the Human being and on Human agency. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Believers are primarily atheists, agnostics, and the dominant view of Unitarian Universalism.

You are welcome to restrict yourself to this definition of humanism, but this will limit your understanding of other humanist approaches. There are many humanists that are not atheists or agnostics but who nonetheless recognize the full autonomy of human knowledge and scientific inquiry, including humanist approaches to the interpretation of scriptures. One need not make a hierarchical choice between attaching prime importance to either the human or divine realm. Indeed, some believers prefer not to use the language of the supernatural, as you yourself should know. And those who affirm both human and divine realms may believe, as I do, that we can only ever hope to know the divine through human modalities and through its expression within the human sphere.

The comparison is what is the consequences of those that believe in the guidance of 'primacy' of the scripture of the Bible in their view of the science of evolution in Christianity and Islam where many believers reject evolution. The polls show that the stronger the belief the higher the rate of rejection.

You are referring to one segment of Christianity that affirms the primacy of scripture, sola scriptura in theological matters and the inerrancy of scripture even in scientific matters. 'Stronger belief' of this type should not be equated with stronger belief as it is understood and practiced in other segments of Christianity that affirm the importance of reason even in the theological matters and unquestionably in nontheological or scientific matters.

As I previously described some believers in Christianity and Islam defer to the 'primacy' of Philosophical Naturalism over the 'primacy' of scripture to support evolution science only. The divergent views in Christianity and Islam result in division and conflict.

Divergent views and conflict are completely normal in human affairs and are not limited to various forms of Christianity and Islam. Within science as well, competing theories are to be encouraged in pursuit of knowledge.

The two contrasting views are the Baha'i Faith, and Philosophical Humanism as previously defined in relation to the support of the science of evolution.

Why limit yourself to only two contrasting views, the Baha'i Faith and a relatively narrow definition of philosophical humanism? Why not open your mind to other possibilities? The mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[shunyadragon]

How could I be both ignoring your definitions and referring to the second definition? You are contradicting yourself. Have you read any of the philosophy of, eg, Jacques Maritain or Emmanuel Levinas? If you would, I think you would see that your definitions are, like most definitions of various philosophies as '-isms', rather simplistic.

I have read these in detail and several times, The specific use of the definitions have a purpose to clarify the discussion and stay on topic.

You are welcome to restrict yourself to this definition of humanism, but this will limit your understanding of other humanist approaches. There are many humanists that are not atheists or agnostics but who nonetheless recognize the full autonomy of human knowledge and scientific inquiry, including humanist approaches to the interpretation of scriptures. One need not make a hierarchical choice between attaching prime importance to either the human or divine realm. Indeed, some believers prefer not to use the language of the supernatural, as you yourself should know. And those who affirm both human and divine realms may believe, as I do, that we can only ever hope to know the divine through human modalities and through its expression within the human sphere.

First, the reasons for limiting the use of humanism to more specific definitions was not the above explanation. First, the limiting of the definitions was as to what groups of believers are willing to accept ALL of science without theological presuppositions. I gave specific definition for the group of philosophical humanists who do endorse the primacy of human reason and human agency in all matters endorse science unconditionally. The Baha'i Faith that has a scriptural basis for guidance of accepting science unconditionally. This was compared to the inconsistency of the scriptural guidance in Christianity and Islam that leads to many, not just some, to reject science. and you respond with the foolish insult 'Impertinent?' you need to address the use of philosophy in the context I used it, and resort to blue smoke and mirrors to change the context.

It is nice for some to use high ended academic philosophy to justify their acceptance of evolution, but it does not offer a consistent answer to the problem for Christianity. I am sure that there are some Christians and Muslims accept science, just simply based on an honest assessment of the overwhelming evidence for evolution and an ancient physical existence bullions of years old.

You are referring to one segment of Christianity that affirms the primacy of scripture, sola scriptura in theological matters and the inerrancy of scripture even in scientific matters. 'Stronger belief' of this type should not be equated with stronger belief as it is understood and practiced in other segments of Christianity that affirm the importance of reason even in the theological matters and unquestionably in nontheological or scientific matters.

The segment of Christianity that affirms the primacy of scripture, sola scriptura, but you cannot limit the problem to one segment of Christianity or Islam in this case. The numbers rejecting the science of evolution is the problem and they are very high. The question is does Christian and Islamic scripture provide the guidance for accepting ALL of science without theological presuppositions. The answer is no.

Divergent views and conflict are completely normal in human affairs and are not limited to various forms of Christianity and Islam. Within science as well, competing theories are to be encouraged in pursuit of knowledge.

True, but not the subject of the thread. The denial of the science of evolution based on theological presuppositions is NOT part of the 'competing theories encouraged in the pursuit of knowledge.'

Why limit yourself to only two contrasting views, the Baha'i Faith and a relatively narrow definition of philosophical humanism? Why not open your mind to other possibilities? The mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I do not limit anything in my over theological and philosophical interests, study, and philosophical reflection. That is not the point of this thread, which you are missing big time.

[robrecht]

I have read these in detail and several times, The specific use of the definitions have a purpose to clarify the discussion and stay on topic.

First, the reasons for limiting the use of humanism to more specific definitions was not the above explanation. First, the limiting of the definitions was as to what groups of believers are willing to accept ALL of science without theological presuppositions. I gave specific definition for the group of philosophical humanists who do endorse the primacy of human reason and human agency in all matters endorse science unconditionally. The Baha'i Faith that has a scriptural basis for guidance of accepting science unconditionally. This was compared to the inconsistency of the scriptural guidance in Christianity and Islam that leads to many, not just some, to reject science. and you respond with the foolish insult 'Impertinent?' you need to address the use of philosophy in the context I used it, and resort to blue smoke and mirrors to change the context.

I am sorry you feel that I was trying to insult you, but that is not true. It is merely a fact that your evidence was completely irrelevant to what I was saying. You may want to insult me by calling this foolish but you have misunderstood.

It is nice for some to use high ended academic philosophy to justify their acceptance of evolution, but it does not offer a consistent answer to the problem for Christianity.

I have never used academic philosophy to justify the acceptance of evolution. From the time I was a little boy in Catholic grade school, science class and religion class were always separate and no one ever questioned evolution. I never met a fundamentalist Christian who questioned evolution until I was a senior in high school and that just seemed bizarre to me.

I am sure that there are some Christians and Muslims accept science, just simply based on an honest assessment of the overwhelming evidence for evolution and an ancient physical existence bullions of years old.

The segment of Christianity that affirms the primacy of scripture, sola scriptura, but you cannot limit the problem to one segment of Christianity or Islam in this case. The numbers rejecting the science of evolution is the problem and they are very high. The question is does Christian and Islamic scripture provide the guidance for accepting ALL of science without theological presuppositions. The answer is no.

Christian and Islamic scripture were written long before there was such a thing as modern science. Baha'i scriptures were written after there was such a thing as modern science. Not much of a question here.

[pancreasman]

One trick pony.

[siam]

OK Muslims do not have a problem with old age. There is more then some discussion on the subject of Evolution in Islam. There is a considerable rejection of the science of evolution as cited.
..

We are not talking about science in general. We are talking about the rejection of evolution based on Theological presuppositions. When Jews, Christians and Muslims reject evolution this impacts the scientific and the curriculum and funding of educational institutions worldwide. It breeds a dishonest view of science.

Note two different uses of humanist/humanism.

I agree that ignorance and/or distortion of science is problematic. I am ok with the figures that you posted but I think the conclusions drawn from that may be incomplete. It is true that the way evolution is presented by some Muslims is a distortion of science...but I think there is also a possibility that there are many Muslims who reject human evolution simply because they are ignorant of science---(and those that reject general evolution are also ignorant of scripture---because the Quran confirms that life came from water....). So it amy be that the figures also show that science education needs to be vastly improved....?.....

Both Humanism and Naturalism are not problematic philosophies in themselves---They become problematic when they engage in what in Islamic terms would be "deception"---in giving powers that belong to God alone to other objects thus making them into "gods". So Secular science is not a problem---its theories may be incomplete without God, but they are not false---they become false when God is denied to the extent that another entity---such as an abstract, all powerful "Nature" is substituted for God.

(God-given) knowledge is not limited to science, (or scripture)...there is philosophy, poetry and prose that use literary devices to show "truths", intuitive knowledge that comes from meditation and other spiritual methods....etc. I think that all forms of knowledge work better if God is considered and are somewhat incomplete otherwise.....again, this in itself is not a problem...Diversity is important for the human intellect. Knowledge can be abused and this abuse can arise from an incorrect understanding leading to an incorrect use of knowledge. For example, One might say that if only the Human is primary and no other life/creation is important---it can lead to a misuse/abuse of the earth and all her creatures.....

[siam]

I think many Christians would agree, and some go further and even reject humanism as fundamentally opposed to their view of God or atheistic. I think the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, however, points toward a greater complementarity in humanist Christianity. We believe God revealed himself most completely in the person of Jesus Christ and his life and ministry, death and resurrection. As one of our earliest theologians said,

Gloria Dei est vivens homo.

The glory of God is living humanity, or as frequently translated, man fully alive.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Book 4, Chapter 20

Interesting perspective---but then, Hinduism also has the concept of Incarnation.......

[robrecht]

Interesting perspective---but then, Hinduism also has the concept of Incarnation.......

Thank you. I do not know much about Hinduism but my wife does. I was only speaking from within the Christian tradition and did not intend to imply that any sense of incarnation was absent from other religions.

[shunyadragon]

I am sorry you feel that I was trying to insult you, but that is not true. It is merely a fact that your evidence was completely irrelevant to what I was saying. You may want to insult me by calling this foolish but you have misunderstood.

If I misunderstood the insult 'Impertinent!' please explain. The evidence was very relevant, and so far you have failed to respond. Clearly the fact of who supports evolution and who does not has a direct relationship with what people believe. These facts are clearly relevant to the thread.

I have never used academic philosophy to justify the acceptance of evolution. From the time I was a little boy in Catholic grade school, science class and religion class were always separate and no one ever questioned evolution. I never met a fundamentalist Christian who questioned evolution until I was a senior in high school and that just seemed bizarre to me.

Then why bring it up in this thread?!?!?!?! As I stated OFF TOPIC.

Christian and Islamic scripture were written long before there was such a thing as modern science. Baha'i scriptures were written after there was such a thing as modern science. Not much of a question here.

False, The modern science of evolution had not even made the press. The Revelation of the Baha'i Faith preceded modern science, and was revealed without the modern knowledge of science. You simplistic response is inadequate. There is a reason the Baha'i Faith was revealed when it was. The modern world was on the horizon and the Baha'i Faith is the light of guidance.

The fact that the scripture of Christianity and Islam were written long ago is relevant, because in many ways it is no longer relevant to the modern world. Revelation is progressive and continuous. That is part of the reason for the Revelation of the Baha'i Faith.

[robrecht]

If I misunderstood the insult 'Impertinent!' please explain. The evidence was very relevant, and so far you have failed to respond. Clearly the fact of who supports evolution and who does not has a direct relationship with what people believe. These facts are clearly relevant to the thread.

Because I was speaking of Christian humanists and you alluded to data on all Christians, not Christian humanists.

Then why bring it up in this thread?!?!?!?! As I stated OFF TOPIC.

Because I did not want you to misunderstand about Christian humanism.

False, The modern science of evolution had not even made the press. The Revelation of the Baha'i Faith preceded modern science, and was revealed without the modern knowledge of science. You simplistic response is inadequate. There is a reason the Baha'i Faith was revealed when it was. The modern world was on the horizon and the Baha'i Faith is the light of guidance.

The fact that the scripture of Christianity and Islam were written long ago is relevant, because in many ways it is no longer relevant to the modern world. Revelation is progressive and continuous. That is part of the reason for the Revelation of the Baha'i Faith.

Do not confuse all of modern science with the theory of evolution. If you want to try and better answer my questions about what you consider to be revelation, you can do so in the Revelation thread. It might also be pertinent for you to respond in more detail here to OingoBoingo's point about Baha'i resistance to full acceptance of the theory of [evolution].