Islam, Science & Common Sense

[Mr Spinkles]

MS, you said:

<< Humans start out as a single cell, which divides into billions and billions of cells. The Qur'an leaves out this most basic and fundamental fact, i.m.o. because its human authors didn't know about cells. >>

And you forget the stage prior to that, which is when the male sperm and the female fluid unite

The Qur'an clearly says that all creatures are created from pairs

Ancient humans definitely understood that creatures come from pairs, and male sperm and female fluids are involved. However, they could not have known about cells or DNA and that is why the Qur'an leaves this out i.m.o.

The author of the Qur'an was not a human author, MS, but our own Creator

Well we disagree then. Show me a single line from the Qur'an which could not have been written by humans in the 7th century.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

MS, you said:

<< The "leech" stage? It only looks a lot like a leech in one particular drawing of the embryo during a part of development which only lasts a couple of days.>>

A couple of days or a couple of weeks, is not the point here

What matters is that the Qur'an describes an early stage of the embryo which no one 1400 years ago could see without a microscope

The Qur'an says an extract of clay was made into a leech, then a chewed piece of flesh, and so on. This is not a description of a human embryo, at any stage. It could be a poetic description, but then the interpretation that the "leech" is supposed to be the real embryo (minus the yolk sac) at 24-25 days old as we know it today, is no more valid than many other possible interpretations.

And that is what an expert like Dr. Moore was able to understand and appreciate

Yes and I am sure Dr. Moore also appreciated it when the Saudis paid him to allow [FONT=arial, helvetica]Shaykh Abdul-Majeed A. Azzindani to[/FONT] add "Islamic additions" to his book for Muslim students at Islamic Universities. His book sells for U.S. $36 each, and there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, many of them very interested in having a white, Western scientist affirm the Qur'an....virtually none of the other hundreds and hundreds of experts in embryology take his views seriously is another clue. (Here is a video of Dr. Champbell who disagrees with Dr. Moore....start at 3:40.)

As we are not experts in this field, this hint won't have the same impact on us as it does to the specialist,

Well, what impact has Islamic embryology had on the specialists? Can you cite any non-Islamic, scientific journals which have published papers about this? Embryology is not my field but I know how to work in a lab and I recognize junk science when I see it.

but the logical argument is very clear:

1- The Qur'an describes an early stage of fetus development which can only be known through a microscope

Unless 'alaqah' means blood clot or suspended thing....or if 'leech' refers to function (bloodsucking) or mode of attachment (suction at a point) rather than shape...

By the way the following are all rough qualitative shapes the embryo adopts while it is still microscopic:

• sphere,
• clump of balls,
• oval,
• sac,
• fish/worm/finger/leech,
• hollow sphere,
• bulb with stem

The human authors of the Qur'an happened to guess one of these shapes...they also mention "clay" which is incorrect....this is not very compelling evidence.

 

[kai]

We're talking about microscopes Kai, which did not exist in that era ...

These hints are simply food for thought for those interested and those searching for the truth

Peace and all the best

I am not going to mention ancient Glass making or natural /crystal lenses.like the Nimrud lense but yes-----

the truth is out there buddy, the truth is out there!

Peace and all the best to you to Cordoba

 

[Cordoba]

Your accusation against Dr. Moore is unfounded, MS

But to answer this point:

Well we disagree then. Show me a single line from the Qur'an which could not have been written by humans in the 7th century.

OK, here is another scientific hint mentioned in the Qur'an 1,400 year ago:

What is the origin of iron?

Dr. Al-Naggar, Professor of Earth Sciences, answers this question:

Dr. Zaghloul El-Naggar

 

[Cordoba]

the truth is out there buddy, the truth is out there!

Peace and all the best to you to Cordoba

It sure is, Kai

Have a nice weekend

 

[ProudMuslim]

So ok the arguments i am getting from the non-Muslims here, is that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH):

- Great observant (e.g. analysing fetuses sizes after miscarriages)
- Analytical, perhaps used Nimrud lense to go even further with embryonic development
- Genuis, by insisting to incorporate science with religion
- Influrnced by other Empires and religions
- Make scientific guesses which were proven hundreds of years later (e.g. big bang theory), but did not make any guess which was proven wrong.

Great, those comments prove that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was a man well ahead of his time

As for being influenced, did other Empires have texts that supported -even vageuly- the theory of big bang, embryonic development (including the three womb zones that protect the fetus), the lowest point of earth, the shape of earth, origin of iron,etc?

Can you please specify any other holy book or ancient texts that in your opinion could have influenced those scientific revelation in the Qur'an?

 

[YmirGF]

Great, those comments prove that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was a man well ahead of his time

Actually, I have maintained for quite some time now that Muhammad was a genius. I have no difficulty in saying so. What Muslims intensely dislike is that I also say he was certifiably insane and likely suffered from numerous mental health issues such as schizophrenia and possibly a mild form of epilepsy.

Schizophrenia would certainly explain his conviction that what he saw was real, as to him, it would seem completely real.

 

[kai]

I too beleive he was a genius and one histories great leaders of men, a fantastic strategist and general. as for the rest , its a matter of faith, as they say.

 

[McBell]

Can you please specify any other holy book or ancient texts that in your opinion could have influenced those scientific revelation in the Qur'an?

Nice try.
But since there are no "scientific revelations" contained within the Koran....

 

[ProudMuslim]

Nice try.
But since there are no "scientific revelations" contained within the Koran....

I suspected none will give an answer to my question, thank you for proving my point.

 

[McBell]

I suspected none will give an answer to my question, thank you for proving my point.

There is no answer to your question.
Thus you have no point.

unless of course you are merely looking for someone who ignores all evidence that shows you are mistaken just as aggressively as you do.

 

[kai]

i am afraid much of the "evidence" for these alleged "scientific revelation"is actually moot, since it represents scientific knowledge that had been known in both the Mediterranean and Middle East for centuries before the Koran was written. its hard to explain to people who are not interested in actual historical research.

 

[McBell]

i am afraid much of the "evidence" for these alleged "scientific revelation"is actually moot, since it represents scientific knowledge that had been known in both the Mediterranean and Middle East for centuries before the Koran was written. its hard to explain to people who are not interested in actual historical research.

Which is my point.
The Koran has no scientific REVELATION.

 

[maro]

I too beleive he was a genius and one histories great leaders of men, a fantastic strategist and general

a fantastic husband..a fantastic father...a fantastic friend...what was not fantastic about him ?..May peace and Blessings Be upon him

 

[maro]

As for evolution..i began to read about it lately..and i have no problem with what i am reading so far..i even find great interest in doing so..(it's not all about "humans come from apes" as i thought it to be !!)

Allah says :

[29:20] Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr Spinkles, if you don't mind I'd like to know your response also to the example that Brainuser offered:

Okay, I'll respond to it. Does this mean you agree with me, that there is no *evidence* of the science of embryogenesis in those verses?

For example, &#8220;Or (the unbelievers&#8217; state) is like the darkness in a deep sea. It is covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds. Darknesses, one above another. If a man stretches out his hand, he cannot see it....&#8221; (Quran 24:40)
Here's a clear reference to that in the deep water it's too dark to see. And this has been discovered only recently after the invention of tools that can go so deeply in water to depths of at least 200m (and no light at all reaches 1000m), so how Muhammed knew that?

Well first of all even at shallow depths, many lakes, ponds, and streams are very dark. I have been swimming in lakes in Minnesota, on a cloudy day with some wind and waves, you don't have to dive down very deep before you can't see anything. Anyone who has been camping away from city lights understands what it's like to be so dark you can't see your own hand; ancient people with no electricity would have experienced this often.

Second, the verse is inaccurate propaganda directed against non-Muslims. This is typical of ancient religious literature and state propaganda...."Everyone who doesn't believe our religion is a blind fool."

Third, it suggests that the layers of waves and clouds are what cause the darkness. This is inaccurate in the deep sea, but accurate at shallow depths. Therefore the verse is either inaccurate, or it is referring to shallow depths which you don't need special diving equipment to reach.

Fourth, both the Old Testament, Beowulf, and (I suspect) many ancient tales refer to darkness in deep waters.

Fifth, Mecca is near the coast, any fisherman throwing a net overboard can watch it disappear into darkness.

Finally....this does not have much bearing on this specific issue, but for the record even Islamic tradition acknowledges (correct?) that the Qur'an was first transmitted orally by Muhammad, then written by others (his companions). So Muhammad himself didn't have to have known or even said everything in the Quran, things could have been added, or edited together for clarity and coherence, etc.

Do you still say he can know that knowing that no human can dive without help of special equipments deeper than 20m or 30 m??

I'm not saying I can explain how he had this knowledge. I am saying there is no need for an explanation because the text does not demonstrate he had this knowledge at all.

Moreover, the verse refers clearly to some waves inside the deep see that is different from those on the sea surface. And it wasn't until recently that people discovered these internal waves

Well first of all the verse does say, the unbeliever's state "is like" waves covered by waves....I can say something "is like" anything, it doesn't have to be real. A person clever with words can imagine waves covered by waves, darkness covered in darkness, "a puzzle wrapped in an enigma", etc. without knowing a real-life case where this happens. People imagined all kinds of things in ancient legends which bear some resemblance to recent discoveries in science. Democritus imagined atoms, for example. Secondly anyone standing on the shore of the ocean, or even a small body of water on a stormy day, can see waves on top of waves. Third, the pheomenon of internal waves your Islamic website refers to generally occurs from tidal flow over shallow obstacles, in shallow waters, according to this undersea research site. Fourth, as I said before, if it really is talking about the deep ocean then it is inaccurate about the cause of darkness.

 

[ProudMuslim]

i am afraid much of the "evidence" for these alleged "scientific revelation"is actually moot, since it represents scientific knowledge that had been known in both the Mediterranean and Middle East for centuries before the Koran was written. its hard to explain to people who are not interested in actual historical research.

Why do you assume i am not interested in actual historical research?

So from my understanding you are saying that the Qur'anic scientific facts (vague or not) were common knowledge back then, right? If so where are the ancient texts that support such claim? In other words, if you are saying that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was influenced by other Empires and religious groups (Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians) and therefore he gained knowledge from them which he incorporated later in holy Qur'an, where is the evidence? Does the Bible (which is almost 5 times bigger than Qur'an) have those facts? Or perhaps other holy books?

Otherwise this will merely be an invalid assumption.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your accusation against Dr. Moore is unfounded, MS

What I said was accurate. He was paid by Saudis to add Islamic Additions to his book so it could be sold at Islamic universities. Aren't you curious as to why the rest of the scientific community does not take Dr. Moore's claims about the Qur'an seriously? Why hasn't he published any papers on this in non-Islamic journals?

But to answer this point:

OK, here is another scientific hint mentioned in the Qur'an 1,400 year ago:

What is the origin of iron?

Okay so we are officially dropping the issue of embryology, then?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So from my understanding you are saying that the Qur'anic scientific facts (vague or not) were common knowledge back then, right? If so where are the ancient texts that support such claim? In other words, if you are saying that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was influenced by other Empires and religious groups (Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians) and therefore he gained knowledge from them which he incorporated later in holy Qur'an, where is the evidence? Does the Bible (which is almost 5 times bigger than Qur'an) have those facts? Or perhaps other holy books?

Hi ProudMuslim! Great question. I tried to demonstrate how you can find lots of *apparent* scientific knowledge in many ancient writings here (relevant parts copied below). But before you read it, I want to ask you to do something: try to pretend (just for a moment) that you found these verses in the Qur'an. In other words, try to read the words from the perspective that these words appear in a book which you have always considered to be the holiest and truest thing ever written, the way a Hindu, Buddhist, etc. would read them.

Then I would like to know if you think these verses demonstrate profound scientific insight beyond human capability, or not....

Ancient beliefs on the origins and mechanics of nature are so numerous and so diverse that it shouldn't be surprising that some of them happen to be compatible with modern science.

Here is a "detailed description" of atoms, hundreds of years before Islam, and thousands of years before scientists confirmed the existence of atom ( Atom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ):

The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE. [2] The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects (first in pairs, then trios of pairs). [3] The references to atoms in the West emerged a century later from Leucippus whose student, Democritus, systemized his views. In around 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term atomos, which meant "uncuttable".
​

...
Orok origin myth:

The earth was completely liquid, but the liquid was slowly diminishing and the earth was hardening. Under the heat, cliffs and stones boiled.
​

It's true! When the Earth formed it was a hot liquid which cooled and hardened.
...
Taosim:

Tao is the nameless void, the mother of the Ten Thousand Things. Tao is considered by Laozi to be that which eternally gives without being depleted, and eternally receives without being filled. That which does not exist for its own sake is able to endure.[2]
​

This is clearly a detailed account of the mysterious Dark Energy that physicists have only recently discovered!
...
Zen:

Everything and nothing are all interconnected, inseparable, a whole.
​

This ancient belief of Zen Buddhists has only recently been confirmed by physicists, who have found that the entire universe was once one. Also, physicists know that even in vacuum ("nothing") we have "virtual particles" popping in and out of existence.
...
Hindu:

According to Hindu mythology creation happened gradually. The universe in primitive form was made up of Ishwar Tattva, the Ishwar Tattva primarily spread homogeneously throughout the universe.
​

It's true! It happened gradually over 14 billion years. The creation of humans was a slow process of evolution over 4 billion years. And the primitive universe was homogeneous according to physicists.

How did the Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Greeks, and Orok people know all these things?!

 

[McBell]

Then I would like to know if you think these verses demonstrate profound scientific insight beyond human capability, or not....How did the Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Greeks, and Orok people know all these things?!

:slap:
Pay attention.
God told them.