From: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Subject: Re: Islam and Science (was Re: Islam & Rushdie -- Icarus.)
Reply-To: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame 
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:39:57 GMT

Here is a synopsis of how the discussion has progressed so far and some
questions I have for Shakil.  Shakil, address these at your convenience.
My questions were scattered around in multiple posts and posed in 
different contexts.  Occasionally, I have paraphrased your statements.
Feel free to correct/clarify if you believe your position is misrepresented.

In one of the posts related to current discussion (and also some time
back) you recommended "The Bible, The Quran and Science", by Maurice
Bucaille.  Do you agree with his methodology and his interpretations?
My opinion on this issue is clear.  I believe it is silly to use the
alleged consistency between Quran and the currently accepted scientific
facts/theories to advance the proposition that the Quran is 
miraculous in nature.  

Disclaimer:
----------
Note that I am not contesting (nor do I have desire to) the miraculous
of the Quran or anything about Islam.  This disclaimer may be 
superfluous but is necessary.

Big Bang and Astronomy
----------------------
One of your attempts to illustrate this consistency went like this:

>But in Islam, this was not necessary because the Qur'an
>mentions the Big Bang theory and is consistent with it.

The first part of this claim is: "the Quran mentions the Big Bang theory".
You dropped/modified  this strong claim and stuck with the second
part which is: "the Quran is consistent with the Big Bang theory".
I assume you stand by only with the second part, which you repeated
in other posts.  I assume the consistency refers only to the expansion
of universe.  I quoted a verse from the Quran which Bucaille interprets
to imply the expanding universe.  Is this a fair representation of 
your position?  Do other references which you have access to, say
something different? 

>The Qur'an is consistent with Big Bang theory in what it says.  It
>does not explicitly state it in the same terms, although it does speak
>of the cloud of dust (I'll have to bring in the references).

I quoted a verse from the Quran which says the Heavens were smoke in
the beginning, which Bucaille interprets to mean the primary
nebula.  Do you agree with this?  According to currently accepted
theory of planet formation, there were two stages.
In the first stage stars synthesized He, Si, S, C and Fe nuclei 
during the thermonuclear fusion phase, and then during the explosive
supernova phase, rest of the nuclei were synthesized.  The Sun
and the planets were formed from the gravitational collapse of a
gaseous cloud which contained the remnants of a supernova 
explosion.  Assuming that Bucaille's interpretation is valid, smoke
seems to refer only to the planetary formation phase, because the
smoke and the earth are mentioned in the same sentence.  Does this
interpretation mean that the first phase did not occur? 

If the criterion of the consistency between the Quran and the Big 
Bang theory is the expansion of universe, then the Quran is also
consistent with the Steady State theory.  However, it may not be
consistent with the oscillating universe theory unless an arbitrary
condition is imposed: that the description refers only to one 
cycle during the lifetime of our solar system, which happens to
be in the expansion phase of the universe.

The eventual fate of the universe is an open question.  It could be
expansion forever or the Big Crunch.  Assuming Bucaille's analysis
is correct, can we conclude that the Big Crunch is ruled out?

I hope you now see the danger of Bucaille type of analysis and
interpretation.

>Similiarly, there are other other truths in the Quran about
>natural phenomenon, such as the orbits of stars and planets which 
>science has only recently discovered.

Here is Bucaille's analysis about planets.

****

Pages 163-164:

It is difficult to say whether these (Poster's note: these refers
to planets) are referred to in the Quran with the same exact meaning
that is given to the heavenly bodies in the present day. ....
The Quran would seem to designate these by the word kaukab (plural
kawakib) without stating their number.

Sura 24 Verse 35

"God is the light of the heavens and the earth.  The similitude of
His light is as if there were a niche and within it a luminary.
The luminary is in a glass.  The glass is as if it were a planet
glittering like a pearl."

Here the subject is the projection of light onto a body that 
reflects it (glass) and gives the glitter of a pearl, like a 
planet that is lit by the sun.  This is the only explanatory
detail referring to this word to be found in the Quran.

****

Here is Bucaille's analysis about orbits of the Sun and the Moon.

****

Pages 165-168:

Sura 21, Verse 33

"(God) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the 
moon.  Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."

Sura 36, Verse 40

"The sun must not catch up the moon, not does the night outstrip
the day.  Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."

[Poster's note:

Bucaille mentions a negative fact: the Sun moves in an orbit, but
no indication is given as to what this orbit might be in relation
to the earth.  He then says that the concept of geocentrism which
was prevalent at that time is not mentioned any place in the
Quran.]

The Arabic word falak has here been translated by the word 'orbit';
many French translators of the Quran attach to it the meaning of a
sphere.   ......

Today, the concept is widely spread that the moon is a satellite
of the Earth around which it revolves in periods of twenty-nine
days. ......

[The after some explanatory material Bucaille concludes that
the Quran refers to the Sun's revolution around the galactic
center.]

****

The next question is: who is the target audience for this type of
analysis?  It may be to reinforce the belief of believers and convince
non-believers.  If it is for believers it is superfluous;
because they already KNOW that God's message is pure and perfect in
every possible way.  So I assume it is for the non-believers. 

Evolution
---------

You seem to have no difficulty in asserting that the Quran is consistent
with the implication of the Big Bang theory.  However, you seem to be
unsure about the "Darwinist" theory of evolution.  

>The Qur'an tells us that we were created in steps, implying some kind
>of evolution, but not necessarily Darwinian evolution.

Does this mean "Darwinian evolution" is not consistent with your
interpretation of the Quran?

>Well, Darwinism is pretty specific in listing the steps that took
>place, but there is a lack of evidence for some of these steps.  The
>Islamic perspective is that there were steps in creation, but this
>does not necessarily imply Darwinian evolution.

Your reasoning seems to be: the "Darwinist" theory of evolution is
still in dispute and is still being debated.  You further say that
the "Darwinist" theory lists some specific "steps" for which the
evidence is missing.

I explained biological evolution as I understand it, which I think 
is a fair representation of the consensus in the scientific 
community.  What definitions of evolution are you using?  What aspects
of the biological evolution are in dispute and are being debated?
Who are the participants?

Furthermore, should the analysis of consistency be put on hold 
until a theory is accepted by the scientific community?  
The next logical step in Bucaille type analysis is the possible use
of the consistency check to judge the validity of a scientific 
theory.  This mindset leads to bizarre "Miracles" conference and
retrograde policies like restricting weather forecasting.   

In one of the other posts you say:

>Well, like most people who are educated in Europe, my first exposure
>to Darwinism was in grade school at the International School of
>Vienna, a UN school.  They don't tell you in grade school that it is
>just a theory.  It is taught as if it were a fact.  At that stage in
>life, they don't tell you that there is a difference between an
>accepted fact and an unproven theory.  So this is all drummed into our
>heads, and by the time we end up in high school, we already firmly
>believe in Darwinism.  That is what I object to.

It is difficult for me to judge what concerns you about biological
evolution, until you explain what you mean by the various terms.
It is possible that the provisional nature of scientific theories is
not explained properly in the schools.  Also, no scientific theory
can be "proved", it can only be disproved.  Also, you seem to be
using the non-scientific definition of a theory which means a 
hypothesis or even a mere speculation.  A theory in a scientific 
sense means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws,
principles, or causes of something known or observed" (Oxford
English Dictionary).

Finally, whose interpretation of the Quranic scripts should be
accepted and why?  I am told that there are some mechanisms provided
in Islam to build consensus on theological issues.  Is there an
equivalent mechanism  for scientific issues?


-- Milind Saraph