From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Islam and Science 
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:56:27 GMT


In article <1992Sep30.020201.7851@cs.yale.edu>, A. Satish Pai
<Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu>  writes:

> Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist. :-) 

Good thing you put that there...  The stuff I quoted came from a
well-respected nuclear physicist.  Let's take a look at how your
"arguments" stand against his:

> >>> "SA" == ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
> 
> SA> From Sura Al Anbiya, 21:
> 
> SA>    30.  Do no the Unbelievers see 	
> 
> No, I don't think this one does. :-) 

Clearly not.

> SA>         That the heavens and the earth 	
> SA>         Were joined together (as one 	
> 
> What are the "heavens" and the "earth"? I see nothing in descriptions of the
> Big Bang that refer to heavens and earth like this. Is this supposed to be
> matter and energy? Gas and solid? What does it mean? Please do
> elucidate.

So you need a written invitation from God with all the ABC's of the
creation of the universe spelled out for you with little color
pictures on the side?  Let's see now, what could possibly be meant by
"earth?"  Um, well, see, I think it is this spherical kind of thing
that we sorta live on, know what I mean?  The Qur'an was revealed at a
time when people had no concept of any of these things you refer to
today, so it had to be explained in terms that they would understand.
You don't go and explain the atomic model to a kindergarten kid
without using some of those little color pictures that I speak of
above...  Heavens and earth refers to the universe and the fact that
it was all joined together is rather consistent with Big Bang theory,
wouldn't you say?

I never claimed it was a *description* of Big Bang theory.  All I
claimed was that it is *consistent* with Big Bang theory.  Maybe I
should start using some of those little colored pictures too...

> From a cosmological point of view there are no heavens and earth, just stars
> and some gas - the planets are really inconsequential. The use of these terms
> implies a very geocentric view. 

Well, there appears to be plenty of gas flowing, that's for sure...
:-)  These stars and gas are part of the universe, right?  

> SA>         Unit of Creation), before 	
> SA>         We clove them asunder?  	
> 
> Why the phrase "clove them asunder"? "Cleave" means to split, cut off, or
> sever. I see no support in descriptions of the Big Bang that there was some
> sort of giant cutting off of the material of the cosmos at any time. Rather, it
> seems to have been a (rather violent) expansion with subsequent formation of
> stars, galaxies etc. by gravitational forces. No cleaving of any sort. If
> anything, things (elementary particles) are coming together to form new things,
> not splitting apart. 

If everything was together at one instance in time, and then there are
seperate entities, it is not particularly difficult to see that the
word "cleave" can apply rather well here.

> SA>         We made them from water 	
> 
> Water came much later. Water is a compound, made of hydrogen and oxygen. 
> Hydrogen was undoubtedly formed well before water in the universe. To claim
> that the universe was made from water is grossly inaccurate. Oxygen comes 
> several steps after hydrogen in the thermonuclear synthesis chain. For water
> to exist takes even longer - hydrogen and oxygen must accumulate in regions
> far away from stars so the water can exist. The stars at least can never be
> said to be made of water? One might claim that a planet like the Earth is
> largely water-covered, but that is about all, I think water is not the chief
> constituent of the Earth. 

Um, I *really* should use those little color pictures!  The verse
says:

   We made them from water 	
   Every living thing.

Now tell me, are stars "living things?"  What were you saying earlier
about not being a physicist?  This statement no longer has anything to
do with the Big Bang stuff.  I quoted the verse in its entirety.  This
statement refers to living things.

> Perhaps it is metaphorical, not literal, again. Perhaps this "water" is just
> the primeval soup of elementary particles? It seems like the meaning of the
> word "water" is being stretched a lot here. 

Yeah, stretch water enough and it becomes gas like you just furnished.

> SA>         Every living thing.  Will they 
> 
> Living things don't enter the discussion of the Big Bang, so I won't address
> this. 

Nor does water, so why did you bring this in at all?

> SA>         Not then believe?
> 
> Why should we believe this? There are a few statements being trotted out
> along with the insistence that we believe them. This is hardly the way to 
> get someone to believe in something, I think. 

Did I ask you to believe this?  All I said is that this is what the
Qur'an says.  I distinctly remember saying that whether you want to
believe it or not is your problem.

> SA> It doesn't too much insight to understand the consistency of the above with
> SA> the Big Bang theory.  
> 
> See above. There seems to be quite a lot of difference between what the 
> verse says and what the BB theory says. Perhaps you can explain how to 
> resolve the apparent differences I have pointed out. 

Perhaps you can explain why you read something different from what I
posted?

> SA> [stuff deleted]
> 
> SA> But if you want to show that it is *wrong*, the burden of proof rests on
> SA> your shoulders.  
> 
> I don't understand this. So every book that someone shows me I must accept
> as being correct by default? The burden of proving that something is _wrong_
> rests on the reader??? Strange. But I won't dwell on this topic. 

Good.  Because the original claim was that the Qur'an is not
compatible with science.  A claim like that needs to be substantiated.

> PS: I have another question here, by the way. It is my understanding
> that Islam is very strictly monotheistic. Why then does god refer to
> himself in the plural by using "We" in the above verse? Is this just
> a linguistic device?  
> Is there any explanation for it? 

Yes, it's called English.  You see, in English we have something known
as "the royal we."  That is why the translator chose to use that
phrase.

-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science     INTERNET: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station   BITNET  : ahmed-shakil@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158      UUCP    : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian