5,360
edits
Quran and a Universe from Smoke: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Introduction
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{QualityScore|Lead=1|Structure=3|Content=4|Language=2|References=2}}This article analyzes the apologetic claim that the [[Qur'an]] contains an accurate account of the formation of stars and early phases of the Universe. | {{QualityScore|Lead=1|Structure=3|Content=4|Language=2|References=2}}This article analyzes the apologetic claim that the [[Qur'an]] contains an accurate account of the formation of stars and early phases of the Universe. | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
Prominent [[apologists]] such as [[Harun Yahya]] and I. A. Ibrahim have claimed that the Qur'an contains an accurate account of the formation of stars and early phases of the Universe. This claim has been widely disseminated and repeated on numerous websites | Prominent [[apologists]] such as [[Harun Yahya]] and I. A. Ibrahim have claimed that the Qur'an contains an accurate account of the formation of stars and early phases of the Universe. This claim has been widely disseminated and repeated on numerous Islamic websites. The basis of the claim is a verse found in Surah Fussilat (Signs Spelled Out), the 41<sup>st</sup> [[Surah]] of the Qur'an which says that the "[[heaven]]s" were once smoke. Apologists argue that this information about the early universe could not have been known in 7<sup>th</sup> century Arabia and has only come to light in the 20<sup>th</sup> and 21<sup>st</sup> centuries through modern scientific investigation. | ||
===Modern Cosmology=== | ===Modern Cosmology=== | ||
Before evaluating the claim of a miracle, it is important to have an accurate understanding of modern cosmology. In the 20<sup>th</sup> and 21<sup>st</sup> century, theoretical physicists and cosmologists have given detailed models for the formation of the early universe, stars, galaxies, and planets. These models, often referred to as the Big Bang theory and the Nebular hypothesis, are widely supported by the scientific community.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.universetoday.com/38118/how-was-the-solar-system-formed/ |title=How Was the Solar System Formed |publisher=Universe Today |author=Abby Cessna|date= August 23, 2009|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.universetoday.com%2F38118%2Fhow-was-the-solar-system-formed%2F+&date=2013-12-20|deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm |title=Big Bang: How Did the Universe Begin? |publisher=California Institute of Technology |author=Yuki D. Takahashi |date= Spring 2000|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ugcs.caltech.edu%2F%7Eyukimoon%2FBigBang%2FBigBang.htm+&date=2013-12-20|deadurl=no}}</ref> | Before evaluating the claim of a miracle, it is important to have an accurate understanding of modern cosmology. In the 20<sup>th</sup> and 21<sup>st</sup> century, theoretical physicists and cosmologists have given detailed models for the formation of the early universe, stars, galaxies, and planets. These models, often referred to as the Big Bang theory and the Nebular hypothesis, are widely supported by the scientific community.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.universetoday.com/38118/how-was-the-solar-system-formed/ |title=How Was the Solar System Formed |publisher=Universe Today |author=Abby Cessna|date= August 23, 2009|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.universetoday.com%2F38118%2Fhow-was-the-solar-system-formed%2F+&date=2013-12-20|deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm |title=Big Bang: How Did the Universe Begin? |publisher=California Institute of Technology |author=Yuki D. Takahashi |date= Spring 2000|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ugcs.caltech.edu%2F%7Eyukimoon%2FBigBang%2FBigBang.htm+&date=2013-12-20|deadurl=no}}</ref> | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
==Analysis== | ==Analysis== | ||
===Definition of Smoke=== | ===Definition of Smoke=== | ||
Since the entire argument rests on the Qur'anic description of the "heavens" as "smoke", it is claimed this word is the best possible way to describe the early Universe:{{Quote|{{cite web quotebox|url= http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_04.html|title= Creation from Hot Smoke|publisher= Miracles of the Qur'an|author= Harun Yahya|date= accessed December 19, 2013|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miraclesofthequran.com%2Fscientific_04.html&date=2013-12-19|deadurl=no}}|The Arabic word for "smoke" in the above verse is "''dukhanun''," which describes the hot, cosmic smoke in question. This word in the Qur'an, in pinpoint fashion, describes this smoke very accurately for it is a warm body of gas containing mobile particles connected to solid substances. Here, the Qur'an has employed the most appropriate word from the Arabic language for describing the appearance of this phase of the universe. Let us note that only in the 20<sup>th</sup> century have scientists discovered that the universe emerged from a hot gas in the form of smoke.}}This claim is based on a logical fallacy; a false equivalence between "smoke" and their definition of the early universe: "an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition" or just "hot gas". There is no such thing as ''<nowiki/>'cosmic smoke'<nowiki/>'' as stated by Harun''.'' The actual definition of smoke is presented below:{{Quote||'''smoke''' ''noun'' \ˈsmōk\ | Since the entire argument rests on the Qur'anic description of the "heavens" as "smoke", it is claimed this word is the best possible way to describe the early Universe:{{Quote|{{cite web quotebox|url= http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_04.html|title= Creation from Hot Smoke|publisher= Miracles of the Qur'an|author= Harun Yahya|date= accessed December 19, 2013|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miraclesofthequran.com%2Fscientific_04.html&date=2013-12-19|deadurl=no}}|The Arabic word for "smoke" in the above verse is "''dukhanun''," which describes the hot, cosmic smoke in question. This word in the Qur'an, in pinpoint fashion, describes this smoke very accurately for it is a warm body of gas containing mobile particles connected to solid substances. Here, the Qur'an has employed the most appropriate word from the Arabic language for describing the appearance of this phase of the universe. Let us note that only in the 20<sup>th</sup> century have scientists discovered that the universe emerged from a hot gas in the form of smoke.}}This claim is based on a logical fallacy; a false equivalence is made here between "smoke" and their definition of the early universe: "an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition" or just "hot gas". There is no such thing as ''<nowiki/>'cosmic smoke'<nowiki/>'' as stated by Harun''.'' The actual definition of smoke is presented below:{{Quote||'''smoke''' ''noun'' \ˈsmōk\ | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
===Single-Word Description=== | ===Single-Word Description=== | ||
The claim presupposes that the Qur'anic author must describe the earliest phase of the universe using a single word. However, no one would be convinced if a scientist, purporting to be an expert in cosmology, put together a paper on the formation of stars and only described it in a single word. Even apologists realize that a single-word description is not adequate to convey such a complex topic, which is why they use | The claim presupposes that the Qur'anic author must describe the earliest phase of the universe using a single word. However, no one would be convinced if a scientist, purporting to be an expert in cosmology, put together a paper on the formation of stars and only described it in a single word. Even apologists realize that a single-word description is not adequate to convey such a complex topic, which is why they use give lengthy explanations to make their point. The idea that a single word would carry so much weight would not be in keeping with a "clear" book revealed by [[Allah]], for such powerful revelations more explanation is clearly required. | ||
This lack of detail is further highlighted by the depth and | This lack of detail is further highlighted by the depth and loquaciousness used by the author of the Qur'an on other topics. The author explains in detail [[Cousin Marriage in Islamic Law|who you can and cannot marry]] and how [[Critical Analysis: Inheritance Laws|an inheritance can be divided]]. The Qur'an also retells stories multiple times. Based on these facts, it is difficult to rationalize why such sparse details were used to describe something as complex as the formation of the universe, especially when such information could have validated the authenticity of the Qur'anic message. | ||
===Nebulea and Milky Way=== | ===Nebulea and Milky Way=== | ||
The claim then makes use of images of distant nebulae only visible through the aid of modern telescopes. These wispy, red and pink clouds of hydrogen gas are supposed to provide a visual connection to smoke. | The apologist claim then makes use of images of distant nebulae only visible through the aid of modern telescopes. These wispy, red and pink clouds of hydrogen gas are supposed to provide a visual connection to smoke. On the surface the comparison seems warranted. However, smoke is a thick, billowing substance that is always black, gray, or white. Given this fact, another image of the night sky is far more reminiscent of smoke than the distant nebulae above, and it can be seen with the naked eye right here on earth. It does not require divine revelation nor advanced scientific instruments to imagine the Milky Way as a cloud of smoke in the night sky. It is easy to see how someone in the 7<sup>th</sup> century looking up from the desert could have invented this myth.[[File:Milky Way Arch.jpg|center|500px]]<center><small>The Milky Way as observed from earth (fisheye view)</small></center>[[File:Forest fire.jpg|center|500px]]<center><small>Cloud of smoke rising on the horizon</small></center> | ||
===Qur'anic Verse in Context=== | ===Qur'anic Verse in Context=== | ||
After a description of the hot, dense, plasma of the early universe as "smoke" and the use of images of distant nebulae, | After a description of the hot, dense, plasma of the early universe as "smoke" and the use of images of distant nebulae, the apologist then claims that the Qur'an is describing this early phase of the universe:{{Quote||The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole universe, in that ‘smoke’ material. God has said in the Quran: | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
===Support from Scientists=== | ===Support from Scientists=== | ||
The final piece of evidence is the claim that a renowned geologist supports the view that the information in the Qur'an could not have been of human origin:{{quote||Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world’s renowned geologists. He is Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.” Also he said: “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.”}}While Dr. Alfred Kroner was a geology professor in Germany, he never endorsed the Qur'an as being an accurate source of scientific information. A video interview conducted with Kroner in 2011 confirms that his comments from the 80s were taken out of context.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClHuG880pqU|title= Alfred Kröner - Quote mined scientist denounces Quran miracle claims|publisher= YouTube (video)|author= TheRationalizer|date= March 21, 2011|archiveurl= |deadurl=no}}</ref> He currently does not endorse the Qur'anic view of creation nor did he at the time of the original interview. He affirms that parts of the Qur'an are not supported by modern scientific evidence and are completely unscientific and mythical. | The final piece of evidence is the claim that a renowned geologist supports the view that the information in the Qur'an could not have been of human origin:{{quote||Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world’s renowned geologists. He is Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.” Also he said: “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.”}}While Dr. Alfred Kroner was a geology professor in Germany, he never endorsed the Qur'an as being an accurate source of scientific information. A video interview conducted with Kroner in 2011 confirms that his comments from the 80s were taken out of context.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClHuG880pqU|title= Alfred Kröner - Quote mined scientist denounces Quran miracle claims|publisher= YouTube (video)|author= TheRationalizer|date= March 21, 2011|archiveurl= |deadurl=no}}</ref> He currently does not endorse the Qur'anic view of creation nor did he at the time of the original interview. He affirms that parts of the Qur'an are not supported by modern scientific evidence and are completely unscientific and mythical. | ||
== | ==Summary== | ||
The entire argument rests on the Qur'anic description of the "heavens" as "smoke"; a claim which in-turn rests on a false equivalence made between smoke and the makeup of the early universe. It also presupposes that the Qur'anic author must describe something as complex as the earliest phase of the universe using only a single word. A presupposition that makes little sense and is far from convincing when you consider how such information could have validated the authenticity of the Qur'anic message. | The entire argument rests on the Qur'anic description of the "heavens" as "smoke"; a claim which in-turn rests on a false equivalence made between smoke and the makeup of the early universe. It also presupposes that the Qur'anic author must describe something as complex as the earliest phase of the universe using only a single word. A presupposition that makes little sense and is far from convincing when you consider how such information could have validated the authenticity of the Qur'anic message. | ||