From: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Subject: Re: The Quran and the Modern Science
Reply-To: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame 
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:36:22 GMT

imustafa@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MUSTAFA IBRAHIM ) writes:

>The above mentioned subject is infact a book written by Dr. Bucaille.
>I am goint to present some of the excerpts from the same .

I am surprised by the popluarity of this book.  Someone posted recently
that Bucaille has now come out with a video presentation of his ideas.

>He compares the version of the Bible and that of the Quran ands
>concludes that the Bible version is scientifically unacceptable,

His conclusions about the Biblical version is a synopsis of well
known facts and to best of my knowledge seem accurate.

> .... as the author
>himself warn, that the Quran is not interested to be a scientific book but
>it is religious book,par excellence.

That is precisely the point.  It is not a scientific book and 
Bucaille's efforts to demonstrate consistency between the modern
scientific facts/theories are a silly exercise in creative 
interpretation.

>CREATION    OF   THE   UNIVERSE :
>This notion is
>expressed in the sura Fussilat (41:11)
>" God turned to heaven when it was smoke ."

This is from Bucaille's book:

Quran (Sura 41, Verse 11)

"Moreover (tumma) He turned to Heaven when it was smoke and said to
it and to the earth; come willingly or unwillingly!  They said we
come in willing obedience".

****

[Poster's note:  This is the only verse which he refers, that mentions
smoke.  After some pages of explanatory material, Bucaille concludes on
page 153:]

****

The existence at an early stage of the universe of the 'smoke'
referred to in the Quran, meaning the predominantly gaseous state
of the material that composes it, obviously corresponds to the
concept of the primary nebula put forward by modern science.

****


>And the same is expressed in the sura Al-Anbiya (21:30).

>" Donot the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined
>together, the We clove them asunder"

This, Bucaille claims, means the expanding universe. 
 
>when is is a known fact that
>our planet comes from its own star, the Sun.

I dont know what you mean by "our planet coming from its own star."
According to the current theory of planet formation, there are 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.  

According to Bucaille, smoke means the original gaseous nebula,
"clove it asunder" means the expanding universe.  Finding consistency
and harmony between these meagre references and the Big Bang theory,
theories about the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, seems
bizarre to me.

>In such circumstances, how can
>we imagine that a man who drew his inspiration from the Bible could have 
>been the author of the Quran and, of his own accord , have corrected the
>Biblical text to arrive at a general concept concerning the formation of
>the Universe, when this concept was not to be formed until centuries after
>his death?

This is the gist of his argument through out the book.  I think belief
in the prophethood of Muhammed and in divine nature of the Quran are a
matter of faith.  Trying to seek support for these beliefs based on
alleged consistency between transient and provisional scientific 
theories is silly and counterproductive.


-- Milind Saraph

Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:19022 soc.culture.indian:42505 soc.culture.bangladesh:7228