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: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:58:49 GMT

You made the following assertions:

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

(you then retracted the first part of the claim)

>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).

>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.

You recommended the book by Bucaille to someone just about when this
discussion began.  I quoted from this book which seems to support your
assertions and asked whether you agree with his methods and conclusions.
This is what you have to say.

>Yes, Bucaille's is not the only study of this material.  You seem to
>be suffering from the illusion that Maurice Bucaille's work is the
>authoritative statement on Islam and science.

>Again, you really need to start looking beyond Bucaille.

>Please do look beyond Bucaille if you are really
>interested in this material.

>I hope you see the danger of thinking Bucaille is the ultimate word on
>the Qur'an and science.

I thought you recommended this book because it was in some sense an 
authoritative statement, although not an ultimate word.

We had three references:

1. Bucaille's book, which you now seem to suggest is NOT an 
   authoritative statement on Islam and science.

2. A book by Dr. J. U. Ahmed which is in progress and which I dont 
   have access to.

3. The Quran

Now we seem to be down to only one, the Quran.  I will read the Suras
you mentioned.  I suppose the translation by M.H. Shakir is acceptable
to you, that is, I can assume it is not full of distortions, errors and
misrepresentations.

>From Sura Al Anbiya, 21:
>
>   30.  Do no the Unbelievers see
>       That the heavens and the earth
>       Were joined together (as one
>       Unit of Creation), before
>       We clove them asunder?
>       We made them from water
>       Every living thing.  Will they
>       Not then believe?
>
>It doesn't too much insight to understand the consistency of the above
>with the Big Bang theory.

Let me paraphrase the reasoning which is obvious to you.  The earth
is this small (in astronomical sense) sphere (almost) few thousands 
of miles in radius and heavens is everything which is not the earth.
The earth and the non-earth were joined together.  This represents
the Big Bang singularity.  "Clove it asunder" represents the initial
explosion, the formation of galaxies, the explosion of first 
generation of Supernova stars, dispersal of the gaseous clouds and
the collpase of this cloud into planetary systems.  It further implies
the expanding universe.

If this is any indication of your supporting evidence, I think
we are down "yes, it does -- no, it does not" stage, that is, a 
dead end.  Neverthless, I will read the suras you listed.

I asked:

>> 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?

You replied:

>No, not at all.  Here are some references which almost definitely
>indicate strong support of the Big Crunch theory. 

Does this mean, expansion forever is ruled out?

Evolution:
---------

You have again failed to elaborate on what you mean by "Darwinian
evolution."  I quoted an excerpt from a standard text on evolutionary
biology which describes the of evolution as scientists understand it.

I asked:

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

You replied:

>No.  When did I say that?

In the earlier post you said:

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

Are you saying that "Darwinian evolution" IS consistent with your
interpretation of the Quran?  Also what "kind" of evolution does it
imply?

>To the best of my knowledge, anthropologists and biologists are not
>all in agreement over Darwinian evolution at all.  By "missing steps,"
>I mean that we have not found convincing evidence linking apes with
>humans yet.

Does this mean that the "disagreement" and the "disputed nature" of the
theory means only the step from apes to humans and the alleged missing
evidence thereof?  Is it fair to say that you have no difficulty in
accepting the FACT of evolution until the ape stage?  Is it fair to
say that the only difficulty you have is the statement that "apes and
humans had a common ancestor"?

I will repeat the question I asked before and you did not address.

Should the analysis of consistency be put on hold until a theory is 
accepted by the scientific community?  Note that acceptance of a
scientific theory is always provisional in nature.

Does your objection arise out of religious beliefs or do you have
scientific reasons?  If it is former, let us stop discussion on
evolution right here.  I dont wish to question anyone's religious
beliefs.

>Here is the problem: I think it is wrong to teach a scientific theory
>as a *fact* to school children who grow up with that notion firmly
>embedded in their minds. 

I will include this excerpt (repost) from "Evolutionary
Biology", Douglas J. Futuyma, ISBN 0-87893-188-0.

****

A few words must be said about the "the theory of evolution," which most
people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from
common ancestors. ... The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected
statements about natural selection and other processes that are thought
to cause evolution,...  In contrast, the statements that organisms have
descended with modifications from common ancestors - the historical
reality of evolution - is not a theory.  It is a fact, as fully as the
fact of the earth's revolution about the sun.  ..... Like the heliocentric
solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood"
as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgable and
unbiased person could deny its reality.

****

Maybe you are confusing the FACT of evolution with the theories of
evolution?

>I entered this debate because the allegation was that Islam
>hinders scientific research and progress.  I have shown why that is
>so.

You meant you have shown why it is not so.  I agreed with you on this
part of the discussion.

>The discussion shifted to whether the Qur'an contains scientific
>truths.  It does.  It is not a Science book, and is not meant as a
>book that will necessarily lead us to make further scientific
>discoveries.  But it does contain references to things we are
>beginning to understand only today.  Whether you believe this or not
>is your problem.  But if you want to show that it is *wrong*, the
>burden of proof rests on your shoulders.  And for that, you have to
>look to the Holy Qur'an itself, not Bucaille.

You made some assertions.  I am trying to get you to provide some
evidence for your assertions and clarify your reasoning.  The question
is not whether I believe your assertions but whether you produce
supporting evidence which is compelling.  I will withold my judgement
until I read all the suras you listed. 

-- Milind Saraph