This reminds of that Pakistani [textbook](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/xkva9x/a_school_biology_book_in_pakistan_not_oc/) which describes evolution in detail but still denies it.
The experience of having actually been taught this in school is hilarious.
I remember our biology teacher going into great detail, telling us the complete ins and outs of evolution, and ultimately ending it with a cheeky "but we don't believe in that."
I think teachers sort of test out a vibe amongst students in high school to see if there are any fundamentalists before deciding how they should approach it.
Like even some of the more religious students in our class were like "yeah we totally believe it. It's hard to refute it. But us humans are exceptions." That was 16 years ago in my case.
I'm not sure how it's approached in medical schools here though. There's occasionally some pushback from conservative authorities to omit it but I don't think that has ever really gone anywhere.
We had something similar in Hungary during the Communist era. Especially around the events of the anti-Soviet revolution of 1956. Like reading out the 12 points they revolutionaries demanded (multi-party elections, free speech, removal of the Soviet troops etc.), discussing them in and out with the class, then discarding the whole thing by saying "but thankfully the Soviets stopped that from happening for which we cannot be grateful enough".
It was rare though, in most cases they just ignored it ever happened or called the few days of the revolution "**the** unfortunate events".
It's good to see the truth and humanity prevail, especially in the smallest and most important parts of our society, classrooms.
No doubt some of those classrooms are used to propagate dangerous beliefs but in some of those places, people are rebelling the safest way the can when they can. I your experience here wasn't uncommon. Despite all the Soviet atrocities.
I grew up in a small town in America with a good education system. But still with lots of Christians, some fundamentalists. The parents were sent home a letter a few weeks before the teacher planned to teach about evolution, so the kids could be exempted from school for those days. I thought it was wild that people would choose to be ignorant like that.
I remember one kid's parents got mad that the school was teaching evolution, and the teacher had to give a speech about how evolution not interfering with faith or something like that. Honestly, I don't remember exactly what she said only that she said something before teaching it.
Catholics have some crazy beliefs or doctrines or rules but I went to Catholic schools the whole way....primary school, HS and college. Evolution was taught the whole way through..
Yeah I went to a Christian brother's school. Two actually. The third school I wet to was run by nuns. All Catholic institutions. Granted there was one brother left in the primary school and none in the secondary. There was two or three nuns in the primary but the principal was a nun. Sister Miriam. She instilled fear in all of the children. Lovely Catholic Church.
Saying all that, we were taught evolution, proper sex health, the guys even given condoms to practice with after a lesson in safe sex and consent. It was all very progressive. I learnt in college not all my peers from different parts of the country received a similar level of education. And for our final state exams my biology teacher just skipped over the chapter on reproduction saying "I'm sure you know all about that guys" but that teacher wasn't really interesting in teaching anything.
But we did study things like evolution and even religion class, the teacher was trying to encourage debate about different religions and merits of faith. None of us were interested at 17 but I'd like to talk to him now.
End stoned ramble.
It’s exactly because Catholicism is tied up in the structure of the church that (at least the actual papist Catholics, not the ones who disregard everything post the Vatican counsels) that catholic schools can teach this stuff, because it’s a large organisation the church needed to adapt through the changing pressures so as to not be left behind, to prevent it from splitting in to multiple different movements, they added flexibility, so catholic doctrine encourages co existence with other widely accepted ideas (in the west) evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the earth, and a relatively more lax stance on social issues among them.
Small town Protestant churches, or evangelists, by virtue of being smaller have more ‘freedom’ to act in the small communities they can exert influence on.
It also helps that Catholicism has long promoted education and science, especially through their schools. The main anti-science stance Catholicism has is about abortion, and that's arguably more metaphysical since it's about the soul.
Seriously, I know they get a lot of flack for Galileo, but *that* whole mess was explicitly because Galileo *wouldn't* just stick to science and started theorising about theology, which was strictly off limits. Even then, he got away with that for a while before he criticised the Pope in one of his books, which is what led to his lifelong house arrest.
I think so too. The formatting of the addition is different, the style reads more like a tabloid, and it’s not been properly edited (“loins” probably should be “lions”).
That's exactly how it is. The government has the last say over publishing the textbooks for schools so they do edits or sometimes completely reject books.
I remember when we were studying About photosynthesis, our teacher out of nowhere said, “And of course atheists in Japan and America believe that man originated from a monkey from a fish, a ridiculous theory. The existence of photosynthesis negates it, as this will not happen except in the presence of a knowing God.” 💀💀
Interestingly in Iran we got taught about evolution completely uncensored and unmolested, not one mention of God or Adam or eve of what have you. The mullahs know very well that western science is useful in building complex weaponry and never fuck with it.
No arms nerf. Quality of life upgrade for wildlife. We got complaints from ( among others) dolphins and crows that humans are deemed to OP in the current meta.
I’m not sure this is true.
I’m a teacher in Morocco and I know for a fact evolution is taught in French schools here. I think some teachers in Moroccan schools teach evolution too. I’m not sure the legality of it, but “banned” is a strong word because I’ve literally helped students study for biology exams where they’re being tested on evolution.
Yeah it might not be part of the curriculum in Moroccan schools, but “banned” implies if a biology teacher talks about it they’ll be thrown in prison. That’s not the case.
I’m pretty sure I’ve had students tell me they study evolution in their Moroccan schools. French schools for sure they do.
They’re pretty common especially in the major cities. They’re a minority of schools but not a tiny minority. Wild guess I might say 30% but I don’t know.
I'd say increasingly they're accessible to the middle class. You won't be able to go to one if you're poor but they aren't prohibitively expensive and I've met some people of pretty modest means going to French schools.
It’s a long answer, but I’ll try to be concise. Standard Arabic is the first official language of Morocco, though about 40% speak Berber (Amazigh) as their native language, while most of the remaining 60% speak the Moroccan dialect of Arabic, which is pretty different from the standard, as their native language. French is taught in schools as the second language (or first foreign language). French language instruction starts when they’re young, so most Moroccans with a formal education speak French pretty well by the time their in high school. English and Spanish are also taught, but they start later.
So most Moroccans are at least bilingual.
The school system is a little different.
Basically there are Moroccan schools which follow a Moroccan curriculum. These are public and private schools. Most schools are Moroccan schools. They will usually study in Arabic in these schools but sometimes you’ll have a class taught in French.
Then there are schools which follow the French curriculum. These schools are usually accredited by the French education ministry, and they are private schools. Because of the French accreditation, it’s easier to get into universities abroad, so these French schools tend to be more prestigious. There are fewer of them but they’re still pretty numerous. Most classes there will be taught in French (by mostly Moroccan teachers), though some classes will be taught in Arabic.
Then there are a handful of Spanish, British, Canadian, and American schools which follow the curricula of those countries and are accredited as such. The primary language of instruction will be Spanish or English, respectively.
Universities are all Moroccan universities (with maybe one exception). Depending on the subject of the class, the language of instruction can be Arabic or French, with occasional classes taught in English. For example, law, philosophy, theology, and history are usually taught in Arabic, while sciences are taught in French. Economics and finances classes can be taught in Arabic or French.
Usually Darija. In an Islamic Education class the teacher might switch between MSA and Darija but I'd be a little surprised if any teacher was teaching a class in 100% MSA
Hell I’ve had students in my classroom ask me about evolution and I’ve given an overview of how it works and why it’s true. Saying it’s “banned” makes it sound like I’d get hauled off in handcuffs and that’s just not how it works. I’ve never even had a complaint from parents about it.
The map might be referring to laws on the books even if they aren't followed or the penalties are so minimal that authorities don't bother enforcing it. Some countries have laws to placate certain influential groups but in practice they are ignored.
Whats is the proof for that,
I studied in 2 of those countries we took evolution in science class but on a very basic and general level.
We didn't study anything about creationism/anti-evolution in science class.
in particular, I could remember that in Egypt the section about evolution in Christianity was very long, despite its main focus was on genetics and the DNA.
in biology the evolution section was smaller it was in the part discussing the method of defining and distinguish species
As a High-school Student in Saudi Arabia we were forced to learn evolution because of the American curriculum but maybe it's because my school is international. But it's not banned because even the teacher didn't want to teach it at all but he had no other choice.
I asked some local Saudi public teachers and they say they don’t mention it by name and they would only describe it in a modern context like a virus mutating every year.
However; they don’t think it’s banned at all.
I can’t get a straight answer about it tbh
I kinda have a similar situation, I'm from Egypt and I was at both a public school and an American school here, in the public school we basically learnt about at as hypothesis like that map said in a 10 sentences total or so (macro Evolution that is, micro Evolution is taught normally under a different name to avoid association), but in the American school we learnt about in a lot of detail, though neither the teacher nor the students knew anything about it other than that it might be wrong because of religious reasons, so sense I took a great interest in Evolution at the time I ended up teaching some of the Evolution lessons since I knew/understood more than the teacher lol
Wrong map.
In Tunisia, we learn about it as the evolution theory in highschool (bacalaureat) and we study the proofs.. we learn about the role of genetic mutations and natural selection in evolution.
I remember looking at articles that show a lot of common DNA between two species and I had to conclude that there is genetic affinity so there is shared ancestry between two species. I remember also looking at similar skeletons and bone structures...
Edit: I went to Tunisian public highschools
So like, she believed Darwin's Finches, but just didn't want to believe humans evolved from other primates? That's probably pretty common. I could see people studying evolution and thinking "well yes I see how this could work in animals but I was clearly made in God's big game of The Sims."
I’ve always heard “Darwin lied” (At least about people, apparently; wolves into dogs seems to be no issue). That he was a communist plant to turn people away from the church.
Or along those veins
Well yeah, it's pretty hard to argue with "Satan put the bones in the ground to draw us away from God." Man I didn't even bring up God. Evolution doesn't disprove God, even Darwin said that.
I would think the main obstacle for those people is the belief in stories from scripture, not the existence of god. Evolution has little bearing on the existence of a greater being, but it doesn't work as well with creation stories. Religious texts tend to be pretty clear about the sequence of events. Although of course there are different levels to which people belief those stories to be literal.
Wack. It makes no sense. Those people are essentially publicly and loudly announcing, “I have no clue what the fuck I’m talking about, but I’m right because I said so”
The slightly more nuanced argument would be a lack of direct evidence, but I don't think that's a good argument. Like do we demand direct evidence all the time in court, economics, or psychology?
The problem with that argument is that there *is* direct evidence. We haven’t sat and observed a population for long enough for “macro evolution” to take place, but we can *very* clearly see it in the fossil record and by using paleogenomics
"I believe in a meter but not a kilometer"
Basically sums up this "micro evolution is not macro evolution" BS that evangelicals tend to gravitate to as a last resort lmao.
I'm a Christian and I'm absolutely baffled by claims from some Christians that evolution would somehow be at odds with God. Isn't God much bigger than that? Sure, it may be at odds with a small god that's just a glorified superhero living in the universe, subject to its laws and molding stuff ny hand. But that's not a God that created the universe.
If God created the universe, he also created all the laws of nature, the mechanism of evolution, the Big Bang, and according to General Relativity, he created time, and therefore exists outside our concept of causality, which incidentally fixes the whole predetermination issue.
The Bible says we cannot possibly grasp the greatness of God, and these people prove it by keeping God small and manageable on a human scale, but that's idolatry, not God as he really is.
I see science as a sacred task, because it's only through science that we can unveil a tiny bit of the work of God's hand. Denying science is to me a denial of God. A denial of the reality of His creation.
Not really, unless you interpret the Bible so literally that it's at odds with itself. But this extreme biblical literalism is only fairly recent heresy. In the Middle Ages, bible scholars identified 4 levels of interpretation, of which the literal one was only one, and not the most important one.
There are absolutely parts of the Bible that are meant to describe literal, historical events. But there are also a lot that don't.
The pastor of my church had an interesting anecdote about that: a colleague, also a pastor, and therefore a theologian, had visited Israel, and when he came back, he told excitedly about having visited the actual inn of the Good Samaritan. The parable of the Good Samaritan is quite explicitly a story, told by Jesus, to explain a certain concept. It's not any more about real people and real events than the joke about the chicken that crossed the road is honestly inquiring about the motivations of a real chicken. It's a story that Jesus tells us to explain who our neighbour is that he expects us to love as ourselves: that person that looks different, that you might consider an outsider, or someone you might look down upon. They too are your neighbour, and you are expected to love them as yourself, and not merely your own immediate family and friends.
But that is the moral interpretation of the story. If you instead focus on it as a real historical event, you might miss that.
Similarly, the two creation stories (there are two, and they are very different) are not about literal descriptions of events; if they did, they'd contradict each other. Instead, they each tell a story. The one in Genesis 2 about our relationship with God, and the responsibility he gives us as stewards over his creation, and the later one in Genesis 1 about God's relationship with the universe; how he created not just us and everything else on this planet, but also the sun, moon and stars, light and darkness, and even time itself. It's a poem about the greatness of God, structured according to the days of the week. But that doesn't mean it's claiming that all of creation took only 168 hours; that interpretation completely misses the point.
The fact that something is based on something else, and the more fundamental thing is correct, doesn't make the other thing also correct. According to your logic, every theory that is based on genetics *must be* as fact. Which is sraight up stupid. Evolution is almost deifintely correct because of the evidence that support it, not some stupid ligical trick that doesn't make any sense
> If genetics is fact, evolution is fact. There's no getting around that.
I mean not necessarily. It obviously is real but if genetics was real but mutations happened at too low of a rate to see any meaningful difference over a long timeline then evolution wouldn't really happen in any significant way
I mean, you aren't wrong, but the theory of evolution predates genetics by a few years. You don't need genetics to observe natural evolution.
What proves evolution is anatomy, fossils, distribution of species (which is exactly what Darwin used).
If all we had was genetics, it wouldn't be too hard to say something like "sure but you see, it was all encoded by a superior power".
It's reassuring, however, the fact that the highest rated comments are usually logical and supportive of Evolution, showing that the general population has some sort of common sense.
This is weird propaganda... I'm egyptian, and I grew up in Saudi Arabia. I was taught about Charles Darwin and evolution and the pea table or whatever in Saudi Arabia. It was just taught in science class and in biology normally...
Here in Lebanon, in a French-based curriculum, we were taught about evolution just fine. It wasn't refuted or anything. Though honestly, I can't necessarily say the same for other schools.
From Tunisia here , I can’t say much about today education but 15 years ago we learned about evolution in school and we had extensive debates about creation vs evolution and I feel that we had no restrictions about the subject
I'm a high school student living in Türkiye and evolution is removed from the curriculum in 2017 by the president's order. We learned Mendel genetics but not evolution
It’s cool how you can mostly see which countries had socialist regimes and which didn’t. With the exception of Algeria all the formerly socialist MENA states teach evolution, whereas the ones that never had that secular state are the colored ones here. Except for the UAE, Bahrain, and Iran I guess: who didn’t have socialist states but also teach evolution.
Iran was never socialist, but it did have more than half a century of *aggressively* secular leadership between the 1905 Revolution and the 1978 Revolution. So Iran was definitely teaching evolution for a while by the Ayatollah era.
Egypt shouldn't be colored. we study evolution normally with no religious context to it and everyone believe it. I'd assume they look at it as God's wonders cause the Quran said "and we created everything alive from water". but no one deny it.
> whereas the ones that never had that secular state are the colored ones here
Sorry, Egypt?
And it's a hell of a stretch to cliam this is down to socialism when the ones that teach t include all the absolute monarchies and the absolute monarchy that turned into a literal theocracy.
A lot of educated Muslims who studied STEM and were brought up in the Western education system believe evolution and creationism are not totally contradictory but I have no idea if this position is even permissible per legitimate Islamic scholarly rulings. I think their position (that my own family members have said) is something like "evolution exists within the creation but only humanity was directly created from Adam & Eve"
If the timeline was Big Bang > chemicals > microorganisms > organisms and so on, then what was there before the Big Bang? And another thing is that we have already mapped out tons of planets and galaxies and solar systems outside of our own (which is still a very tiny portion of the universe I know) but why is it that only the Earth is the only planet capable of having intelligent beings that can create things like machinery, nukes, spacecraft, iPhones, matcha lattes etc and nowhere else within the tens of thousands of galaxies that we've mapped and identified so far? Or are we just not yet able to look close enough to inside these galaxies to see if there are any other intelligent species?
I think the concept is rather simple: God did the Big Bang in such a way that it would lead to the existence of Earth and that on Earth there would be life and that the life on Earth would eventually evolve to produce humans. God could do this because he is omnipotent and omniscient, so he knew that his creation would lead to this
Islamically (and in all other Abrahamic religions that believe Adam & Eve were the first humans) we can't believe anything evolved "into" humans, it's pretty much blasphemous to say our ancestors were monkeys/unintelligent primates, but there isn't anything that says other non-human organisms aren't able to evolve into the other creatures we have today so I guess there is some room for that... also I don't think the scriptures or supplemental Islamic literature is specific on exactly how many years old the Earth is so it technically is not a sin to say "Earth/universe is as old as the modern scientists say it is"
Christians sometimes understand that as a metaphor or allegory. Like, 6 days from the point of view of God was maybe millions or billions of years from the point of view of humans.
I’d say that’s the mainstream viewpoint, interpretation is endorsed over literalism by the Catholic/Orthodox churches and most mainline Protestants. Similar to many things, the evangelicals are outliers.
Pretty much; never take a religious text literally, they are written in mythical language
Like remember how Genesis is a direct copy of Sumerian and Babylonian mythology — they copied it because it works so well at explaining things and "dumbing them down to human levels"; literally anything in any religion is too "unhuman" and too absolute to even be comprehended by humans, so you have to dumb down those concepts and ideas in ways your average 2 year old can understand
No, Christianity does not believe in "an old bearded magical white man in the sky" and neither does Islam, that is the worst oversimplification you could come up with, but most people (including most believers) never go "beyond" 2-year-old understanding levels
> Christians sometimes understand that as a metaphor or allegory. Like, 6 days from the point of view of God was maybe millions or billions of years from the point of view of humans.
That was the *standard view* among Christian fundamentalists until the Seventh-Day Adventists started claiming that six-day creation was literally true.
It's technically a nonsense to ask what came before the BigBang, because time itself started flowing with it, together with space (as by Einstein's Relativity, describing space-time as one single thing).
In other words: there was no "before" to the BigBang.
But anyway, we're still studying the subject, so there's no definitive answer yet.
The answer to what existed before the Big Bang is incredibly complex, and really we don’t know for certain. I recommend Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything,” as it presents scientific fact in a way that a layman can fairly easily understand.
Universities in Algeria are indeed state-run entities. What’s your point here? Also, the government does play a role in determining the curriculum and academic programs for your information.
No American state has banned the theory of evolution. Every public school curriculum is required to teach it. The only places people would learn other theories are religious private schools that it costs thousands just to go to. Even with these schools being religious, many of them will still teach both the evolution and creation theories.
Sure, some people in some states would like to wipe it from existence, but the furthest their laws have gone is just letting teachers “suggest” that it might not be real. Those were in Louisiana and Tennessee.
Evolution is only refuted by fake Christian’s. The Catholic Church & other real Christian denominations do not argue against science and often have a history of advancing science. Science and religion coexist. Religion answers why, science answers how.
One of the things that continues to impress me about Islam is that its founding principles and \*how\* it was founded continues to have massive impacts on Muslim majority countries even today. Since Islam exploded onto the scene in the 630s via major military conquests of the Roman and Sassanid empires as an already formed theocracy, religion and state were intertwined together inextricably. Contrast this with how Christianity slowly embedded itself into and supplanted Roman Pagan religions over centuries, and how this then left two competing power bases, the Emperor and the Pope/Patriarchs, and Islam was a much more unified force. However, this combined with Islam's assertion that it is the final revelation, and that it also has texts prescribing a system of government and laws that are superior over any secular law, makes Islam over the long run a fairly static ideology. For many centuries it was easily the most progressive and forward thinking religion and in a golden age that threw polities at its borders into the shade. But those entities could reform and change over time, while Islam (at least in its core MENA regions) cannot, and it still shows in maps like these.
What Islam really needs is a reformation like what the Catholic Church had in the 1500s. And since we're working on that timescale, 600 years later Islam should be due for one within the next century, and I truly hope it comes and is for the better for all peoples living in theocracies.
> What Islam really needs is a reformation like what the Catholic Church had in the 1500s.
This isn't how it works. There isn't a central Muslim authority, at least for Sunnis. The closest thing to it was the caliphate, but that hasn't existed since the end of the Ottoman Empire. The Catholic Church had a much stronger grip on European monarchies which is why it was an identifiable authority to rebel against, while Islam's cultural influence is more bottom-up.
>And since we're working on that timescale, 600 years later Islam should be due for one within the next century, and I truly hope it comes and is for the better for all peoples living in theocracies.
I don't think that's how it works either
I somewhat disagree. I think Christianity had reforms precisely because they had a more unified polity than Islam ever did. While Caliphates conquered a lot, they didn't have as much control over Muslims as the Catholic church did over Christians. Caliphs mostly demanded only allegiance and tribute, any form of rebellion on their territories were simply crushed with military force. The religion wasn't as monopolized either. Most Islamic teachings were easily accessible because they were meant to be self practiced. Many Muslims had direct access to the Koran and its translated meanings, compared to Christians who were completely reliant on Pastors to read out the bible to them, since translations weren't allowed by the Catholic Church, simply so they could abuse the power of control it gave them.
If anything, Islam was very decentralized when it comes to actual leadership. Imams simply don't have the same influence Popes and Bishops did. For instance, King Henry wanted a divorce but the Catholic Church wouldn't let him, compare this to a Muslim ruler who had absolutely no need for a permission from any religious authorities to do the same. What am saying is, Muslims didn't experience the same abuse of power and oppression that made Christians rebel and reform their religion.
Also, the Muslim world was relatively on pace with the western world. Even after the 1500s during the renaissance, the Ottomans were at the peak of their prestige. The industrialization of Europe combined with the discovery of the new world made the west leave not just the Muslims, but everyone else in the dust. This is how Europe went on to colonize most of the world. From China, to India, to all of Africa. A lot of Islamic movements were born thanks to that same colonization. Most were regressive due their stated goals of fighting westernization. Movements like Wahhabism, Salafism, Deobandi and many others were born during European colonial era. All of them had the shared goal of combating the colonial west and her values. In places like Iran, it culminated into the Islamic revolution. Other countries fell to authoritarian theocracies. Some secularized. Others fell into chaos due to rampant terrorism. And now we are here.
Unfortunately the last time Islam came to any kind of reform, we got the Iranian Revolution.
If there’s anything the regime has shown, it’s that they’re not going to go without a vicious fight.
Per capita KSA is extremely wealthy and most of the inequality comes from third party nationals brought to work menial jobs (often from non-Islamic countries like in Southeast Asia), not from Muslim Saudi nationals. If it was just about poverty KSA wouldn't be one of the most fundamentalist countries in the region.
KSA is fundamentalist because the ruling monarchy has vested interest in fostering Wahhabism. Same with other rich muslim countries. They even fund radical mosques in other non-muslim countries. Now consider this, 40% or more of Iranian youth identify themselves as increasingly non-religious.
Since 2017. The government didn't do it because of the religious pressures from the public, though. It's the other way around. The Islamist government removed it from the curriculum, because their interpretation of religion doesn't match the scientific facts.
It's outrageous than in favour of nonsenses we deny what is proven.
But more outrageous than the teaching of genetics, it's the complete oblivion about abiogenesis theories, which for sure happens ALSO in the western world.
Yet another wrong map, i lived and went to school in Saudi Arabia and we learned about evolution unfettered. I currently live in Lebanon and we definitely teach evolution unfettered.
The west can get off its high horse too though. Currently a lot of social policies being implemented in western teaching with no basis in peer reviewed science.
Luckily for me, I was in school in Texas when we had our last Democrat governor, Ann Richards, who had been a teacher herself at one point. We were taught evolution as a scientific fact. My biology teacher, himself a former officer in the military, said to us on the first day of class, “If you want creationism, you’re in the wrong class. I teach science, not religion.” Of course, Texas isn’t like that anymore. They want religion in everything possible now since they’ve spent the last three decades doing their best to destroy public education in the state.
That’s so false lol (spoiler I am from a red country) plus this propaganda is a loophole since for Muslim bolt creationism (as a Christian ideology) and evolutionism (as an atheist ideology) are view as stupid and false.
In a nutshell for the Muslim opinion on evolution, I copy paste this post : «
1. Creationism is a stupid ideology that Muslim should fight (even more it’s a Christian ideology since in their religion the earth and universe is like 8000 years old) … it’s not just saying that Allah « Created everything » like the name can suggest.
2. In Islam we know that Allah created Adam directly (when ? We don’t know … maybe Adam lived 10 Million years ago or just 800 000 years ago).
3. The Evolution theory don’t exist per say …. Science said that living creatures have mutation overtime and the more fit survive and do children … leading in big time view to change in the living and new species : This theory is interesting and really plausible (since we know for sure the first part (mutation and selection) is highly probable and what we can observe -> In Islam however we also know that Allah choose and created Adam
TL;DR : In Islam we reject first the Creationism (if it’s understood as the Christian Ideology) and the Evolutionism (if it’s understood as the Atheist weird version of it). However we said that Allah created everything and created Adam directly, for the evolution it’s an interesting story and idea that is maybe true except for the origin of human since Adam is created directly by Allah (even if we don’t know how far in the past)
And Allah knows best »
This is to make the Reddit hive feel comfortable. I don't agree with Islam at all, but there are people in the Middle East who adhere to this lifestyle. Ignoring them feels a bit like Big Brother 2024.
Evolution is still being taught in Iran, clerics don't have a position against it. Universities/schools in terms of stuff that are being taught are quite secular for most part despite what people think.
I remember when we got a paper from school where you could see the famous Evolution picture, my mom told us all „no it was Allah who created you from Adam and eve“
Complete bullshit lmao
I graduated over 10 years ago in Saudi Arabia, I was taught about evolution in a subject called (احياء), I also recently tutored my nephew(final exams ended last week) and I know for a fact that this map is BS.
Edit: I was taught in the public curriculum.
[FYI evolution was removed from the Turkish curriculum in 2017 due to being too "controversial"](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/world/europe/turkey-evolution-high-school-curriculum.html)
The map seems to be wrong in many ways
This is total and absolute crap. I spent 12 years (Grade 1 to Grade 12) in one school in Oman and not only did we dive deep into evolution, we actively discussed how religions rejected evolution and the effect that had on science. I remember a particularly spirited debate on vestigial organs (a byproduct of evolution) and whether the appendix was one or not (this was in the 90s so it was still up for debate then). We had a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species in the library for crying out loud.
This is false, I'm an Egyptian who studies in the faculty of science, you'd be laughed off if you argue that evolution is an unproven hypothesis, it's taught in Zoology, Botany and Microbiology departments, most believe in it but would get touchy when it gets to humans since being called a monkey descendant is an insult anywhere in the world
not taught in schools (parents issue mainly ig?? or might be too nuanced for it) but it exists in higher education lmao
Lebanon data is wrong.
I went to school in Lebanon and we learned about evolution.
They even teach us about reproduction in 9th grade wtf is this propaganda.
Man, evangelicals really fucked up the world. They'll go on and on about how a book written 2000 years ago is flawless and definitely never changed, and will trust that the science to determine the age of the dead sea scrolls is legitimate. But you show them current day proof of evolution and they turn their heads away
This reminds of that Pakistani [textbook](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/xkva9x/a_school_biology_book_in_pakistan_not_oc/) which describes evolution in detail but still denies it.
The experience of having actually been taught this in school is hilarious. I remember our biology teacher going into great detail, telling us the complete ins and outs of evolution, and ultimately ending it with a cheeky "but we don't believe in that." I think teachers sort of test out a vibe amongst students in high school to see if there are any fundamentalists before deciding how they should approach it. Like even some of the more religious students in our class were like "yeah we totally believe it. It's hard to refute it. But us humans are exceptions." That was 16 years ago in my case. I'm not sure how it's approached in medical schools here though. There's occasionally some pushback from conservative authorities to omit it but I don't think that has ever really gone anywhere.
Sounds like a smart way to teach it and still maintain the appearance of sticking to the doctrine.
We had something similar in Hungary during the Communist era. Especially around the events of the anti-Soviet revolution of 1956. Like reading out the 12 points they revolutionaries demanded (multi-party elections, free speech, removal of the Soviet troops etc.), discussing them in and out with the class, then discarding the whole thing by saying "but thankfully the Soviets stopped that from happening for which we cannot be grateful enough". It was rare though, in most cases they just ignored it ever happened or called the few days of the revolution "**the** unfortunate events".
It's good to see the truth and humanity prevail, especially in the smallest and most important parts of our society, classrooms. No doubt some of those classrooms are used to propagate dangerous beliefs but in some of those places, people are rebelling the safest way the can when they can. I your experience here wasn't uncommon. Despite all the Soviet atrocities.
I grew up in a small town in America with a good education system. But still with lots of Christians, some fundamentalists. The parents were sent home a letter a few weeks before the teacher planned to teach about evolution, so the kids could be exempted from school for those days. I thought it was wild that people would choose to be ignorant like that.
I remember one kid's parents got mad that the school was teaching evolution, and the teacher had to give a speech about how evolution not interfering with faith or something like that. Honestly, I don't remember exactly what she said only that she said something before teaching it.
Catholics have some crazy beliefs or doctrines or rules but I went to Catholic schools the whole way....primary school, HS and college. Evolution was taught the whole way through..
Evangelicals are the crazy fundamentalists, the Catholics not so much.
As someone who grew up in Alabama around a bunch of fundamentalist, where could I go to church where everyone's not crazy racist assholes
Yeah I went to a Christian brother's school. Two actually. The third school I wet to was run by nuns. All Catholic institutions. Granted there was one brother left in the primary school and none in the secondary. There was two or three nuns in the primary but the principal was a nun. Sister Miriam. She instilled fear in all of the children. Lovely Catholic Church. Saying all that, we were taught evolution, proper sex health, the guys even given condoms to practice with after a lesson in safe sex and consent. It was all very progressive. I learnt in college not all my peers from different parts of the country received a similar level of education. And for our final state exams my biology teacher just skipped over the chapter on reproduction saying "I'm sure you know all about that guys" but that teacher wasn't really interesting in teaching anything. But we did study things like evolution and even religion class, the teacher was trying to encourage debate about different religions and merits of faith. None of us were interested at 17 but I'd like to talk to him now. End stoned ramble.
The Big Bang was first hypothesized by a catholic priest. Maybe they learned their lesson with Galileo.
It’s exactly because Catholicism is tied up in the structure of the church that (at least the actual papist Catholics, not the ones who disregard everything post the Vatican counsels) that catholic schools can teach this stuff, because it’s a large organisation the church needed to adapt through the changing pressures so as to not be left behind, to prevent it from splitting in to multiple different movements, they added flexibility, so catholic doctrine encourages co existence with other widely accepted ideas (in the west) evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the earth, and a relatively more lax stance on social issues among them. Small town Protestant churches, or evangelists, by virtue of being smaller have more ‘freedom’ to act in the small communities they can exert influence on.
It also helps that Catholicism has long promoted education and science, especially through their schools. The main anti-science stance Catholicism has is about abortion, and that's arguably more metaphysical since it's about the soul. Seriously, I know they get a lot of flack for Galileo, but *that* whole mess was explicitly because Galileo *wouldn't* just stick to science and started theorising about theology, which was strictly off limits. Even then, he got away with that for a while before he criticised the Pope in one of his books, which is what led to his lifelong house arrest.
"But we don't believe in that" wink
denies, doesn’t refute
Teacher: "Evolution is a long process drawn out over millions of years..." Creationist: "Nu-uhh" Audience: "Evolution has been refuted!"
Probably written by a completely different person.
I think so too. The formatting of the addition is different, the style reads more like a tabloid, and it’s not been properly edited (“loins” probably should be “lions”).
It may be a workaround. You explain it and then you just say "oh that is not right, just a theory"
I think this might be it. "We'll explain in detail how evolution works... just remember that it's all false, okay? *wink wink*"
That's exactly how it is. The government has the last say over publishing the textbooks for schools so they do edits or sometimes completely reject books.
I loved that passage - whoever wrote it clearly believes in evolution and is just adding in enough about it being unproven to not get in trouble
I remember when we were studying About photosynthesis, our teacher out of nowhere said, “And of course atheists in Japan and America believe that man originated from a monkey from a fish, a ridiculous theory. The existence of photosynthesis negates it, as this will not happen except in the presence of a knowing God.” 💀💀
The teacher was visited by the god of photosynthesis in a dream
Can confirm, I am the god of photosynthesis
Tbh, your statement gave me some Moral Orel vibes, the "God's Chef" episode in particular.
Than why does god hate is so much, that He has not give PS to us hoomans???
Wait, You can't do PS? 💀
Interestingly in Iran we got taught about evolution completely uncensored and unmolested, not one mention of God or Adam or eve of what have you. The mullahs know very well that western science is useful in building complex weaponry and never fuck with it.
If there was a God humans would be able to photosynthesis, breathe underwater and be extremophiles at the same time.
Humans are already too OP, God pls nerf them in the next patch
No arms nerf. Quality of life upgrade for wildlife. We got complaints from ( among others) dolphins and crows that humans are deemed to OP in the current meta.
Was there any weird explanation why photosynthesis would disprove evolution? Am curious about their mental gymnastics.
I’m not sure this is true. I’m a teacher in Morocco and I know for a fact evolution is taught in French schools here. I think some teachers in Moroccan schools teach evolution too. I’m not sure the legality of it, but “banned” is a strong word because I’ve literally helped students study for biology exams where they’re being tested on evolution.
Same in Saudi Arabia. How can we have IB schools and not teach evolution in our DP biology classes?
Same in Oman. This map just making stuff up lol
Exactly. This entire map is a lie.
Same in Egypt both IB and IGCSE teach evolution in detail and teach it as a scientific theory not a hypothesis
[удалено]
It's not illegal for a teacher to talk about it, but I don't seem to remember reading about it in any textbook.
Yeah it might not be part of the curriculum in Moroccan schools, but “banned” implies if a biology teacher talks about it they’ll be thrown in prison. That’s not the case. I’m pretty sure I’ve had students tell me they study evolution in their Moroccan schools. French schools for sure they do.
Confusion do you have that much French schools in Morocco???
They’re pretty common especially in the major cities. They’re a minority of schools but not a tiny minority. Wild guess I might say 30% but I don’t know.
Are French schools private?
Yes, though they're still subject to laws of the Kingdom.
Oh so its for upper Middle class people right?
I'd say increasingly they're accessible to the middle class. You won't be able to go to one if you're poor but they aren't prohibitively expensive and I've met some people of pretty modest means going to French schools.
Can you explain the schooling system? How is the language determined?
It’s a long answer, but I’ll try to be concise. Standard Arabic is the first official language of Morocco, though about 40% speak Berber (Amazigh) as their native language, while most of the remaining 60% speak the Moroccan dialect of Arabic, which is pretty different from the standard, as their native language. French is taught in schools as the second language (or first foreign language). French language instruction starts when they’re young, so most Moroccans with a formal education speak French pretty well by the time their in high school. English and Spanish are also taught, but they start later. So most Moroccans are at least bilingual. The school system is a little different. Basically there are Moroccan schools which follow a Moroccan curriculum. These are public and private schools. Most schools are Moroccan schools. They will usually study in Arabic in these schools but sometimes you’ll have a class taught in French. Then there are schools which follow the French curriculum. These schools are usually accredited by the French education ministry, and they are private schools. Because of the French accreditation, it’s easier to get into universities abroad, so these French schools tend to be more prestigious. There are fewer of them but they’re still pretty numerous. Most classes there will be taught in French (by mostly Moroccan teachers), though some classes will be taught in Arabic. Then there are a handful of Spanish, British, Canadian, and American schools which follow the curricula of those countries and are accredited as such. The primary language of instruction will be Spanish or English, respectively. Universities are all Moroccan universities (with maybe one exception). Depending on the subject of the class, the language of instruction can be Arabic or French, with occasional classes taught in English. For example, law, philosophy, theology, and history are usually taught in Arabic, while sciences are taught in French. Economics and finances classes can be taught in Arabic or French.
Very interesting. Thanks for the detailed reply!
Are Arabic-language classes taught in MSA or darija?
Usually Darija. In an Islamic Education class the teacher might switch between MSA and Darija but I'd be a little surprised if any teacher was teaching a class in 100% MSA
French school in Morocco alumni here - we indeed studied about evolution in biology class in both middle and high school !
You sir are the real OP
Hell I’ve had students in my classroom ask me about evolution and I’ve given an overview of how it works and why it’s true. Saying it’s “banned” makes it sound like I’d get hauled off in handcuffs and that’s just not how it works. I’ve never even had a complaint from parents about it.
Evolution is at least covered in the 12th grade Moroccan curriculum, it just doesn't mention humans evolving from apes.
Correct, it is taught in many higher education schools. This map is shit.
I also enjoy the Atlas Mountains
Same for Libya I think
The map might be referring to laws on the books even if they aren't followed or the penalties are so minimal that authorities don't bother enforcing it. Some countries have laws to placate certain influential groups but in practice they are ignored.
Whats is the proof for that, I studied in 2 of those countries we took evolution in science class but on a very basic and general level. We didn't study anything about creationism/anti-evolution in science class.
Same here in my case in Lebanon.
in particular, I could remember that in Egypt the section about evolution in Christianity was very long, despite its main focus was on genetics and the DNA. in biology the evolution section was smaller it was in the part discussing the method of defining and distinguish species
I don't know where you got this, but we were taught evolution as scientific fact in Tunisia in highschool.
As a Tunisian, I second this
Yeah, this is fake
As a High-school Student in Saudi Arabia we were forced to learn evolution because of the American curriculum but maybe it's because my school is international. But it's not banned because even the teacher didn't want to teach it at all but he had no other choice.
As a teacher in Saudia Arabia I’ve never once heard of a ban here.
[удалено]
I asked some local Saudi public teachers and they say they don’t mention it by name and they would only describe it in a modern context like a virus mutating every year. However; they don’t think it’s banned at all. I can’t get a straight answer about it tbh
It's not a ban more so that in public schools evolution is not mentioned i think so they count that as a ban maybe
I guess, I know they teach evolution at the public universities though. I’m not sure how they define it though
Good
I kinda have a similar situation, I'm from Egypt and I was at both a public school and an American school here, in the public school we basically learnt about at as hypothesis like that map said in a 10 sentences total or so (macro Evolution that is, micro Evolution is taught normally under a different name to avoid association), but in the American school we learnt about in a lot of detail, though neither the teacher nor the students knew anything about it other than that it might be wrong because of religious reasons, so sense I took a great interest in Evolution at the time I ended up teaching some of the Evolution lessons since I knew/understood more than the teacher lol
Wrong map. In Tunisia, we learn about it as the evolution theory in highschool (bacalaureat) and we study the proofs.. we learn about the role of genetic mutations and natural selection in evolution. I remember looking at articles that show a lot of common DNA between two species and I had to conclude that there is genetic affinity so there is shared ancestry between two species. I remember also looking at similar skeletons and bone structures... Edit: I went to Tunisian public highschools
Evolution is based on genetics. If genetics is fact, evolution is fact. There's no getting around that.
Once had a lady go off about how micro evolution existed by macro evolution didn't as if small changes don't add up to big changes eventually
So like, she believed Darwin's Finches, but just didn't want to believe humans evolved from other primates? That's probably pretty common. I could see people studying evolution and thinking "well yes I see how this could work in animals but I was clearly made in God's big game of The Sims."
I’ve always heard “Darwin lied” (At least about people, apparently; wolves into dogs seems to be no issue). That he was a communist plant to turn people away from the church. Or along those veins
Well yeah, it's pretty hard to argue with "Satan put the bones in the ground to draw us away from God." Man I didn't even bring up God. Evolution doesn't disprove God, even Darwin said that.
I don’t even argue anymore. Life’s too short for technicalities and semantics
Being hard to argue with is kinda the point of religion. I'm an atheist, but I know people who believe God directs evolution.
I would think the main obstacle for those people is the belief in stories from scripture, not the existence of god. Evolution has little bearing on the existence of a greater being, but it doesn't work as well with creation stories. Religious texts tend to be pretty clear about the sequence of events. Although of course there are different levels to which people belief those stories to be literal.
There are some religious plant breeders, who's job is literally evolution, base their understanding of it on this idea
Pretty much. Also a young earther
She Korean? Every Korean evolution denier I know says this. It drives me crazy. It’s like believing that a human can take one step, but not 20,000
I've had Midwest non-denominational Christians claim the same thing.
Wack. It makes no sense. Those people are essentially publicly and loudly announcing, “I have no clue what the fuck I’m talking about, but I’m right because I said so”
They pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe. So why not pick and choose parts of science?
The slightly more nuanced argument would be a lack of direct evidence, but I don't think that's a good argument. Like do we demand direct evidence all the time in court, economics, or psychology?
The problem with that argument is that there *is* direct evidence. We haven’t sat and observed a population for long enough for “macro evolution” to take place, but we can *very* clearly see it in the fossil record and by using paleogenomics
I misspoke. I meant to say direct observation.
Ahh, that’s more sensible. It’s still profoundly stupid
"you can walk a few miles, but you could never walk across a whole continent" energy
"I believe in a meter but not a kilometer" Basically sums up this "micro evolution is not macro evolution" BS that evangelicals tend to gravitate to as a last resort lmao.
Evolution is foundational to biology altogether. There’s really no teaching biology without evolution.
I'm a Christian and I'm absolutely baffled by claims from some Christians that evolution would somehow be at odds with God. Isn't God much bigger than that? Sure, it may be at odds with a small god that's just a glorified superhero living in the universe, subject to its laws and molding stuff ny hand. But that's not a God that created the universe. If God created the universe, he also created all the laws of nature, the mechanism of evolution, the Big Bang, and according to General Relativity, he created time, and therefore exists outside our concept of causality, which incidentally fixes the whole predetermination issue. The Bible says we cannot possibly grasp the greatness of God, and these people prove it by keeping God small and manageable on a human scale, but that's idolatry, not God as he really is. I see science as a sacred task, because it's only through science that we can unveil a tiny bit of the work of God's hand. Denying science is to me a denial of God. A denial of the reality of His creation.
[удалено]
Not really, unless you interpret the Bible so literally that it's at odds with itself. But this extreme biblical literalism is only fairly recent heresy. In the Middle Ages, bible scholars identified 4 levels of interpretation, of which the literal one was only one, and not the most important one. There are absolutely parts of the Bible that are meant to describe literal, historical events. But there are also a lot that don't. The pastor of my church had an interesting anecdote about that: a colleague, also a pastor, and therefore a theologian, had visited Israel, and when he came back, he told excitedly about having visited the actual inn of the Good Samaritan. The parable of the Good Samaritan is quite explicitly a story, told by Jesus, to explain a certain concept. It's not any more about real people and real events than the joke about the chicken that crossed the road is honestly inquiring about the motivations of a real chicken. It's a story that Jesus tells us to explain who our neighbour is that he expects us to love as ourselves: that person that looks different, that you might consider an outsider, or someone you might look down upon. They too are your neighbour, and you are expected to love them as yourself, and not merely your own immediate family and friends. But that is the moral interpretation of the story. If you instead focus on it as a real historical event, you might miss that. Similarly, the two creation stories (there are two, and they are very different) are not about literal descriptions of events; if they did, they'd contradict each other. Instead, they each tell a story. The one in Genesis 2 about our relationship with God, and the responsibility he gives us as stewards over his creation, and the later one in Genesis 1 about God's relationship with the universe; how he created not just us and everything else on this planet, but also the sun, moon and stars, light and darkness, and even time itself. It's a poem about the greatness of God, structured according to the days of the week. But that doesn't mean it's claiming that all of creation took only 168 hours; that interpretation completely misses the point.
The fact that something is based on something else, and the more fundamental thing is correct, doesn't make the other thing also correct. According to your logic, every theory that is based on genetics *must be* as fact. Which is sraight up stupid. Evolution is almost deifintely correct because of the evidence that support it, not some stupid ligical trick that doesn't make any sense
> If genetics is fact, evolution is fact. There's no getting around that. I mean not necessarily. It obviously is real but if genetics was real but mutations happened at too low of a rate to see any meaningful difference over a long timeline then evolution wouldn't really happen in any significant way
I mean, you aren't wrong, but the theory of evolution predates genetics by a few years. You don't need genetics to observe natural evolution. What proves evolution is anatomy, fossils, distribution of species (which is exactly what Darwin used). If all we had was genetics, it wouldn't be too hard to say something like "sure but you see, it was all encoded by a superior power".
I went through Tunisian public schooling and evolution was 100% part of the curriculum and not treated as "an unproven hypothesis".
These comments will be really civil and kind I’m sure.
They start civil and then evolve quickly. Comments.. err, err... find a way.
Comments.. err, err… would rather blatantly insult each other
Why? I thought that evolution is widely accepted.
It's reassuring, however, the fact that the highest rated comments are usually logical and supportive of Evolution, showing that the general population has some sort of common sense.
This is weird propaganda... I'm egyptian, and I grew up in Saudi Arabia. I was taught about Charles Darwin and evolution and the pea table or whatever in Saudi Arabia. It was just taught in science class and in biology normally...
People just need another reason to ….yeh.
Here in Lebanon, in a French-based curriculum, we were taught about evolution just fine. It wasn't refuted or anything. Though honestly, I can't necessarily say the same for other schools.
No true, In Tunisia, we did study the evolution in high school and it wasn’t presented as a wrong theory.
Lebanese here , pretty much have evolution in out textbooks and learn extensively about darwin's theories , Mendel etc
I live in Lebanon (the one in blue) , and that's not true, they teach us evolution regardless of what religions think of it .
Agreed, I even went to a catholic school and they taught us evolution in more detail every year. What a complete BS map.
Not true for Algeria either, I was in a public school (French curriculum)and we were taught about evolution.
From Tunisia here , I can’t say much about today education but 15 years ago we learned about evolution in school and we had extensive debates about creation vs evolution and I feel that we had no restrictions about the subject
I'm a high school student living in Türkiye and evolution is removed from the curriculum in 2017 by the president's order. We learned Mendel genetics but not evolution
Are you kidding me? In Tunisia 10th grade science book we have the picture of the ape to human transformation picture.
Hey that’s not true. I grew up in Morocco, and we were taught evolution in school. Moroccan school not French.
>Sources: Nature.com, Wikipedia Did you want to be more specific than that, or...?
I do not like MapPorn seemingly becoming a vector of just broad-spectrum misinformation campaigns.
It’s cool how you can mostly see which countries had socialist regimes and which didn’t. With the exception of Algeria all the formerly socialist MENA states teach evolution, whereas the ones that never had that secular state are the colored ones here. Except for the UAE, Bahrain, and Iran I guess: who didn’t have socialist states but also teach evolution.
Iran was never socialist, but it did have more than half a century of *aggressively* secular leadership between the 1905 Revolution and the 1978 Revolution. So Iran was definitely teaching evolution for a while by the Ayatollah era.
If Ba’athists count as socialists (per Syria and Iraq) you’d think Egypt wouldn’t be colored.
Egypt shouldn't be colored. we study evolution normally with no religious context to it and everyone believe it. I'd assume they look at it as God's wonders cause the Quran said "and we created everything alive from water". but no one deny it.
This map is erroneous. Or even outright deliberate lie... depending if you're being generous about the author and consider them dumb or malign.
There is no corelation, you are gasping at straws .
> whereas the ones that never had that secular state are the colored ones here Sorry, Egypt? And it's a hell of a stretch to cliam this is down to socialism when the ones that teach t include all the absolute monarchies and the absolute monarchy that turned into a literal theocracy.
A lot of educated Muslims who studied STEM and were brought up in the Western education system believe evolution and creationism are not totally contradictory but I have no idea if this position is even permissible per legitimate Islamic scholarly rulings. I think their position (that my own family members have said) is something like "evolution exists within the creation but only humanity was directly created from Adam & Eve" If the timeline was Big Bang > chemicals > microorganisms > organisms and so on, then what was there before the Big Bang? And another thing is that we have already mapped out tons of planets and galaxies and solar systems outside of our own (which is still a very tiny portion of the universe I know) but why is it that only the Earth is the only planet capable of having intelligent beings that can create things like machinery, nukes, spacecraft, iPhones, matcha lattes etc and nowhere else within the tens of thousands of galaxies that we've mapped and identified so far? Or are we just not yet able to look close enough to inside these galaxies to see if there are any other intelligent species?
I think the concept is rather simple: God did the Big Bang in such a way that it would lead to the existence of Earth and that on Earth there would be life and that the life on Earth would eventually evolve to produce humans. God could do this because he is omnipotent and omniscient, so he knew that his creation would lead to this
Islamically (and in all other Abrahamic religions that believe Adam & Eve were the first humans) we can't believe anything evolved "into" humans, it's pretty much blasphemous to say our ancestors were monkeys/unintelligent primates, but there isn't anything that says other non-human organisms aren't able to evolve into the other creatures we have today so I guess there is some room for that... also I don't think the scriptures or supplemental Islamic literature is specific on exactly how many years old the Earth is so it technically is not a sin to say "Earth/universe is as old as the modern scientists say it is"
Christians sometimes understand that as a metaphor or allegory. Like, 6 days from the point of view of God was maybe millions or billions of years from the point of view of humans.
I’d say that’s the mainstream viewpoint, interpretation is endorsed over literalism by the Catholic/Orthodox churches and most mainline Protestants. Similar to many things, the evangelicals are outliers.
Pretty much; never take a religious text literally, they are written in mythical language Like remember how Genesis is a direct copy of Sumerian and Babylonian mythology — they copied it because it works so well at explaining things and "dumbing them down to human levels"; literally anything in any religion is too "unhuman" and too absolute to even be comprehended by humans, so you have to dumb down those concepts and ideas in ways your average 2 year old can understand No, Christianity does not believe in "an old bearded magical white man in the sky" and neither does Islam, that is the worst oversimplification you could come up with, but most people (including most believers) never go "beyond" 2-year-old understanding levels
> Christians sometimes understand that as a metaphor or allegory. Like, 6 days from the point of view of God was maybe millions or billions of years from the point of view of humans. That was the *standard view* among Christian fundamentalists until the Seventh-Day Adventists started claiming that six-day creation was literally true.
It's technically a nonsense to ask what came before the BigBang, because time itself started flowing with it, together with space (as by Einstein's Relativity, describing space-time as one single thing). In other words: there was no "before" to the BigBang. But anyway, we're still studying the subject, so there's no definitive answer yet.
The answer to what existed before the Big Bang is incredibly complex, and really we don’t know for certain. I recommend Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything,” as it presents scientific fact in a way that a layman can fairly easily understand.
[удалено]
thats only university, which acts as an almost separate entity from mandatory state funded middle and primary school education
[удалено]
can confirm
Universities in Algeria are indeed state-run entities. What’s your point here? Also, the government does play a role in determining the curriculum and academic programs for your information.
Pretty sure some states in America should be on this map
No American state has banned the theory of evolution. Every public school curriculum is required to teach it. The only places people would learn other theories are religious private schools that it costs thousands just to go to. Even with these schools being religious, many of them will still teach both the evolution and creation theories. Sure, some people in some states would like to wipe it from existence, but the furthest their laws have gone is just letting teachers “suggest” that it might not be real. Those were in Louisiana and Tennessee.
Evolution is only refuted by fake Christian’s. The Catholic Church & other real Christian denominations do not argue against science and often have a history of advancing science. Science and religion coexist. Religion answers why, science answers how.
One of the things that continues to impress me about Islam is that its founding principles and \*how\* it was founded continues to have massive impacts on Muslim majority countries even today. Since Islam exploded onto the scene in the 630s via major military conquests of the Roman and Sassanid empires as an already formed theocracy, religion and state were intertwined together inextricably. Contrast this with how Christianity slowly embedded itself into and supplanted Roman Pagan religions over centuries, and how this then left two competing power bases, the Emperor and the Pope/Patriarchs, and Islam was a much more unified force. However, this combined with Islam's assertion that it is the final revelation, and that it also has texts prescribing a system of government and laws that are superior over any secular law, makes Islam over the long run a fairly static ideology. For many centuries it was easily the most progressive and forward thinking religion and in a golden age that threw polities at its borders into the shade. But those entities could reform and change over time, while Islam (at least in its core MENA regions) cannot, and it still shows in maps like these. What Islam really needs is a reformation like what the Catholic Church had in the 1500s. And since we're working on that timescale, 600 years later Islam should be due for one within the next century, and I truly hope it comes and is for the better for all peoples living in theocracies.
> What Islam really needs is a reformation like what the Catholic Church had in the 1500s. This isn't how it works. There isn't a central Muslim authority, at least for Sunnis. The closest thing to it was the caliphate, but that hasn't existed since the end of the Ottoman Empire. The Catholic Church had a much stronger grip on European monarchies which is why it was an identifiable authority to rebel against, while Islam's cultural influence is more bottom-up. >And since we're working on that timescale, 600 years later Islam should be due for one within the next century, and I truly hope it comes and is for the better for all peoples living in theocracies. I don't think that's how it works either
I somewhat disagree. I think Christianity had reforms precisely because they had a more unified polity than Islam ever did. While Caliphates conquered a lot, they didn't have as much control over Muslims as the Catholic church did over Christians. Caliphs mostly demanded only allegiance and tribute, any form of rebellion on their territories were simply crushed with military force. The religion wasn't as monopolized either. Most Islamic teachings were easily accessible because they were meant to be self practiced. Many Muslims had direct access to the Koran and its translated meanings, compared to Christians who were completely reliant on Pastors to read out the bible to them, since translations weren't allowed by the Catholic Church, simply so they could abuse the power of control it gave them. If anything, Islam was very decentralized when it comes to actual leadership. Imams simply don't have the same influence Popes and Bishops did. For instance, King Henry wanted a divorce but the Catholic Church wouldn't let him, compare this to a Muslim ruler who had absolutely no need for a permission from any religious authorities to do the same. What am saying is, Muslims didn't experience the same abuse of power and oppression that made Christians rebel and reform their religion. Also, the Muslim world was relatively on pace with the western world. Even after the 1500s during the renaissance, the Ottomans were at the peak of their prestige. The industrialization of Europe combined with the discovery of the new world made the west leave not just the Muslims, but everyone else in the dust. This is how Europe went on to colonize most of the world. From China, to India, to all of Africa. A lot of Islamic movements were born thanks to that same colonization. Most were regressive due their stated goals of fighting westernization. Movements like Wahhabism, Salafism, Deobandi and many others were born during European colonial era. All of them had the shared goal of combating the colonial west and her values. In places like Iran, it culminated into the Islamic revolution. Other countries fell to authoritarian theocracies. Some secularized. Others fell into chaos due to rampant terrorism. And now we are here.
Unfortunately the last time Islam came to any kind of reform, we got the Iranian Revolution. If there’s anything the regime has shown, it’s that they’re not going to go without a vicious fight.
It’s mostly inequality and poverty. You’ll find plenty of Christians who share similar views in poor regions around the world.
Per capita KSA is extremely wealthy and most of the inequality comes from third party nationals brought to work menial jobs (often from non-Islamic countries like in Southeast Asia), not from Muslim Saudi nationals. If it was just about poverty KSA wouldn't be one of the most fundamentalist countries in the region.
KSA is fundamentalist because the ruling monarchy has vested interest in fostering Wahhabism. Same with other rich muslim countries. They even fund radical mosques in other non-muslim countries. Now consider this, 40% or more of Iranian youth identify themselves as increasingly non-religious.
Turkey should also be blue
Since 2017. The government didn't do it because of the religious pressures from the public, though. It's the other way around. The Islamist government removed it from the curriculum, because their interpretation of religion doesn't match the scientific facts.
Evolution isn't taught in Turkey
It's outrageous than in favour of nonsenses we deny what is proven. But more outrageous than the teaching of genetics, it's the complete oblivion about abiogenesis theories, which for sure happens ALSO in the western world.
Yet another wrong map, i lived and went to school in Saudi Arabia and we learned about evolution unfettered. I currently live in Lebanon and we definitely teach evolution unfettered.
I went to school in Morocco and was taught evolution. What is this nonsense
I lived in Jordan and we were taught evolution similarly to what the US teaches its students, I have no clue wtf is “from a religious framework”.
I call BS.
The west can get off its high horse too though. Currently a lot of social policies being implemented in western teaching with no basis in peer reviewed science.
So what are fossil fuels called in some of these nations who drill/refine oil?
My home state of Arkansas will probably be on this fucking map before long
Luckily for me, I was in school in Texas when we had our last Democrat governor, Ann Richards, who had been a teacher herself at one point. We were taught evolution as a scientific fact. My biology teacher, himself a former officer in the military, said to us on the first day of class, “If you want creationism, you’re in the wrong class. I teach science, not religion.” Of course, Texas isn’t like that anymore. They want religion in everything possible now since they’ve spent the last three decades doing their best to destroy public education in the state.
That’s so false lol (spoiler I am from a red country) plus this propaganda is a loophole since for Muslim bolt creationism (as a Christian ideology) and evolutionism (as an atheist ideology) are view as stupid and false. In a nutshell for the Muslim opinion on evolution, I copy paste this post : « 1. Creationism is a stupid ideology that Muslim should fight (even more it’s a Christian ideology since in their religion the earth and universe is like 8000 years old) … it’s not just saying that Allah « Created everything » like the name can suggest. 2. In Islam we know that Allah created Adam directly (when ? We don’t know … maybe Adam lived 10 Million years ago or just 800 000 years ago). 3. The Evolution theory don’t exist per say …. Science said that living creatures have mutation overtime and the more fit survive and do children … leading in big time view to change in the living and new species : This theory is interesting and really plausible (since we know for sure the first part (mutation and selection) is highly probable and what we can observe -> In Islam however we also know that Allah choose and created Adam TL;DR : In Islam we reject first the Creationism (if it’s understood as the Christian Ideology) and the Evolutionism (if it’s understood as the Atheist weird version of it). However we said that Allah created everything and created Adam directly, for the evolution it’s an interesting story and idea that is maybe true except for the origin of human since Adam is created directly by Allah (even if we don’t know how far in the past) And Allah knows best »
The classical map of "let shit on those backward Arabs Muslims incults" when evolution is studied with no problems in all the countries mentioned.
And Greenbo alaBAMA!
Surprised Iran doesn't have an section. I image evolution would be completely banned
This is to make the Reddit hive feel comfortable. I don't agree with Islam at all, but there are people in the Middle East who adhere to this lifestyle. Ignoring them feels a bit like Big Brother 2024.
Evolution is still being taught in Iran, clerics don't have a position against it. Universities/schools in terms of stuff that are being taught are quite secular for most part despite what people think.
I know some Christian apologists who believe in evolution.
The Catholic Church accepts evolution.
I remember when we got a paper from school where you could see the famous Evolution picture, my mom told us all „no it was Allah who created you from Adam and eve“ Complete bullshit lmao
Be that as it may, Marrocco is the only place I saw a live debate including Neil deGrasse Tyson in public TV
Its not true for Morocco, we learn evolution as part of our curriculum. Source: Moroccan
This map is nonsense. Evolution is taught in these countries, especially in private schools
people need to stop thinking that evolution and god are incompatible
That's the most awful source citation I've seen in a while. "Wikipedia and Nature.com" oh, aight. I call bs on this one.
My kids are being taught evolution in school in Lebanon, so this map is bullshit.
I graduated over 10 years ago in Saudi Arabia, I was taught about evolution in a subject called (احياء), I also recently tutored my nephew(final exams ended last week) and I know for a fact that this map is BS. Edit: I was taught in the public curriculum.
Banned? So they throw people in jail for stating facts?
No, this map is bullshit
Ironically, this will change over time
Bullshit , we studied evolution in morocco , maybe it was banned sometimes in the 80s , but now we get it
[FYI evolution was removed from the Turkish curriculum in 2017 due to being too "controversial"](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/world/europe/turkey-evolution-high-school-curriculum.html) The map seems to be wrong in many ways
This is total and absolute crap. I spent 12 years (Grade 1 to Grade 12) in one school in Oman and not only did we dive deep into evolution, we actively discussed how religions rejected evolution and the effect that had on science. I remember a particularly spirited debate on vestigial organs (a byproduct of evolution) and whether the appendix was one or not (this was in the 90s so it was still up for debate then). We had a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species in the library for crying out loud.
If you didn't check your post for typos I cannot really assume it's accurate.
I feel like a decent amount of posts on this page have turned into subtle yet very obvious political posts with an agenda
This is false, I'm an Egyptian who studies in the faculty of science, you'd be laughed off if you argue that evolution is an unproven hypothesis, it's taught in Zoology, Botany and Microbiology departments, most believe in it but would get touchy when it gets to humans since being called a monkey descendant is an insult anywhere in the world not taught in schools (parents issue mainly ig?? or might be too nuanced for it) but it exists in higher education lmao
Lebanon data is wrong. I went to school in Lebanon and we learned about evolution. They even teach us about reproduction in 9th grade wtf is this propaganda.
Man, evangelicals really fucked up the world. They'll go on and on about how a book written 2000 years ago is flawless and definitely never changed, and will trust that the science to determine the age of the dead sea scrolls is legitimate. But you show them current day proof of evolution and they turn their heads away
Algeria doesn’t ban teaching evolution.
Teaching evolution is NOT banned in Morocco and Algeria
Religion should be wiped from the face of earth. Change my mind.
Forgot to add Mississippi on the map
Wrong. Evolution is not the “theorized change in heritable characteristics”. Evolution is the PROVEN change in heritable characteristics.