From: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Islam and Science
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:16:13 GMT
Reply-To: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

This is sort of a concluding post on Islam and science thread.
I am using some quotes from Shakil's mail with his permission.

>Yes, I *am* tired of this thread, mainly because nothing new is being
>added, but also because it is taking on a much more caustic flair,
>which I think is unnecessary, even though I think I am perfectly
>capable of keeping up a debate decorated with sarcasm and disguised
>insults.  Needless to say, however, it is something I would rather not
>do.

I have read the Suras listed by Shakil in one of the posts, which he
claims support the Big Crunch scenario of eventual fate of the universe.
He also suggests that these Suras rule out the expansion forever
scenario of the universe.  I will post my thoughts on this some time
later this week.

I think I have avoided sarcasm and insults (open or disguised).

>I recommended because it [Bucaille's book] is readily
>available and people may find it intersting

It certainly is interesting!  Shakil further says this book may not
be enlightening and much more can be said about the subject than what
this book says.

The only reference which remains is the Quran.  It is far easier for
me to examine an interpretation and say whether I agree with it or
not.  I have not read the Quran except for some verses here and
there, and as a result I dont think I am qualified to interpret 
any verses.  Furthermore, a non-believer may end up questioning
the divinity of the Quran.  Some might construe this effort as a
deliberate attempt to distort and misrepresent and some may even
consider it blasphemous.  For this reason, in my next post on the
Big Crunch, I will list the facts which I can extract from the
the Suras listed by Shakil, present a summary of the Big Crunch
scenario and bring a closure to this thread.

>Together with many of the other statements in the Qur'an, I still
>maintain it is consistent with the Big Bang theory.

We agree to disagree.

>OK, here is my point: I am not saying Darwinian evolution is wrong.  I
>am not even saying that the Qur'an says it is wrong.  That wasn't the
>point.  Yes, I do believe that there are steps missing in "proof," and
>I also don't think Darwinian evolution ever will be proved.  My
>objection is that one cannot teach something as vague as Darwinism as
>a *fact*.

>I think what needs to be put on hold is teaching it as *fact* to
>elementary school kids, at a stage when they can't tell the difference
>between fact and theory.

I have made the following points, twice in my posts and once in my
mail to Shakil.  We seem to talking past each other.

1. There is FACT of evolution and there are theories of biological
   evolution.  I posted an excerpt from a standard text on
   evolutionary biology.  I believe Shakil is confusing between the
   fact and the theories of evolution.

2. Scientific theories can not be "proved", they can only be 
   disproved.  In any case, the acceptance of scientific theories
   is always provisional in nature.

3. I interpreted Shakil's comments to mean that he believes that his
   interpretation of the Quran is not consistent with the "Darwinian
   theory" as he understands it.  Shakil says that the "Darwinian
   theory" is vague, not well supported with evidence and is being
   currently "debated" by the scholars in the west.  I asked him 
   a number of times to clarify his understanding of evolution and
   cite some evidence for his assertions.  Apparantly, he is not
   interested in following up on this thread and seems satisfied
   with his general comments.  In view of the fact that Shakil
   now says that the Quran does not say that evolution is wrong,
   the whole discussion about the biological evolutions is moot;
   his opinions and understanding of the evolution are irrelevant.

4. Shakil objects to the teaching of evolution the way it was 
   taught to him during his schooling.  This goes back to what
   I said above.  

>My policy has always been
>only to defend what I consider are incorrect allegations.

When this discussion started, I supported your position.  I disagreed
with some of the assertions you made, which spawned of this thread.

-- Milind Saraph