Islam and Science

[noj]

Hi everyone. I lurked alot around this forum but only joined because I was reading an interesting article about Islam findings in the koran and a Dr. Kieth in University of toronto.

Here is the article:
For two years, a leading embryologist from the University of Toronto flew to and from Saudi Arabia on an unusual scientific mission - to see if he could help explain some verses from the Koran. Dr. Keith Moore's finding, corroborated by test-tube baby pioneer Dr. Robert Edwards, have left Moslem scholars amazed at what the two experts found in the verses that Islamic worshippers have memorized and recited for about 1,300 years.

What they found was an accurate description of the human embryo's stage-by-stage development, which was proposed by Western experts in 1940 and most of which was proved only in about the past 15 years. 'I am amazed at the scientific accuracy of these statements which were made in the seventh century,' Dr. Moore, the chairman of U of T's anatomy department, said in a paper he wrote after examining the verses.

Moslems believe that the Koran was revealed to the Prophet Mohammed by God in the seventh century, after which he propounded Islam, a religion that now has the second-largest following in the world after Christianity. Dr. Moore, a member of the United Church and the son of a clergyman, said in an interview that he is happy with being a Christian and has no intention of converting to Islam.

He said he subsequently examined both the old and new testaments, but could find no parallel to the Koranic verses. Dr. Moore, whose two books on embryology are standard tests and have been translated into several foreign languages, said some of the Koranic descriptions of the embryo in its first 28 days of development were so graphic that he was amazed.

He believes that the verses, along with some of the sayings of the prophet, 'may help to close the gap between science and religion which has existed for so many years.' Asked whether the descriptions may have resulted from crude dissections, Dr. Moore said that at this stage the embryo is about one-tenth of a millimetre long and would appear like a little dot to the human eye.

To discern its shape would require a powerful microscope and microscopes were not developed until the seventeenth century, he said. Dr. Moore was invited to the Kung Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, near Mecca, two years ago along with Dr. Edwards, whose research at Cambridge University led to the birth of the first test-tube baby in 1978, Dr. T.V.N. Persaud from Winnipeg and Dr. Marshall Johnson from the Jefferson Medical Centre in Philadelphia.

He said Islamic scholars at the university presented the four with English translations of several different Koranic verses to determine if they had any scientific meaning. One of the verses they interpreted read: 'God makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, within three veils of darkness.' Dr. Moore said the three veils could reasonably be interpreted to mean the mother's abdominal wall, the wall of the uterus and the amniochorionic membrane. Another verse read: 'Thereafter, we created of the drop a thing which clings, a leech-like structure.'

Dr. Moore and the others found that the Arab leech bears a striking resemblance to the embryo at 24 days, and Dr. Moore said the embryo does cling to the wall of the uterus at this stage. A subsequent verse says the leech-like dot appears later like a chewed substance. Dr. Moore shaped some plasticene like the embryo at 28 days and put his own teeth marks into it. His chewed plasticene was the carbon copy of the embryo at this stage with pairs of bead-like marks similar to the teeth marks.

The verse noted that only some parts of the substance are distinguishable at this stage and, in fact, the heart and eye lens are, Dr. Moore said. He said verses describe the semen 'gushing' from the male upon ejaculation but fertilizing sperm being derived from only a small portion of the semen.

Dr. Moore said in his paper: 'It was not until the eighteenth century that Spallanzani showed experimentally that both male and female sex products were necessary for the initiation of development'.It is difficult not to interpret the mixed drop mentioned in the Koran in the seventh century as a reference to the mingling of the male and female sex cells described 11 centuries later.'

Another verse talks of the minute, dot-like (nutfa, in Arabic) amount of sperm containing a plan or blueprint for future characteristics and features. Among the collected sayings of the Prophet that Dr. Moore examined was one that said that 42 days after conception, God sends an angel to give the dot-like substance human features such as eyes and ears.

Embryonic research shows that at 42 days the eyes and ears are clearly visible, Dr. Moore said. The angel, according to Mohammed, asks God each time: 'Oh, God, (is this) a male or a female'' Again, modern research has shown that the sex is not distinguishable until the 12th week, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore believes it is quite reasonable for Moslems to believe that these verses are revelations from God and hence so accurate. His interpretations have startled Moslems in general. According to Said Zafar, president of the Markaz Dawa al-Islami or Islamic propagation centre of Ontario, Moslems are startled because they open the Koran only during prayers, marriages and funerals.

'It takes a white scholar to prove to them the miracles in the Koran,' Mr. Zafar said. 'Besides, the Saudi Arabians lived for 1,300 years in a state of ignorance and intolerance. When the first astronaut landed on the moon in 1968, the Saudis called it the act of the Devil when the Koran clearly says in a verse that the universe is for man to explore.'

Mr. Zafar and Dr. Moore said Islamic scholars in Saudi Arabia are now extremely keen to focus the findings of Western science on the Koran. Dr. Moore has talked about his interpretations to his own department and to experts in the United States and several parts of the Middle East. Last week, he addressed a meeting of about 300 mostly Moslem students at U of T.

[juliod]

What they found was an accurate description of the human embryo's stage-by-stage development, which was proposed by Western experts in 1940 and most of which was proved only in about the past 15 years

That's bunk, you know.

Scientists (Greek, originally) have stidied embryology at least from the time of Aristotle. Animals, of course, but they also understood that animals are analogs of humans.

DanZ

[Jose]

Welcome into the ranks of the not-just-lurkers, noj!

Can you provide us with a specific question for debate?

Thanks!

[noj]

What they found was an accurate description of the human embryo's stage-by-stage development, which was proposed by Western experts in 1940 and most of which was proved only in about the past 15 years

That's bunk, you know.

Scientists (Greek, originally) have stidied embryology at least from the time of Aristotle. Animals, of course, but they also understood that animals are analogs of humans.

DanZ

In tracing the history of ideas in the field of embryology, Dr. Moore observed that the absence of knowledge in this field and the "dominating influence of superstition resulted in a non-scientific approach to human development." He noted, for instance, that while Aristotle made some contributions to the study of embryology, he also promoted "the incorrect idea that the human embryo developed from a formless mass that resulted from the union of semen with menstrual blood."

Knowledge in this field could not progress significantly until the microscope was discovered in the 17th century. "After it was possible to examine cells under the microscope, it was reasoned in the 18th century that development resulted from growth and differentiation of embryonic cells."

In view of the above, after Dr. Moore had the opportunity to study certain statements in the Qur'an and statements of the Prophet in the Hadith literature, he remarked, "I was amazed at the scientific accuracy of these statements which were made in the 7th century A.D."

So my question is is thier any text in the Bible that mentions scientific evidence found today?

[micatala]

Welcome from the land of the lurkers, noj.

Certainly there are many today who claim that the Bible contains scientific evidence that is currently being found.

One example would be the Big Bang theory. Some have interpreted this as 'the beginning of creation,' and note that the advent of this theory pushed aside the older 'steady state' theory which postulated that the universe has existed forever in pretty much the same condition that it is now.

In looking over the article, my initial reaction is that they are doing some creative interpretation, and also leaving out the possibility that 7th century Muslims could have had other means for at least speculating on the nature of the embryo at its various stages.

In addition, some of the items mentioned clearly would have been observable to them. For example, the 'three veils.' The idea of a leech-like structure would certainly been an idea that could have been based on knowledge of later stages of pregnancy, in either humans or animals. The baby is 'attached' to the mother at birth, so why wouldn't it be at the outset of pregnancy?

With regards to determining gender, a fetus of 6 weeks would be large enough to observe, and would not have completely developed its 'gender identification' and so they could have had empirical knowledge on which to base the verses in question.

Embryonic research shows that at 42 days the eyes and ears are clearly visible, Dr. Moore said. The angel, according to Mohammed, asks God each time: 'Oh, God, (is this) a male or a female'' Again, modern research has shown that the sex is not distinguishable until the 12th week, Dr. Moore said.

Overall, I think with a combination of empirical knowledge and intuitive speculation, the verses could have been written as they are, and don't necessarily show 'divinely provided scientific knowledge.' I don't know if a fuller reading of the passages in question would shed more light on this or not.

[noj]

But the big bang theory is not evidence for anything. Its what it is, a theory. Much like the theory of evolution. And what other stuff in the Bible is explains scientific evidence found today.

[McCulloch]

I am curious as to where this is leading. If no evidence of Biblical scientific foreknowledge is found then does one argue that the Qur'an and the Hadith literature are more reliably from the almighty creator of the universe?

However, to address the point at hand, I am sure that Biblical scholars have claimed this kind of scientific foreknowledge and skeptics have claimed scientific error in the Bible.

There seems to be a specific bit of accurate information found in ancient Islamic sources. Is it there due to a magic revelation from a supernatural source? Or is it there based on advanced scientific understanding between the time of Christ and the time of Mohammed? Or is it a lucky fluke? Are the passages cited unambiguous? Does the Qur'an contain any scientific inaccuracies? If it does, then how would one lucky guess validate it?

[micatala]

True, the Big Bang Theory is a theory. If we want to distinguish evidence from 'theories' or 'knowledge' then it would be the red-shifting of galaxies which points to the expanding universe which points to the 'beginning bang.'

Are there passages which could be interpreted as evidence for any of this?

Well, Genesis does talk about the earth being 'formless and void' prior to the first 'creative act'. If one interpreted that 'earth' refers to the whole universe, then formless and void is not an inapt description of the state of things shortly after the big bang. No galaxies, no stars, not even any atoms. Just a 'quark soup' of formless matter.

One could interpret 'let there be light' to refer to the moment when the universe lost its opaqueness and light could actually escape from the matter.

With regards to the creation of plants, Genesis says 'let the earth produce plants' which is pretty much how it does happen, and one could say, happened historically according to evolutionary theory. THis is evidenced in the fossil record.

I'm not saying that any of these are necessarily good interpretations, just that one could interpret these passages to have scientific meaning. Certainly anything related to the big bang or the early universe would be entirely unknown to the authors of the Bible.

[micatala]

However, to address the point at hand, I am sure that Biblical scholars have claimed this kind of scientific foreknowledge

Thanks M. Some of these are rather interesting, and many do show a willingness to reinterpret scripture 'after the fact' to correspond to new knowledge. Some of them are a bit of a stretch. For example, your first link cites these as indications that the Bible is consistent with a spherical earth.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (Isaiah 40:22)
"He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness." (Job 26:10)

It seems to me these verses are more consistent with the concept of a flat, circular earth. In addition, those citing these verses are ignoring the passage in the gospels where Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth from a single vantage point on the earth. THis would not really be possible on a spherical earth.

[McCulloch]

Thanks M. Some of these are rather interesting, and many do show a willingness to reinterpret scripture 'after the fact' to correspond to new knowledge. Some of them are a bit of a stretch.

To put it mildly. I did not cite these examples because I believed them (I don't) or even that they are good (they are not) but because they show that attempts to boost the credibility of religious texts by trying to link them to science is a well established tradition.