The apparent meaning of any text conveyed for public instruction, based on common cultural discourse, is authoritative unless valid rational or transmitted evidence necessitates a departure from that meaning. Religious texts are no exception to this rule. Therefore, the apparent meaning of the Noble Qur’an, which describes the creation of Adam (a.s.) from earthly elements and does not consider him the son of anyone, is authoritative.
The discussions about the first human in biology, along with the inferences drawn from fossils and archaeological remains, remain hypothetical until they evolve into established scientific theories. Such hypotheses, unless fully verified, do not provide a reliable basis for anthropologists, nor do they necessitate altering the apparent meaning of religious texts. Even if these hypotheses become established theories, they cannot determine the precise nature of Adam’s (a.s.) emergence or compel a revision of the apparent meanings of religious texts. This is because, although many humans existed and became extinct before Adam (a.s.), he was not descended from any of them.
The ineffectiveness of fossils and biological experiments in disproving religious texts lies in their empirical nature. While empirical studies can affirm that certain phenomena occurred, they do not have the language of negation; they cannot claim that no other possibilities exist or that the only way humans came into existence is as suggested by archaeological and biological findings.
The key points are:
- Distinction Between the Emergence of Adam and the First Human: The investigation into how Adam (a.s.), the progenitor of current humanity, came to be should be distinguished from the study of the emergence of the first human.
- Differentiating Empirical Knowledge from Philosophical or Theological Knowledge: Empirical knowledge, which operates within the bounds of what can be observed and tested, differs from philosophical or theological knowledge that considers both affirmation and negation. The absence of empirical evidence should not be misinterpreted as proof of the impossibility of what lies beyond empirical reach. Ordinary impossibility should not be confused with rational impossibility.
- Understanding the Term “Making” (jaʿl): The term “making” in the sense of creation (khalq) differs from “making” in the sense of transformation or conversion, which involves changing something into another state. The verse “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority” (Qur’an 2:30) refers to creating a successor (khalīfa) and should not be misinterpreted as merely transforming one state into another.
- Avoiding Misinterpretations of Terms: The term “God” should not be confused with the khalīfa of a previous generation, even if Adam (a.s.) is seen as the khalīfa of earlier humans. This does not prove species transformation or that he emerged from previous generations.
- The Implications of “Teaching” (taʿlīm): The act of teaching signifies Adam’s precedence as a learner but does not imply his emergence from the previous generation or support Darwinian species transformation.
Therefore, the validity of various scientific views, such as:
- The evolution of man from the earth,
- The cosmic origins of human materials,
- Transformism or species evolution,
- Fixism or the stability of species,
none of these conclusively determine the narrative of Adam’s (a.s.) creation as described in religious texts. These scientific perspectives cannot override the apparent meanings of religious texts, which state that:
- All current humans are descendants of Adam (a.s.).
- Adam (a.s.) was not born of any human.
- The creation of humans outside a woman’s womb is possible, just as the creation of a human without a father is possible. However, this process should not be confused with species transformation as described in Darwinian evolution. The evolution of sperm into a human being, while gradual and uninterrupted, does not equate to the transformation of one species into another.
Confusing mathematical and empirical issues, mistaking incomplete induction for logical certainty, conflating customary impossibility with rational impossibility, and being overly influenced by advances in empirical science have all contributed to misconceptions and inertia regarding the transformation of species.
Re: Tafsir al-Tasnim, under verses 2:35-39
