Skip to main content

Debate with Muslim creationist

THIS DEBATE HAS NOW BEN CANCELLED (apparently because of the furore over the Jewel of Medina).

I am debating a Muslim creationist - Sharif Hafezi - next Saturday, 25th October, 6.30pm. I have v. little time to prepare so anyone who can advise me about this brand of creationism do get in touch.

It's at:

Froud Centre
1 Toronto Av
London,
E12 5JF
Tel: 020 84782468

map here.

For public transport the closest tube station is East Ham (Hammersmth & City/District). There is also nearby overground rail links at Manor Park (available from Stratford platform 8) and Woodgrange Park.

Comments

Larry Hamelin said…
It's mostly just warmed-over Christian creationism, with a dash of "The Koran predicted this or that scientific knowledge," which you counter by showing the Koran is unacceptably vague. Translators have been known to massage the translation to make it more specific (see Kafir Girl's blog) so make sure you dig down to the Arabic for these predictions, or at least consult multiple translations, especially older translations.
Lee said…
Isn't all creationism the same?

"God did it so stop asking questions"?

The details are not important to the believer, if they were – they would be scientists.

Sorry... I'm no help.

Lee
PS
I wish I could go, but I am in the wrong country - any chance of a review of the event from anyone attending? (Maybe even a recording...)
Anonymous said…
You're being very generous and gracious, Stephen, dignifying their theory with your presence.

Doesn't teaching the controversy assume there is one?
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Rob - i shall make it perfectly clear there ain't no controversy about evolution.
Geert A. said…
If it's a Muslim crationist, he'll try to marry the big bang and creationism.

Crationism is most likely going to be the Harun Yahya version. The "it's statistically impossible" and "never a missing link between species was found" version.

The "big bang" would be described in the Qur'an verses 21:30 "clove heaven and earth asunder", and further in 41:9-12. Note that these versions closely resemble big parts of Ovid's world view.
http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Khaos.html

Here, Muslims generally als use the "fine tune" argument (citing Hawking / anthropic principal) where everything would be mathematically "just right" for earth and humanity from the start.

In my viewpoint, filosophically, one cannot hold both viewpoints at the same time.

The big bang God is an almighty mathematical genious setting initial parameters of the universe perfectly.

The creationist God is not so (not almighty): he seems totally unable to make the laws to concieve humanity from the start and needs to dabble in his cration over history to "manually" create new species until the "perfect" human being arrives.

Note that if I were Muslim, I'd opt for the second. Allah seems equally unable in the Qur'an to distribute a man's inheritance properly. The formulas in the Qur'an sometimes distribute less than 100% of the goods, and sometimes even more.
Andrew Louis said…
Will there be a transcript of the debate available? Maybe something you could post?
anticant said…
Is there anything to do with Islam that doesn't get embroiled in a furore of some sort or other?

Hysteria seems to be the name of the game.
Stephen Law said…
Debate has been cancelled - apparently because they were worried about angry Muslims set off by the Jewel of Medina business.
Toby said…
I think it is what Richard Dawkins has called Old Earth Creationism. Have you seen his discussion of Harun Yahya?

Video at http://richarddawkins.net/article,3239,n,n"
Stephen Law said…
Yes I have. It's v funny indeed. Oddly enough, I have just been invited to Turkey to interview Mr Yahya. Creepy, eh? I might do a post on that shortly....
Lee said…
Debate has been cancelled - apparently because they were worried about angry Muslims set off by the Jewel of Medina business.

So discussion of ideas in an open forum where they can be challenge by all should not be had now?

The world is becoming a worrying place when threats of violence stop intellectual discussions.

Lee
anticant said…
"So discussion of ideas in an open forum where they can be challenge by all should not be had now?

The world is becoming a worrying place when threats of violence stop intellectual discussions."

Surely this has been the case so far as Muslims in the West are concerned at least since the Rushdie "Satanic Verses" brouhaha.

Islam is about domination - not discussion.
Anonymous said…
Hi,

Ive heard sharif hafezi debate Guy Otto in Manchester Metropolitan university in the sharif hafezi vs Guy Otto debate. He didnt use any Harun Yahya type stuff and very rarely mentioned the Holy Koran or Holy Bible. Rather he used astrophysics and left guy otto bewildered. This guy needs to be tackled
Anonymous said…
Sharif hafezi

check the muslim council of britian website to find the material the sharif hafezi uses. apparently he is a member possibly or probably mjnot

sharif hafezi, sharif hafezi abu laith sharif hafezi
Anonymous said…
Sharif
Hafezi is an Islamic philosopher, who has lectured widely on a
range of contemporary issues including the existence of God.

sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,sharif hafezi sharif hafezi,

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o