Can Science Enhance our Apprehension of the Quran’s teachings?
Paul S. Chung
Abstract
This paper is written to support the accreditation process of the International Public Theology at the Forum Center in Berkeley through the National Lifelong Education in South Korea (in collaboration with UNESCO). It focuses particularly on open science in relation to scholarly communication, citizen science, and the significance of education and science in multicultural contexts, especially within the Muslim community.
Introduction
In this essay, I explore the relationship between Islam and science, with a particular focus on the work of the prominent Iranian theoretical physicist Mehdi Golshani. He has made significant contributions to the discourse on science and religion, particularly through a theistic lens that emphasizes their complementarity. I raise critical questions and offer insights from the Islamic rationalist school of thought, alongside the systems biology approach. These perspectives find a paradigm of meaning as they strengthen Golshani’s model of complementarity between science and religion.
In the context of Islam’s relationship with science and religion, Mehdi Golshani argues that Muslims led the field of science in the medieval period. During this time, the Qur’an assumed an axial role, encouraging Muslims to study nature as a means of understanding God’s handiwork in the world.[1]
Similarly, during the seventeenth century, Western scientists, guided by religious beliefs, saw the discovery of universal laws as a means of uncovering God’s creation and wisdom.[2] Notably, before many technological innovations reached Europe, much of this scientific knowledge passed through the Muslim world, particularly via Islamic Spain. Furthermore, during the twelfth century, scholars in Sicily and Toledo translated manuscripts from Arabic into Latin, many of which had originated during the Golden Age of Baghdad. Likewise, Islamic scholars established an important library in Cordova in 1085, which significantly advanced technological learning beyond Europe’s geography, and more significantly than European scientific contributions.[3]
Positivist Science and Enlightenment
In the emergence of certain philosophical schools within Western modernity and the Enlightenment, science adopted a form of positivism and began to play a role similar to that of religion in society. Fundamentally, positivism represented the ultimate principle of philosophy. Through positivism, theology, metaphysics, and all transcendental concepts and values could now be tested using the positivistic method of exact science and observation.
August Comte (1798–1857) further developed this framework by conceptualizing humanity’s development through three successive stages: the theological (where supernatural agents intervene), the metaphysical (a simple modification of the theological stage), and the positive (where causes of phenomena are sought strictly within the laws governing them). In so doing, positivism excluded both theological and metaphysical philosophy, ultimately requiring a form of relativism. According to Comte, the attainment of complete knowledge would coincide with the completion of scientific progress. Prior to this perfection, all knowledge and truth would be necessarily partial and relative.[4]
In this framework, science is positioned as capable of explaining everything without the need for God. This effectively replaces the earlier “God of the gaps” argument. Thus, scientific reductionism prevails, asserting that all phenomena in nature—whether in the natural world, society, or culture—are ultimately explicable by the laws of physics. Positivism, in this context, becomes the intellectual backdrop for scientism, which further asserts that science is the only valid way to understand reality and truth.
Given this scientific challenge, or even a threat to religion, Golshani views philosophical positivism, or scientism, as a significant fortress that eliminates the role of religion––especially in relation to Islamic science, which is framed within a theistic worldview. For Golshani, Islamic science is characterized by key features that acknowledge Allah as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe; and therefore, science is guided by the sacred Quran, the Sunnah, and the Islamic philosophical tradition. This religiously informed science upholds the monotheistic position of Tawhid and stands in sharp contrast to secularist-materialist science and its worldview.[5]
Tawhid: Science and Religion
Tawhid, the foundational concept in Islam, signifies the unity and interconnectedness of all creation. This ultimately leads to the unity of knowledge itself. Thus, within Islam, there is no inherent conflict between science and religion when both are rooted in a theistic worldview and address the challenges of the modern world.
Muhammad Abduh, a prominent Islamic reformer of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, adopted a modernist approach to understanding Tawhid to reconcile faith (revelation) with reason and natural science. The core meaning of Tawhid is the belief in the oneness of God, who embodies inalienable and absolute divinity—a concept central to Islam. Therefore, the entire science of theology is derived from demonstrating the unity of God, particularly through the act of creation, which can be explored through modern rational thought and scientific advancements.
By rejecting blind imitation (Taqlid), a theology of Tawhid that integrates faith with reason encourages independent reasoning (ijtihad) and creative thinking to respond to Western modern achievements and challenges. Fundamentally, this promotes a deeper understanding of Islamic principles. Thus, this approach fosters a dynamic and progressive interpretation of Islamic teachings and the Nahda (Arab Enlightenment) in a constructive and prophetic manner.[6]
Tawhid provides a robust theological and metaphysical foundation for understanding the essential nature of the universe, fostering scientific inquiry, and promoting harmony between religious belief and scientific exploration. In Tawhid, the universe originates from God and is ultimately destined to return to Him (Q 2:156).
In the context of belonging and returning, science requires a metaphysical justification for its empirical reasoning, as the holistic order of the universe is intelligible to humanity. This reflects the essential integration of Unity (Tawhid) and Intelligibility (al-‘Aql), demonstrating the unity and interconnectedness of all that exists.[7]
The Qur’an emphasizes the significant role of reason, affirming its competence as the ultimate means to achieve happiness and as the distinguishing criterion between truth and falsehood. In revealed scripture, human reason finds a clear and accessible framework, rendering dogmatic religious elucidation unnecessary. Many aspects of religion can only be understood through reason, in contrast to the blind acceptance of traditional dogma.
Thus, it is the sacred scripture itself that nurtures both faith and reason to allow one to understand divine attributes and the reality of creation while fostering a more contextual understanding to address the needs of contemporary society.
Given this, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, former professor at both Tehran University and Harvard University, pursues a single comprehensive worldview that is wholesome and life-giving. Yet, he warns against scientism and modern technology, arguing that they will end up destroying the spiritual and ethical values of human society. He argues that this nihilistic consequence will ultimately ruin the physical existence of society itself.[8]
Therefore, Nasr’s religious science aligns with Golshani, who refines his metaphysical approach to science through the lens of Tawhid, stating that “each scientific theory has a heavy load of metaphysical presuppositions.”[9]
Islam and Science in Concordance
Due to the dominance of positivism, the metaphysical principles had been largely neglected as a legitimate field of inquiry in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, philosophical metaphysics has since experienced a resurgence. For instance, Heisenberg introduced the uncertainty principle, which challenges the concept of causality at the atomic level. In doing so, he revived the relevance of Aristotle’s philosophy, particularly in explaining the non-duality of matter and form, especially in relation to particle/wave complementarity.
Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality are applied to the idea of the quantum jump, where the transition from potential to actual occurs during the act of observation—an interaction between the object and the measuring device.[10]
Golshani concurs with Stanley Jaki, an eminent clergy-physicist and a leading contributor to the philosophy and history of science: “Belief in metaphysical principles is still indispensable in scientific work whether some physicists like it or not, or whether they admit it or not, or whether they are fond of the word metaphysical or not.”[11]
Reinforcing this, Pope John Paul II wrote an extraordinary letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996, asserting that there is no essential conflict between biological evolution and the Christian faith regarding creation.
Subsequently, in March 1997, Stephen J. Gould introduced the concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA) in Natural History, arguing that science and religion each represent different domains of teaching and inquiry. Therefore, science and religion do not overlap or conflict: “The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains.”[12]
Gould reserves a place of respect for religious belief, arguing that the scientific study of evolution is not inherently harmful or hostile to religion. On the contrary, Richard Dawkins suggests that Darwin’s theory of evolution makes it possible “to be an intellectual atheist,” as he views the universe as governed by the materialist mechanisms of evolution, where there is “nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”[13]
Distancing himself from both NOMA and Dawkins, Golshani advocates for the tradition of natural theology in his approach to science and religion, emphasizing the scientific witness to, or consonance with, Quranic revelation and its sociocultural values. He seeks a unifying worldview—one that integrates all aspects of human experience into a coherent whole.
Three Types of Concordance
Golshani identifies three primary approaches, within the Western context, as introduced by Ian Barbour, for achieving concordance between science and religion.
Natural theology asserts that the existence of God can be inferred from the signs observed in nature, with science helping to reveal this divine order. In this tradition, arguments for God’s existence are based on human intellect rather than revelation or religious experience. Historically, natural theology has emphasized rational, cosmological, or ontological arguments.
For example, Aristotle views God as the first cause, the first mover, and the manager of the universe. He uses rational arguments to demonstrate God’s existence, famously presenting five ways to prove it. Grace, in this framework, does not negate nature but perfects it (Gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit).[14]
The founders of modern science viewed the coherence of nature as evidence of God’s design. For example, William Paley in his book Natural Theology pointed to the well-designed structures of living organisms as evidence of divine creation (the intelligent designer as Watchmaker). However, Darwin reacted against the tradition of natural theology and arguments for design, replacing a supreme designer with a process of evolution in the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest.[15]
In recent times, however, one of the newest arguments for God’s existence is the so-called Anthropic Principle. If the strength of the gravitational force were slightly stronger, the expansion of the universe would have stopped, leaving no opportunity for galaxies to form. Conversely, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker, the universe would have expanded too quickly, preventing the formation of stars. This precise fine-tuning of the fundamental forces is known as the Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle recognizes the complexity of the universe and attributes it to divinity.
In light of the complexity of these types of natural forces, even Stephen Hawking has stated: “The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications.”[16]
Therefore, according to atheist physicists, chance and necessity remain viable options for explaining the universe. Some scientists propose that many worlds either existed successively, each following a Big Crunch before the next Big Bang, or simultaneously in multiple isolated domains produced by a single Big Bang. In this view, the universe splits into many branches to explain its complexity.
In contrast, Golshani defends the Anthropic Principle, maintaining that there is only one world, and it must have had an intelligent designer.[17] For Golshani, a God hypothesis is more plausible and a traditional way of explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. Golshani is convinced by Einstein’s dictum that “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” [18]
Einstein held a conviction in the intelligibility and rationality of the world, along with a cosmic sense of religion, though he still rejected the idea of a personal God who interferes in the course of the events of the universe. Instead, he identified God with the orderly structure of the universe, akin to Spinoza’s concept of God.
A theology of nature does not begin with science itself, but with a religious tradition grounded in experience and historical revelation. However, it acknowledges that certain religious teachings may need to be reinterpreted in light of modern scientific discoveries. If religious beliefs are to align with scientific findings, some reforms and reconstructions in religious teachings may be necessary.[19]
Golshani remains cautious about developing an Islamic theology of nature. He does not articulate a reason, but it seems to me that such a theology of nature risks subordinating a biblical understanding of creation to Darwinian atheistic principles. Instead, Golshani appears to reinforce a theistic approach to science through the Anthropic Principle, maintaining that an omniscient and omnipotent God designed the world in an intelligent manner. This perspective motivates him to shift from metaphysical realism to theism grounded in an intelligent, personal God.[20]
In spite of these reasonable inclinations toward a theistic approach to science, detractors remain. For example, Muhammad Abdus Salam, a Pakistani theoretical physicist and winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, advocates for a universal, neutral science. For him, there is only one science—there is no such thing as Islamic science, Christian science, Jewish science, Confucian science, or Hindu science.[21]
Yet, Golshani exhibits an important nuance in his theistic approach to science. Golshani demonstrates himself to be a proponent of ethically guided or partisan science when it comes to the practical application of fields like biochemistry or the life sciences. However, he adopts a more impartial stance (value-neutral) at the theoretical level, particularly when justifying scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe or consciousness at the fundamental level. At the level of intermediate theories, though, he argues that there is no distinction between secular and theistic science. Golshani does not limit himself to the phenomenological realm; instead, he extrapolates meta-scientific assumptions and metaphysical commitments within the fundamental domain.[22]
Scientific Method and Research Programs
Golshani engages with Barbour’s critical realism and his typology for reconciling science and religion, but he does not sufficiently explore Ian Barbour’s critical realism and creative method. Barbour’s process includes four key criteria: agreement with data, coherence with other accepted theories, scope of generality, and fertility or usefulness for ongoing research. Critical realists, like Barbour, argue that the meaning of truth lies in its correspondence with reality.[23]
Correspondence as a criterion of truth aligns with the concordance and complementarity that Golshani pursues. A theory of research programs (Imre Lakatos) could facilitate Islamic science and its constructive approach, engaging with diverse scientific programs in competition and comparison, particularly when addressing the often unquestioned assumptions regarding creation and evolution.
Each research program is characterized by a hardened core of fundamental assumptions, with auxiliary hypotheses forming a protective belt around this core. This protective belt must be able to withstand significant challenges, often undergoing adjustments or even complete replacement to defend the hardened core.[24]
This comparative and internal revision enables an appraisal of the various models of science and religion—rivalry, independence, dialogue, and integration—thus advancing their relationship within an interdisciplinary framework.
Scientific Discourse: God and Creativity
Ian Barbour expands the concept of research programs in rival scientific paradigms during his discussion of evolutionary theory—specifically the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, systems theory, and theories of self-organization. Within a systems framework, he compares Stuart Kauffman’s theory of self-organization and cybernetic complexity to the so-called Central Dogma, which posits a one-way flow of information from genes to proteins.
Kauffman, in his exploration of the origins of order, challenges this linear view. He argues that proteins can, in fact, influence genes through enzyme-based autocatalytic sets and co-evolving systems within ecological contexts. Beyond these biological insights, Kauffman reintroduces religious language into scientific discourse by reimagining the concept of God within the natural world.
In doing so, Kauffman reinvents religious language within the context of the natural world and thus develops a new perspective on science, reason, and religion. He offers a novel interpretation of God—as a symbol of creativity, emergence, and the unfolding complexity inherent in nature––“God, a fully natural God, the very creativity of the universe.”[25]
Kaufman’s science of creativity contrasts with Whitehead’s metaphysics. Whitehead reacts against ‘the fallacy of misplaced concreteness’ if one takes scientific concepts as an exhaustive description of the real world. It is because “…science can find no aim in nature; science can find no creativity in nature; it finds mere rules of succession. These negations are true of natural science; they are inherent in its methodology.”[26]
In contrast, Kauffman suggests that God may call us as we step into this mystery, and in the face of that mystery, the gifts of creativity are what he identifies as “God.” The idea of God calling to us and offering us gifts almost inevitably reveals a personal aspect of God. The scientific reinvention of the Sacred, or God, may help heal the long-standing dichotomy between reason and faith for complementarity and collaboration. This perspective can enhance our appreciation of the Quran’s teachings, as well as those of other sacred texts, by fostering a unified understanding of creativity, divine accompaniment, and systematic synthesis.
Ian Barbour seeks systematic synthesis in endorsing Whitehead’s process philosophy as a strong candidate because it integrates both religious and scientific thought. He finds the Anthropic Principle consistent with a theology of nature because chance and necessity still remain an option for the atheistic scientist to consider. For Barbour, the fine-tuning of the universe can be articulated as a coherent interpretation of cosmic history and human life. This implies one of the goals of a rational and purposeful God. Within a theistic framework, Barbour maintains that there is intelligent life on earth which can be seen as the work of a purposeful Creator. God is at work in the world, and we can collaborate with God in that work. Barbour does not necessarily reject a concept of design or purpose, because chance is not incompatible with theism. “We can see design in the whole process in which life came into being …Natural laws and chance may equally be instruments of God’s intentions.”[27]
Islamic Science and Limit Questions
Golshani is reluctant to embrace both process theology and the theology of nature, as these frameworks place too much emphasis on process or scientific achievement. There are “limit questions” that scientific knowledge cannot address, such as questions related to aspects of human life beyond the scope of empirical inquiry. Effectively, Golshani defines science as a religious activity within a unified worldview—one that encompasses both science and religion under the same umbrella. Thus, science is not viewed as parallel to religion, but as complementary to it.[28]
Given the “limit questions,” I propose that the science of epigenetics serves as the platform for collaboration between Islamic science and critical realism, particularly in addressing social and environmental factors, as well as the ethical commitment to human dignity. Epigenetics—referring to processes that regulate phenotypic changes (gene expression) without altering the genotype (DNA sequence)—explores how environmental factors can influence gene activity. Epigenetic variations are primarily driven by chromatin modifications, such as DNA methylation, histone tail modification, and histone variants.
The nature of epigenetics highlights the role of social-ecological factors that shape both human life and health conditions. Epigenetic mechanisms are also influenced by specific environmental pollutants, as well as the social and political structures that affect populations. Vulnerable groups, in particular, may face heightened risks of social discrimination and inequality in their access to epigenetic-based medical care. This collaborative framework strengthens the dialogue between ethical responsibility and the priority of human dignity that underpins the relationship between science and religion. Furthermore, it fosters dialogue, integration, and the common good for our shared world.[29]
Islam: Creation and Evolution
According to the Quran, everything in existence is created by God: “Say, ‘God is the Creator of all things’” (13:16). Not only is God the Originator of the universe, but He is also its Sustainer: “God is the Guardian of all things” (39:62). Everything in the universe depends on God. If He wills, He could bring about new creations: “If He so wished, He could take you away and bring forth a new creation” (35:16).
Golshani critiques Darwin’s theory of evolution, since Darwin challenged the idea of intelligent design, offering instead the concept of natural selection. The theory posits that species evolve through three key mechanisms: random genetic changes, the struggle for survival, and the survival of the fittest.
In The Descent of Man (1871), Charles Darwin suggested that the difference in ethics and spiritual abilities between humans and animals is merely a matter of degree. The Darwinian materialist view of the world posed significant conflicts with Christianity.[30]
Against Darwinian evolution, Golshani argues that several developments in the second half of the twentieth century shifted the status of religion within academia. New currents emerged, fostering greater interaction between science and religion. The concept of creatio continua (continuous creation) has also been revived in theological discussions.[31]
There are verses in the Quran that some Muslim scholars interpret as referring to continuous creation: “Everyone in Heaven and Earth asks something from Him; each day He is engaged in some task” (55:29), and “Were we worn out by the first creation? Yet they are in doubt about a fresh creation” (50:15).
In Christianity, creatio continuata signifies the continuation of the original creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), emphasizing God’s preserving activity and the ongoing dependence of the world on God. However, in Golshani’s analysis, he overlooks that Thomas Aquinas was influenced by Avicenna, presenting creation as an emanation of all being from the universal cause—God.
In the Islamic debate between theology and philosophy, al-Ghazali, an eminent Ash‘arite theologian, strongly opposed the idea of the eternity of the world—a concept central to the teachings of al-Farabi and Avicenna. Yet, Golshani is associated with a philosophical tradition rooted in ontological dependence, which emphasizes the contingency of all existents, except for God. In this framework, it is contingency, not temporality, that defines existence. The Necessary Being (God) bestows existence upon contingent beings, and this process is what we understand as creation.[32]
This perspective indicates that Golshani is indebted to Avicenna, who believed God created the universe (First Cause) while describing this creation as a form of emanation. Despite the world’s eternal nature, the eternal world is dependent on God’s necessary existence and creation.
Therefore, Golshani’s metaphysics is grounded in the contingency and ontological dependence of the world on God, affirming Avicenna’s concept of atemporal creation, which underscores God’s transcendence in contrast to emanation.
Thus, Golshani does not adopt a Big Bang cosmology, which implies an evolutionary process. For, Golshani, using the Big Bang theory to affirm or deny the concept of temporal createdness would be a clear misunderstanding of both the scientific theory and the theological concept of creation.[33]
For this, he leverages Thomas Aquinas: “We hold by faith, and it cannot be proved by demonstration that the world did not always exist … the reason being that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated by the word itself.”[34]
Aquinas and Avicenna
Aquinas conceptualizes creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) in terms of the emanation of all being, where creation is solely the proper activity of God. Thus, I argue that Avicenna occupies an important locus in Aquinas’s understanding of creation. By implication, I propose a new chapter of dialogue between Islamic science and Thomas Aquinas.
For Avicenna, the Necessary Existent’s relation to possible existence is exemplified in his unique twist on the Neoplatonic theory of emanation. The Necessary Existent reformulates for the relational God Aristotle’s idea of God’s essential actuality. For Aristotle, “God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God.”[35]
If God is living, all-good, and eternal, and if life, continuous duration, and eternity belong to God, then God’s living eternity might affirm His atemporal priority as the Necessary Existent—at least according to Avicenna.
The possible existence, for Avicenna, does not stand alongside the Necessary Existent as the principle of creation. A privation or absence in the possible existence is nothing positive or active as a co-principle alongside the efficient cause to bring about the effect. God’s power extends to what is possible rather than what is impossible. “The Necessary Existent causes what is possible in itself to be necessary, it is creating ex nihilo, if by ex nihilo one means creating from no actually existing prior thing.”[36]
The secondary causes are operative within the existing order, bringing about changes and effects within a web of interacting causes and effects. Avicenna’s metaphysics contrasts with most Islamic speculative theologians who were occasionalists, reserving all causal efficacy or agency for God alone.
Yet, drawing on Isaiah 26:12, Aquinas develops a theory of divine concursus, referring to God’s continuous and active involvement in the world.[37] God’s activity as the primary cause is sufficient, yet it does not render the activity of secondary causes superfluous. The theory of double agency in concursus refers to the regime of a new dialogue with Islamic science to develop a theory of divine action in light of Tahwid.
Creatio ex Nihilo and the Open Future
Although Golshani is reluctant to accept the Big Bang as a scientific basis for creatio ex nihilo, he cites Ted Peters approvingly: The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo in Christian theology is in “consonance” with the problem of t = 0 in Big Bang cosmology.
In my view, Golshani’s discourse is philosophical in nature, drawing on the concept of creatio ex nihilo à la Avicenna, who incorporates the notions of atemporal creation as well as creatio continua as emanation. This perspective might resonate with the biblical narrative on creation.
Within a biblical narrative, I argue that the light in God’s first act of creation should be understood as natural light. As the first day unfolds, the cosmos begins in time (t = 0) with the divinely created light of time itself. This first day is a “day of light,” marking the initial moment of natural history and anticipating the work of the fourth day. The cosmos, created by God, exists in light—even before the creation of the luminaries and heavenly bodies.
The promise in Genesis 8:22—”seed-time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease”—confirms the foundational structure of time established at creation. At this point, a necessary connection emerges between creation and new creation, between created time and the final time. God created time with reference to its own eschaton. In doing so, God made time a time of hope.[38]
The luminaries created on the fourth day serve as mediators and carriers of light, marking time, distinguishing days and years, and enabling creatures to perceive and participate in the light. They are divine helps given to humanity, reflecting the dignity of being created in the image of God, as expressed in Psalm 8:3-5. On this fourth day, as light is established, both natural history and human history can emerge. The role of these lights is to summon human beings to sight, consciousness, and activity in relation to their Creator.[39]
The God of the Bible in Genesis is consistent with our understanding of the scientific reality of the modern world. The first light in the universe for the consonance can be understood as the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the afterglow of the Big Bang, often described as its “fossil.” This earliest form of electromagnetic radiation became detectable about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for light to travel freely. (The discovery of the CMB was made by Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson at Bell Labs in 1965.)
In other words, by creating time, God imbued it with the quality of hope, reinforcing its eschatological fulfillment through his ongoing creation. In this process, human dignity and honor are poetically expressed in terms of God’s mindful, gracious care, which underpins humanity’s responsible dominion for the divine majestic name.
If Muslims embrace a form of theistic evolution, they believe that God’s Rahma (inspiring compassion, forgiveness, and hope) encompasses all creation, guiding the process of evolution and setting the natural laws that govern it through divine accompaniment—especially in terms of the relationship between primary and secondary causes. The controlling principle of Tawhid demonstrates the unity and interrelatedness of all that exists for intelligibility. Thus, the unity of nature serves as an image of Tawhid, reflected in organisms, patterns, and systems. God is both the First (al-Awwal) and the Last (al-Akhir), immanent in all things as well as transcendent.[40] “Whithersoever ye turn, there is the Face of God” (Q 2:115).
According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, all authentic knowledge has its roots in the Divine Intellect and must ultimately lead to the Divine Principle; however, modern science seeks to explain the working of the whole universe without recourse to the Divine Principle. Religious epistemology can under no condition be reduced to scientific epistemology. One can have a religious science for the responsibility of the common world, emphasizing the religious view of reality against scientific materialistic reductionism and its dominion of scientism.[41]
Research Programs: Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium
To enhance dialogue with Islamic science, I introduce two research programs in competition regarding natural selection and punctuated equilibrium. In Darwin’s theory of evolution, living organisms originated from single cells and gradually evolved through descent with modification from common ancestors. Humans, therefore, did not appear suddenly as de novo creations, but rather through descent with modification over time.[42]
Yet, Darwin himself demonstrated intellectual honesty when he said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”[43]
Darwin’s dictum regarding the mechanism of natural selection states: Natura non facit saltum (Nature doesn’t make leaps). However, Darwin also maintains that, “it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.”[44]
Critics of Darwin, such as Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould, challenged the concept of phyletic gradualism, which requires a gradual series of intermediates between two species in the fossil record. They analyzed the fossil record, where they observed stasis—species remaining unchanged for millions of years within an ecological environment. This led to the development of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which contrasts with the gradual change of Darwin’s theory of descent with modification.
Eldredge and Gould argued that the divergence of one lineage into two is often an abrupt event, typically without any trace of a common ancestor. This punctuates long periods of stasis, during which little change occurs.[45]
Kenneth Miller, an American cell biologist, argues that Darwinian evolution does not preclude the existence of God. He suggests that evolution and religion need not be in conflict, as they address different questions about the world. While acknowledging a degree of separation between religion and science (value neutrality), Miller agrees that they address distinct aspects of reality, each with its own value relevance.
Miller differs from Stephen Jay Gould, who views Homo sapiens solely in terms of contingency. As Gould argues, Homo sapiens is merely “a tiny twig on an improbable branch of a contingent limb on a fortunate tree.”[46] Contingency dominates, while the predictability of the general form recedes into an irrelevant background.
Indeed, Miller argues that religious belief does not require positing a God who “fixes the game.” Instead, he advocates for an undetectable amplifier of divine action, suggesting that evolution neither diminishes nor weakens the power of God.[47]
Miller contrasts with Gould, who extensively discussed Darwin’s ambiguous and ambivalent attitude toward selective adaptation and progress. Miller, on the other hand, advocates for a spectrum of variation and diversity.
Surprisingly, Miller draws on Augustine, who was not an evolutionist, yet viewed creation as a continuous and unfolding process. Today, a Christian can interpret Genesis in light of evolution, drawing knowledge from both reason and experience, which aligns with Augustine’s view. The biblical notion that human life was formed from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7) is not only poetic but scientifically accurate to an astonishing degree.
For Augustine, the “days” in Genesis 1 are not to be understood as ordinary 24-hour days. Therefore, evolution does not negate or undermine the biblical account of creation but rather fulfills and completes it.
However, in examining Miller’s argument through the lens of Augustine’s theology, I propose a reversal that sharpens the relationship between divine grace and evolution. It is not evolution itself, but divine grace, that fulfills the meaning of creation and completes the consummation of the world. Through divine sustaining power, grace allows for freedom and creativity in living creatures. Grace shapes the future.
Darwin himself was a believer in God: “There is grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been, and are being evolved.”[48]
- Conclusion: Moving Forward
In the constructive project of integrating science and religion according to the priorities of value neutrality and value relevance within the Muslim-Christian context, it is crucial to situate evolutionary theory within a theistic framework moving forward.
This perspective enables religious leaders or theologians to pursue the semantics of divine action and its value commitments, critically learn from the two competing research programs, and reconstruct the spectrum of creation and evolution within the ecology of the lifeworld. Divine grace, coupled with concursus and eschatology, is integral to nature’s reality from the future, rather than being entirely embedded within nature itself. God’s creation is considered good, with the gift of future potential, allowing the world to propagate in openness, self-organization, freedom, and creativity.
If Muslim philosophy follows Aristotle’s theory of cause and effect, the discovery of the efficient cause relates to the dialectic between potentiality (dynamis) and actuality (energia/entelechia). This dialectic is explored through the life process, absence/privation, and the interaction between the agent’s role and the environmental constellation. The truth of life emerges as self-disclosure (aletheia), with human beings participating in divine life.
Aristotle’s concept of primary and secondary causes finds its pivot in Aquinas, who incorporates Avicenna into God’s creation. This intellectual legacy can be applied to a project of divine action through the lens of continuous creation. This approach could be integrated into the concept of Tawhid and divine action, further engaging with recent biological developments on evolution and the emergence of life as creativity.
If the Islamic principle of Tawhid unites faith and reason under God and continuous creation, scientific findings could be reconciled with religious texts through reinterpretation. Furthermore, the meanings of certain verses may be more fully understood when informed by scientific knowledge and evidence.
Ibn Rushd, Latinized as Averroes (1126–1198), the commentator on Aristotle, affirms the unity of truth in his well-known statement at the beginning of Chapter Two of his Decisive Treatise: “Now since this religion is true and summons to the study which leads to knowledge of the Truth, we the Muslim community know definitely that demonstrative study does not lead to [conclusions] conflicting with what Scripture has given us; for truth does not oppose truth but accords with it and bears witness to it.”[49]
Averroes’s philosophical theology serves as a pivotal foundation for Muhammad Abduh’s modernist Islam, particularly in the context of Tawhid: “The handiwork of God Who has rightly disposed all things…’ (Surah 27.88) and ‘made His creation excellent’, is full of examples of His wise competence. There is the order of the heavens and the earth and all that they contain, the pattern of the whole universe in its preservation, its immunity from the disorder which would bring it into nothing-ness, the fidelity which assures the well-being of all that exists, whether of living things like plants and animals, and each specifically within its nature.”[50]
[1] Mehdi Golshani, Science & Religion in a Monotheistic Perspective, 2nd (Publisher: Qum: Al-Mustafa International Publication and Translation Center, 2021), 10.
[2] Ibid., 36.
[3] Andre G. Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (Berkeley: University of California Press. 1998), 187.
[4] Hebert Marcuse, Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory (Boston: Beacon Press. 1960), 353-4.
[5] Golshani, Issues in Islam and Science (Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 2004), 45-79.
[6] Muhammad ‘Abduh, The Theology of Unity, trans. Ishaq Mussa’ad and Kenneth Cragg (London George Allen & Unwin LTD, 1966), 31-32.
[7] Christopher Southgate et al., God, Humanity and the Cosmos: A Textbook in Science and Religion (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 316.
[8] M. Golshani, ed. Can Science Dispense with Religion? 5th. (Tehran: Al-Mustafa International Publication and Translation Center, 2021), 374.
[9] Golshani, Science & Religion, 23.
[10] Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: Revolution in Modern Science (London: George Allen & Unwin LTD, 1971), 54.
[11] Cited in Golshani, Science & Religion, 80.
[12] S. J. Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magistratia,” Natural History (March 1997), 16-22.
[13] R. Dawkins, Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1986), 6; River out of Eden (New York: HarperColins, 1995), 132-33.
[14] ST I, 1, 8 ad 2.
[15] Marc W. Kirchner and John C. Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 2.
[16] John Boslough, Stephen Hawking’s Universe (New York: William Morrow, 1985), 121.
[17] Golshani, Science & Religion, 86.
[18] Ibid., 91.
[19] Ian Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, rev. exp. (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990), 100.
[20] Golshani, Science & Religion, 92.
[21] Mikael Stenmark, “A Religiously Partisan Science? Islamic and Christian Perspectives,” Theology and Science, Vol. 3, No.1, 2005, 25. [23-38]
[22] Golshani, “Comment on ‘A Religiously Partisan Science? Islamic and Christian Perspectives’”, ibid., 88-91.
[23] Barbour, Religion and Science, 110. 205.
[24] Imre Lakatos, “Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 69 (1968 – 1969), 169. [pp. 149-186]
[25] Stuart Kaufmann, Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion (New York: Basic Books, 2008), 6.
[26] Barbour, Religion and Science, 292.
[27] Ibid., 216.
[28] Golshani, Science & Religion, 102.
[29] Epigenetics: Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects, ed. Reinhard Heil et al. (Berlin: Springer, 2017).
[30] Golshani, Science & Religion, 41.
[31] Ibid., 42-3.
[32] Ibid., 123.
[33] Ibid.,141.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Aristotle, Metaphysics, XII, ch. 7
[36] Jon McGinnis, Avicenna (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 187.
[37] ST I, qu.105, art. 5.c.
[38] Kart Barth, Church Dogmatics III/1, eds. G. W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (London and New York: T& T Clark International, 2004), 132.
[39] Ibid., 156-68.
[40] Seyyed H. Nasr, Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization (New York: HarperOne, 2003), 60.
[41] Golshani, ed. Can Science Dispense with Religion?, 373.
[42] Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution (New York: Harper Perennial, 2002), 53.
[43] Cited in ibid., 83. Darwin, The Origin, 191.
[44] Cited in ibid., 113. Darwin, The Origin, 119-120.
[45] Ibid., 84-5.
[46] Stephen J. Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990), 291.
[47] Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, 243.
[48] Darwin, The Origin, first ed. 580.
[49] Averroes, The Decisive Treatise, trans. George F. Hourani (London: Luzac & Co. 1976).
[50] Abdhu, The Theology of Tawhid, 59.