Please debunk this

[SubcontinentalKiwi]

Some Muslims claim that the following is evidence of anachronistically advanced scientific knowledge in the Qur'an (i.e. that it must have been sent by God because Arabs at the time did not know about abiogenesis). Please debunk this belief, since I'm failing to do so in an effective manner, but feel that I'm socially conditioned to favour the Qur'an.

The Qur'an says:
And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth). [23:12]

Meanwhile, we have Jack Szostak saying Montmorillonite (clay crystals) located in springs could very well have served as "scaffolding" for the synthesis of the first RNA molecules.*

NOTE 1: I realise that the Qur'an quote extrapolates to the creation of man without talking about the previous evolutionary stages. Advocates say that it refers to man as a long-term end to the process.

NOTE 2: Please disregard the "Adam" put in brackets. I think that's inserted by the translator to make the verse consistent with the other verses and common Islamic beliefs, but isn't a part of the verse in Arabic.

FINAL NOTE: I'm a recently de-converted Muslim. I by no means think that this alone is enough to merit belief in a God. I just want it conclusively debunked so that my family stops bringing it up as a suggestion that I'm just biased against Islam (i.e. that my de-conversion was illogical).

*He says so in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU [41:20-41:36]



^Well, that looks pretty incoherent. Please let me know if anything needs clarification!^

[Poison Tree]

Just to point out the glaringly obvious
"And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth)"
 is in no way the same as
"Wet Montmorillonite [maybe] played a part in the emergence of the first RNA molecules. Then a billion years of evolution by means of natural selection. Then a certain group of primates became humans."

I always thought the Qur'an taught man was made from a blood clot, although apparently it also says man was created from water, clay/mud, dust, fluid and nothing. But, of course, we are expected to ignore all but "clay" and then see how--obviously--that was an explanation of the emergence of RNA, not a retelling of genesis 2 where god creates Adam out of "dust of the ground"  

[Plu]

It's applying knowledge after the fact combined with abusing statistics.

"Advanced knowledge" only counts if you can use the book to discover something new, otherwise it's just either a lucky guess or someone reinterpreting the words and stretching them to fit with what we know (which is what muslims and christians do all the time)

If I make a book with a thousand random claims and after a thousand years, a dozen of those turn out to be kinda sorta true if you squint enough, the book does not contain advanced knowledge. It's just random guesswork from some long dead guy who got lucky a few times.

[SubcontinentalKiwi]

Just to point out the glaringly obvious
"And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth)"
 is in no way the same as
"Wet Montmorillonite [maybe] played a part in the emergence of the first RNA molecules. Then a billion years of evolution by means of natural selection. Then a certain group of primates became humans."

I always thought the Qur'an taught man was made from a blood clot, although apparently it also says man was created from water, clay/mud, dust, fluid and nothing. But, of course, we are expected to ignore all but "clay" and then see how--obviously--that was an explanation of the emergence of RNA, not a retelling of genesis 2 where god creates Adam out of "dust of the ground"  

Apparently water, clay, mud (in which clay is found) and dust are all with reference to evolution; fluid and the "clot" to embryology; and nothing to the genesis of all of nature.
This, of course, raises more absurdities and contradictions:
-dust and clay-abundant mud are two different things, so it's got to really be one or the other (i.e. the Qur'an is trying to have it both ways, but it's mutually exclusive).
-Embryos are not "blood clots." (In this case the Islamic apologist would say that "blood clot" is just a translational approximation, though.)
-There is no evidence to suggest that nature originated out of nothing.

In short, the Qur'an just seems to take stabs in the dark which Muslims then interpret (read: manipulate) tenuously to make sense.
Damn, I really need to get past the social conditioning. I have no compelling evidence and yet I somehow feel like I'm "wrong" to disbelieve.

[SubcontinentalKiwi]

It's applying knowledge after the fact combined with abusing statistics.

"Advanced knowledge" only counts if you can use the book to discover something new, otherwise it's just either a lucky guess or someone reinterpreting the words and stretching them to fit with what we know (which is what muslims and christians do all the time)

If I make a book with a thousand random claims and after a thousand years, a dozen of those turn out to be kinda sorta true if you squint enough, the book does not contain advanced knowledge. It's just random guesswork from some long dead guy who got lucky a few times.

Thank you so much! This is a really good counter-argument which I will totally use next time it comes up.   :-D

[SGOS]

It's applying knowledge after the fact combined with abusing statistics.

"Advanced knowledge" only counts if you can use the book to discover something new, otherwise it's just either a lucky guess or someone reinterpreting the words and stretching them to fit with what we know (which is what muslims and christians do all the time)

If I make a book with a thousand random claims and after a thousand years, a dozen of those turn out to be kinda sorta true if you squint enough, the book does not contain advanced knowledge. It's just random guesswork from some long dead guy who got lucky a few times.

Thank you so much! This is a really good counter-argument which I will totally use next time it comes up.   :-D

These were the first thoughts I had when I read your first post.  I think they are the obvious answers.  I've pondered Christian apologetics so often that do exactly the same bending of meaning by inventing interpretations to make some desired outcome fit what they need.

It's done so often in politics that we actually have an expression for it.  It's called political spin.  The politician claims to be clarifying what he said, when it's obvious to everyone that he's just bending his meaning, or claiming something is what it isn't.

Nationalism and related types of special interests use the technique so often that we've invented the phrase "re-writing history", and we have the expression, "Those who win the war get to re-write history."

All these frequently used types of deception used throughout the world of mankind can be categorized under other terms we've had to invent because the use of the deceptions are so frequent.  We've invented words like "bullshit" and "flim flam" to identify them.  I'm sure you have the same types of words in your native language.

And throughout the world of spiritual nonsense, we constantly encounter this notion that spiritual meanings are somehow masked in such mysterious language that for some odd reason, always require twisting out an interpretation to mean what the priests and the believers want to hear.

[Plu]

Remember this basic trick for the predictive or explanatory power of books and stories:

If you have only the book and you cannot even begin to explain the concept without the real science behind it and if you can explain the whole concept just fine using just the science and not the book, the book adds literally nothing to the discussion.

If you test any concept or story in a holy book against this basic rule, 99% will fail. The remaining 1% will be trivially simple.

[PopeyesPappy]

Clay is high in silicon. People are not.

[josephpalazzo]

Some Muslims claim that the following is evidence of anachronistically advanced scientific knowledge in the Qur'an (i.e. that it must have been sent by God because Arabs at the time did not know about abiogenesis). Please debunk this belief, since I'm failing to do so in an effective manner, but feel that I'm socially conditioned to favour the Qur'an.

The Qur'an says:
And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth). [23:12]

Meanwhile, we have Jack Szostak saying Montmorillonite (clay crystals) located in springs could very well have served as "scaffolding" for the synthesis of the first RNA molecules.*

NOTE 1: I realise that the Qur'an quote extrapolates to the creation of man without talking about the previous evolutionary stages. Advocates say that it refers to man as a long-term end to the process.

NOTE 2: Please disregard the "Adam" put in brackets. I think that's inserted by the translator to make the verse consistent with the other verses and common Islamic beliefs, but isn't a part of the verse in Arabic.

FINAL NOTE: I'm a recently de-converted Muslim. I by no means think that this alone is enough to merit belief in a God. I just want it conclusively debunked so that my family stops bringing it up as a suggestion that I'm just biased against Islam (i.e. that my de-conversion was illogical).

*He says so in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU [41:20-41:36]



^Well, that looks pretty incoherent. Please let me know if anything needs clarification!^

Mohammed was a plagiarist, he stole that right out of the bible, Genesis 3:19 - For dust you are and to dust you will return.

[Minimalist]

Sahih International
Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed -
23:7
to top
23:7
Sahih International
But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors -
23:8
to top
23:8
Sahih International
And they who are to their trusts and their promises attentive
23:9
to top
23:9
Sahih International
And they who carefully maintain their prayers -
23:10
to top
23:10
Sahih International
Those are the inheritors
23:11
to top
23:11
Sahih International
Who will inherit al-Firdaus. They will abide therein eternally.
23:12
to top
23:12
Sahih International
And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is poorly written (to the point of incoherence) shit?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

It's no more accurate than Zeus happening to make the 5th race of humans out of iron. Maybe the Greeks knew we had iron in our system, and maybe they didn't, but I don't see people preaching the Gospel of Zeus to high heaven just because of this.

[Solitary]

Any book written ambiguously can be interpreted any way you want. And rationalizing after the fact doesn't prove anything. Why would an all powerful God need clay or a rib bone to make a man or woman?  :roll:  :rollin: The Boy Scout leaders that pushed over the boulder and said it was to protect the boys, when they were in fact destroying a natural monument, is an example of this. So is a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar saying he was looking for the cat.  Solitary

[Poison Tree]

If I make a book with a thousand random claims and after a thousand years, a dozen of those turn out to be kinda sorta true if you squint enough, the book does not contain advanced knowledge. It's just random guesswork from some long dead guy who got lucky a few times.

Just google "star trek predicted the feuture"--they had flip-phones, I pads, google glasses, ect decades in advance.

[Mister Agenda]

I WISH more Muslims would try to reconcile their religion with abiogenesis and evolution.

[SubcontinentalKiwi]

I WISH more Muslims would try to reconcile their religion with abiogenesis and evolution.

Unfortunately, most religious people believe *despite* knowledge, not because of it.

Those who do try to reconcile Islam with abiogenesis and evolution will eventually have to concede that they're just seeing what they want to see (much like I did).
I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly. If more Muslims opened their eyes to undeniable scientific truths, they'd be much more likely to realise that the teachings of Islam aren't really compatible with modern knowledge.