Why Islam does not clash with modern science, or does it?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Abdelrahman
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:36 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Why Islam does not clash with modern science, or does it?

Post #1

Post by Abdelrahman »

Peace be unto all of you! Believers and Non-Believers alike!

As a Muslim, we put huge regard on scripture not clashing with modern science. We believe that if God created the scripture then it should not contain errors in it when referencing the natural world and what we've come to understand about it.

"Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction." - The Holy Quran (4:82)

Many Christian/Atheist debates exist out there, but I am saddened to see that no atheists debate Muslim scholars who read and write Arabic fluently. When debates are organized between people who don't understand arabic or science it goes no where.

Arabic is my mother tongue. I also speak English at home so I'd say im fluent in both. I am a science university graduate and I love the topic of religion and science.

In Islam, we don't have 'blind faith'. I am not allowed to believe something blindly, I must have reasons. Real reasons. That is why we believe God allowed the prophets to perform miracles - so as to give people a sign. And since we believe the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the last prophet, his sign and lasting miracle is the Qur'an. The Qur'an is meant to be a 'sign' to the end of time and I invite all members to reflect on its verses.

I am looking to debate someone on whether or not Islamic scriptural references to the natural world clash with modern scientific understanding!

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #71

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 70 by Abdelrahman]
The Qur'an goes one step further and says not only were the heavens and Earth were like a smoke before their formation, it also says they were connected - a joined entity. Looking up at the night sky won't give you such a conclusion.
The heavens and Earth were never a joined entity. Earth formed from the accretion disc of matter orbiting the Sun about 4.5 billion years ago.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Abdelrahman
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:36 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #72

Post by Abdelrahman »

The heavens and Earth were never a joined entity. Earth formed from the accretion disc of matter orbiting the Sun about 4.5 billion years ago.
CERN describes the origins of the Universe here (https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe):
Present observations suggest that the first stars formed from clouds of gas around 150–200 million years after the Big Bang
Before the sun, go back even further. Everything in the universe came from a hot dense gas that cooled - such gas is described by scientists as a 'smoke' that light cannot penetrate. Even the sun came from such a cloud - all matter did.

Where is your evidence that everything was NOT a connected hot gas at some point?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #73

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 70 by Abdelrahman]
How does an illiterate man talk of the oceans internal waves, talk of mountains as moving, space as expanding, Iron as descending and the sky as a protective layer.
Yes. How does an illiterate man do that? That question just opens up the debate into who really wrote the Qur'an. Not as obvious as it seems.

https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/ ... the-quran/

Just as with the christian Bible there is a lot of doubt surrounding its origin. But, that aside, the interpretation of the passages you keep referring to is very debatable. We don't know what the author was thinking or actually intended. The descriptions are far from specific so that any number of scenarios can be fitted into the text. Confirmation bias no doubt plays a part in deciding which is chosen.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #74

Post by brunumb »

Abdelrahman wrote:
The heavens and Earth were never a joined entity. Earth formed from the accretion disc of matter orbiting the Sun about 4.5 billion years ago.
CERN describes the origins of the Universe here (https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe):
Present observations suggest that the first stars formed from clouds of gas around 150–200 million years after the Big Bang
Before the sun, go back even further. Everything in the universe came from a hot dense gas that cooled - such gas is described by scientists as a 'smoke' that light cannot penetrate. Even the sun came from such a cloud - all matter did.

Where is your evidence that everything was NOT a connected hot gas at some point?
Earth did not exist until about 9.3 billion years after the Big Bang.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

mms20102
Scholar
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:45 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #75

Post by mms20102 »

[Replying to post 73 by brunumb]

A good point that you can open a debate about

mms20102
Scholar
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:45 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #76

Post by mms20102 »

[Replying to post 67 by DrNoGods]
I expect the people who translated the original Arabic and used the word mass didn't think of this problem, but the point is that all of these translations are far too vague and nonspecific to claim that the passage implies knowledge of the Big Bang, or any other modern physics. If Arabic is so crystal clear, why these various translations for that one specific description of how earth and the heavens were initially?
Since English doesn't have as complex grammar as Arabic, you would see clearly that even the tenses at the start of the verse were different in each translation, and that's why I gave five translations to compare. Once you reach the second part, all translators agreed that the earth and heavens were one "Unit". The characteristics of this "unit" is not defined. Quran is giving simple language with inner meanings. let's assume the first part was vague and not describing any scientific fact, the text suggesting that "all" living things with no exception needs water. Do you agree its a scientific fact ?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #77

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 76 by mms20102]
The characteristics of this "unit" is not defined.
Exactly ... so the reader is free to describe it as they see fit, as the translations have done (solid mass, joined entity, "open"). This is a vague term that does not necessarily mean the point of origin of the universe in a Big Bang scenario. It could mean any number of things, which has been my point all along.
Quran is giving simple language with inner meanings.
Is not "inner meaning" too vague of a term to discuss scientifically? It is sort of like the word "feelings", and is subjective as to its interpretation.
... the text suggesting that "all" living things with no exception needs water. Do you agree its a scientific fact ?
But it does not say "needs" water ... it says "made from" water which is a very different thing. I would agree that living things need water, but not that they are made from water as the text says.

There was extensive discussion here from a Christian who supports a "creation scientist" who published an article on planetary magnetic fields. This person used a vague verse from the bible stating that there was "water in the heavens", from which he concluded that all planets began as balls of pure H2O. Once he did that, he made another sweeping assumption that god decided to align all of the H-atom nuclear spins in order to create an initial magnetic field. He put forth this "theory" as an accurate, and biblically consistent, description of planetary magnetic fields, and the poster who supported this "theory" defended it as legitimate. But it is clearly nonsense and an example of what can be done when vague holy book passages are used to try to explain modern science.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #78

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 69 by Abdelrahman]
Now it does not need to say this occurs by plate tectonics, the very statement that mountains move is in an of itself ahead of its time. It's literally saying, 'you think mountains are fixed, but they move' as simple as a translation you'll get. That very sentence is decades ahead of its time. Simple.


I'm not arguing the meaning of the word "pass." You described earlier that it means "move." But a generic statement that mountains move does not mean that the writer was knowledgeable of crustal plate movements or anything of the sort. Erosion is movement, and can be lateral. But you discard that interpretation even though it falls within the general meaning of the word "pass" as you translate the Arabic. You want it to mean translational movement as happens with crustal plates.

So you aren't presenting evidence that the writer of the passage in question knew anything about tectonic plate movement. You are making an incredible stretch to conclude that this passage suggests knowledge of crustal plate movement when there is no mention of that mechanism (or any mechanism) in the passage. Hence, it is too vague and generic to conclude that it was referring to crustal plate movement rather than, say, Allah deciding to move mountains himself just as he sends down rain. That is an equally probable meaning isn't it?

Again, my whole point in this discussion is not about dictionary definitions of words, but that the passages given are not precise enough to conclude what is being concluded (for any choice of translation). They are too subjective and generic to make those claims. If the passage had some additional comment relating the movement of mountains to the movement of the earth's surface then you may possibly have an argument. But it doesn't ... it only says that mountains will "pass" which you have defined as "move", and no mechanism is described for how this happens. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that it refers in any way to modern crustal plate movement.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

mms20102
Scholar
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:45 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #79

Post by mms20102 »

[Replying to post 77 by DrNoGods]
Exactly ... so the reader is free to describe it as they see fit, as the translations have done (solid mass, joined entity, "open"). This is a vague term that does not necessarily mean the point of origin of the universe in a Big Bang scenario. It could mean any number of things, which has been my point all along.
Please tell me what joined together would mean to you as a scientist ?
Is not "inner meaning" too vague of a term to discuss scientifically? It is sort of like the word "feelings", and is subjective as to its interpretation.
If I created something and I want you to know that I did it, I'll give you little hint and let you explore the rest and the keyword here is" joined together as one".
But it does not say "needs" water ... it says "made from" water which is a very different thing. I would agree that living things need water, but not that they are made from water as the text says.
When I say "With love my wife made the cake" do I mean you will eat love inside the cake?". "god made from water all living things" = " God made all living things to live using water"

Sorry but its simple logic and has nothing to do with language.
There was extensive discussion here from a Christian who supports a "creation scientist" who published an article on planetary magnetic fields. This person used a vague verse from the bible stating that there was "water in the heavens", from which he concluded that all planets began as balls of pure H2O. Once he did that, he made another sweeping assumption that god decided to align all of the H-atom nuclear spins in order to create an initial magnetic field. He put forth this "theory" as an accurate, and biblically consistent, description of planetary magnetic fields, and the poster who supported this "theory" defended it as legitimate. But it is clearly nonsense and an example of what can be done when vague holy book passages are used to try to explain modern science.
I'm not putting new theories I'm just showing you plain facts.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #80

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 79 by mms20102]
Please tell me what joined together would mean to you as a scientist ?


Just what it says ... one or more things connected together in some fashion that isn't defined (could be glued, nailed, taped, held together by gravity, etc.).
If I created something and I want you to know that I did it, I'll give you little hint and let you explore the rest and the keyword here is" joined together as one".


And from the hint I can imagine what was created but I may or may not be correct. Saying that the earth and the heavens were joined together as one could mean many things. Are they not joined together right now in that the earth, and the other planets, are all orbiting a common star and constitute a system (a solar system)? Or if the "heavens" means anything that is not the earth then whether the earth and the heavens are separated now depends on how far out you go before gravity no longer plays a practical role in holding things together.

Or maybe gravity is out of the picture and the passage refers to physical connections, in which case how far back in time do you go to make sense of this story? The universe is some 13.7 billion years old while earth is only 4.6 billion years old. So if this "joined together"entity is supposed to represent an initial "thing" analogous to the Big Bang singularity, and there is 9.1 billion years of time between the thing that was "joined together", and when the earth formed and was separated from this joined together thing, it doesn't make any sense. The initial joined together thing was long gone (by some 9.1 billion years) before the earth even came into existence. There is no way to equate this "joined together" comment from the Qur'an with the Big Bang hypothesis, no matter how many word games are played.
When I say "With love my wife made the cake" do I mean you will eat love inside the cake?". "god made from water all living things" = " God made all living things to live using water"

Sorry but its simple logic and has nothing to do with language.


It has everything to do with language. You've just equated "god made from water all living things", with "god made all living things to live using water." These are completely different phrases. One says that the living things were made of water, while the other says they need water to live. They are in no way equilvalent statements.
I'm not putting new theories I'm just showing you plain facts.


That was just an example of a similar exercise initiated by a Christian using a vague statement from the bible. Very analogous to what you guys are doing with passages from the Qur'an, and it just illustrates how wrong it is to read too much into ancient, vague statements and suggest they have meanings that they don't.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply