Accurate Embryology?

Wakas

peace,

In all my studies of alleged errors in Quran, this was the strongest one. Although, after some research it's not that strong, but it is one of the reasonable ones. Most scientific objections in Quran to be found online are poor, from my experience.

Whether it is wrong or not will depend on the words "clothed" and "flesh". Note it does not simply say bones created then flesh created.

However, I came to learn the scientifically proven fact that the bones and muscles of a human being grow simultaneously.

They may develop together, but when do the bones become clothed with flesh? and how developed is the "flesh" at this point?

Let us know what you find.

jtc

Peace.

peace,

In all my studies of alleged errors in Quran, this was the strongest one. Although, after some research it's not that strong, but it is one of the reasonable ones.

I find it hard to understand how it is the strongest alleged error, but is not that strong.

We should try to look at things as objectively as possible. Given the words used in the Qur'an, it seems that is definitely referring to the development of the human being in stages.

Using the available "classical 'Arabic" dictionaries, it seems like there are not extreme variations in the interpretations/definitions of the words/grammar used in these repeated phrases.

• The best meaning of 'Alaq , in this context, seems to be - something that hangs or clings from or to something, which many people say refers to the embryo hanging from its umbilical cord.

Mudghatan, as far as I can see, can only carry the meaning of a lump of flesh.

'Ithaman = bones.

Fakasawna = to cover, wrap, dress, or to clothe.

LaHma = flesh

•

Now, as far as I can tell "khalaqna" in this verse is referring to creation as a process i.e. developing in stages. So each statement is a stage of development which leads to the next i.e. a sequence.

Below is a pretty detailed website on embryology with many pictures. It is one of many, but I thought it was a good example. It proves, to me at least, that pretty much all of the statements mentioned in the Qur'an in regards to embryology are not very accurate.

http//www.embryology.ch/anglais/iperiodembry/planmodperiod.html

In all of the literature I have read on embryology I have not found anything that can be accurately described as "a lump of flesh" turning into "bones", followed by the bones THEN being "covered with flesh". From the very early stages of the development of the embryo, muscles and bones form and develop simultaneously; the bones are always "covered in flesh".

Whether it is wrong or not will depend on the words "clothed" and "flesh". Note it does not simply say bones created then flesh created.

They may develop together, but when do the bones become clothed with flesh? and how developed is the "flesh" at this point?

Let us know what you find.

I do not think this is a matter of "how developed the flesh is at this point". That seems like a poor excuse to disregard the fact that bones and flesh are forming together, not independently.

I'd like to know what people think of the link and if they have read any books about embryology that state scientific facts.

Wakas

peace jtc,

I find it hard to understand how it is the strongest alleged error, but is not that strong.

It's simple. I found the so-called errors in Quran to be flimsy, but the one you raised was not as flimsy, thus making it the strongest. However, upon research it turned out to be not so strong, or at least cannot be proven.

I note how you did not answer what I asked.

You said

"a lump of flesh" turning into "bones", followed by the bones THEN being "covered with flesh".

Where in Quran does it say the lump of flesh turns into bones, as in all of it, i.e. its all bones? I'm not sure if that's what you are implying, but I cant find that.
Further, you use the word "covered" when it more correctly means "clothed", see 45. They are different. As I pointed out, this is where your objection begins to break down.

You said

I do not think this is a matter of "how developed the flesh is at this point". That seems like a poor excuse to disregard the fact that bones and flesh are forming together, not independently.

It may seem like a "poor excuse" to you, but it actually cripples your argument. I am suggesting that you do not know what Quran means when it says "flesh". The only reference we have of its Quran usage is when referring to developed flesh, e.g. of animals etc. So, in order to prove Quran wrong, you'd have to prove developed flesh comes first, then bones are attached to it. "flesh" could be a "mix of fleshy goo" at this point, not actual "flesh" as we know it. You have already admitted they develop simultaneously, so where do you go now? Nowhere?

Your objection is unproven thus far.

jtc

Peace Wakas.

I was hoping for a good discussion about this topic, but it seems as usual you just brush away anything that doesn't fit your understanding based on semantics.

Unfortunately your responses really make me feel like its not worth trying to discuss anything on this forum as you either shut people down for their questions or comments by saying they "have no proof" or you just post an article that either you wrote or agree with.

This will probably be my last post on this matter, and maybe any other matter.

Scribbler

Peace be with you, jtc.

I remember watching a debate on TV between Dr. Zakir Naik and Dr. William Campbell. William Campbell objected and claimed that the verses on embryology in the Quran aren't scientifically true, and he gave reasons for his assertions. And I'm sure Dr. Zakir Naik gave him a reply later on his turn and most probably proved him wrong. It's obviously up to the audience whether they would want to agree with Dr. Naik or not. If you already haven't, then why don't you give it a try and at least watch that video on YouTube and see what Dr. Naik replied to defend on his part?

And yes, I know Dr. Zakir Naik is a Sunni, but that doesn't mean we can't listen to him or anything like that.

Wakas

peace jtc,

You claim it is a matter of semantics. Let's say it is semantics, for sake of argument, why haven't you even attempted to answer what I asked?

It's really simply jtc

Is "covered" the same as "clothed"? Yes/No.
For whatever answer, please provide evidence.

The only accurate answer you can give is that sometimes "covered" can indicate the same as "clothed" but they are not equivalent terms. Quran does have terms for covered.

What does Quran mean by "flesh" in this verse?

developed/normal flesh that we are accustomed to
sloppy goo that is kind of like flesh
a bit of both, not developed flesh but not undeveloped flesh
impossible to say

For whatever answer, except 4, please provide evidence.

I know these questions are difficult to answer, and that is precisely why I asked them.

As I said, your objection is unproven. Please note, in case this is not obvious, I do not mean refuted, I just mean unproven.

jtc

Peace Wakas.

I think the link of verses you posted are regarding covering in terms of concealing or hiding, and not the same as covering/clothing. I do see what you mean though, clothing bones does carry a different meaning in the sense that it implies a "perfect fit" so to speak.

Perhaps, people can offer their thoughts on what verse 2314 is actually saying, with a breakdown of the different stages, and we can go from there?

mmkhan

Salaam,

This procedure is not only for humans but it is same for animals too.

2314
2314 Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump, and We made the lump, bones, and We clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.

Same words are used in 2259.

2259
2259 Or as the one who passed by a township which had fallen into ruin. He said, "How will Allah bring this to life after its death?" So Allah caused him to die for a hundred years; then He revived him. He said, "How long have you remained?" The man said, "I have remained a day or part of a day." He said, "Rather, you have remained one hundred years. Look at your food and your drink; it has not changed with time. And look at your donkey; and We will make you a sign for the people. And look at the bones - how We raise them and then We cloth them with flesh." And when it became clear to him, he said, "I know that Allah is over all things competent."

Science may discover it later

Also check

= their clothing
= clothe them
= clothing them

May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan

jtc

Peace.

I have read quite a lot of articles that present both sides those that defend and try to prove embryology in the Qur'an, and those that refute the claim.

Here is a pretty detailed website that goes through a book about "Qur'anic Embryology" point by point

http//embryologyinthequran.blogspot.ca/

Let me know your thoughts.

James

Man_of_Faith

Salaam,

I think the issue is refuting someone's claims by blunt force in an insensible way. Sometimes we can try to be a little bit more soft in our approach with opposition or those we have a fight with.

This was my feeling to this case and Wakas responses in other situations. I know Wakas is very good in the understanding of the Quran and I felt I could learn things from posts written by him.

Either way, I just wanted to try to put myself into your shoes and I am sorry if I offended someone.

God bless you regardless

StopS

In my understanding the Koran is a book of spiritual guidance. It has NOTHING to do with science.

The Koran describes creation by a god/creator, not the biologically accurate processes in human reproduction.
Biology shows reality, using components such as cells as male and female cells and the processes such as fertilisation. It follows the development of an embryo up to the foetus stage using many books.
The Koran uses just a few expressions, clay, blood, semen and other words, which are not found in modern biology but resemble ancient Greek medicine, sometimes word-for-word. The Koran uses creation to demonstrate the power of a creator to humble mere mortals and to show the superiority of this super-natural entity.
The document linked by jtc is the most complete and in depth analysis of the situation that I know of. There is not much wiggle room left after going through it.

Why do people still mix science and religion? It does not work.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

I think the Quran had to suit an audience living about 1400 years ago. God would not have used advanced vocabulary that might not even have existed at the time. But you are right, it is no science book but rather a book to help us live our lives righteously, and all possible scientific talk is extremely simplified.

God bless you

huruf

It is not so much what the Qur'an uses but what those who read it are able to understand. That is why it is proper to reread the Qur'an according to one's own state of knowledge and is not bound to follow to the dot what others understood hundreds of years ago. That was their understanding, their translation and their circumstances. If today somebody understands something else because one has a knowledge that escaped those in other circumstances, there is no reason why he should halt, control himself and then as a good kid go back and better take what other in others circumstances understood.

Salaam

Wakas

peace huruf, all,

Quran, in general...
I agree with the gist of your statement but I think it it important to simultaneously consider how it was possibly understood by the audience of the time, as well as how one understands it now. The main reason I say this is that in rare occasions some people these days translate/understand Quran in ways that were simply not practical at the time, thus making their interpretations unlikely.

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

It all depends on interpretations. If I am not given the means to falsify it, what is the point of discussing it? No matter what objection I raise, one may very well interpret it differently and save the author from embarrassment. No matter how ridiculous the assertion is, given that we are free to interpret it the way we see fit and can always resort to calling it a metaphor or similar things, there is no way one can objectively verify if its a legitimate thing. Therefore, one shouldn't compare Qur'an's contents with modern science. Not until they are ready to be objective and propose means of falsifying the claims.

Just as a side note, a lot of these so called "miracles" are promoted by that Harun Yahya guy. The sad thing is that if you want to lose faith in the scientific credibility of Qur'an, all you need to do is pick up one of his Qur'an miracle books and just study the individual claims. Not saying that there can not be any, but I have yet to come across a scientific miracle claim which wasn't a lie to deceive the scientifically illiterate masses. There is just so much dishonesty and irrationality involved in their ways of assessing miracles that I can't even trust them at all.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah

Silvers

Peace be upon all of you,

people try to discredit the Qur'an by trying to prove that the scientific data in the Qur'an is not really what most muslims claim it to be, namely a miracle. However, bear in mind that the Qur'an is not a scientific book but a Guidance for people who want to be guided, who ask for the truth.

Yet, since the author is believed to be the One who created everything, one can expect his book to be free of errors. And that it is

regarding your issue of the stages check this videohttp//www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_OJymLKIT0

many renown scientists have accepted islam because of its content.

Also check this site, it's really good regarding the topic of scientific miracles www.islam-guide.com

"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon