Thursday, November 24, 2011

Top 5 Science FAILS in the Koran

As long as they can't see where they are going, they can't prove me wrong!

Let's be clear.  No one says that faulty science in a holy book disproves the existence of a God.  It has no bearing on that claim at all.  What it DOES have a bearing on is the claim that the science revealed in the Koran IS proof of God's existence. 

Before we get to the list I would like to briefly address this.  There is not a single scientific revelation in the Koran. 

Not one

You sure? Are you saying this was a waste of time??

You can't claim that science was revealed in the Koran if people didn't understand it at the time.  If it was not revealed by any means but in retrospect then it wasn't revealed at all.  In order to "reveal" something, you must make it clear to the person, otherwise it is still hidden from us.  Making claims to knowledge that wasn't exampled by men of that time because of a vague simularity in the text or a non-specific passage that may resemble modern scientific understanding is intellectually dishonest and rife with confirmation bias. 

Get it?

If you think the Big Bang was revealed in the Koran because it talks about the expanses of heaven, but NOT ONE Muslim scientist ever actually spoke of that model for the universe in any way then your claim is a false one. 

It wasn't revealed

There is something behind this curtain... what is it?  You'll have to wait 400 years to know what I have revealed today!

Enough of that.

Let's look at the 5 best examples of bad science in the Koran;

                                    Man didn't Evolve??
"O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bare you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you."  -(4:1)

Men and women all came from a single pair?  Not only is that pretty incestuous, but it is scientifically wrong.  There was no first man and first woman and humans certainly weren't created in our current forms!

Ok, maybe HIS ancestors were.

Evolution explains this quite clearly.  We evolved into our current forms from our biological ancestors and they evolved from theirs and so on.  It is such a gradual process that you can't pin down one generation as the first humans any more than you can pinpoint the exact moment when an infant becomes a toddler or when boy becomes a man.  Clearly the Muslim's who wrote this had no understanding of the biological history of the human race.  Strangely evolution has been suggested by many cultures many years before this, so it wasn't even an unknown idea at the time! 

FAIL Islam!

The Universe was made in 6 days?
"And We did certainly create the heavens and earth and what is between them in six days, and there touched Us no weariness"

The Universe was created in 6 days???  Pretty sure that we all know that is not scientifically accurate.  It took billions of years for the Earth develop after the Big Bang.  Plus or minus a few million years.  Do you know what number is really close to a few million??

Not sure but it is NOT 6!!

FAIL Islam!

Thunder is an Angel??
"And the thunder exalts [ Allah ] with praise of Him - and the angels [as well] from fear of Him - and He sends thunderbolts and strikes therewith whom He wills while they dispute about Allah ; and He is severe in assault" -13:13

Ummm, really?  There have been SCIENTIFIC hypotheses on the nature of Thunder since Aristotle in the 3rd Century...


Sounds like a shock wave in the air due to the sudden thermal expansion of the plasma in the lightning channel, but what do I know? It's probably an Angel.

So why is the Koran still depending on Angels and Demons to explain natural processes?

Islam FAIL!!

Sperm comes from behind the Ribs and the Spine??
"He was created from a fluid, ejected emerging from between the backbone and the ribs." -86:6-7

Many Muslims will steadfastly maintain the truth of this one, because some of the seminal fluid originates from that general area.  But the damning part of the verse is that "he" was CREATED from this fluid.  That part of the fluid is the sperm.  That is the active ingredient of the seminal fluid and the only part needed to create life.  The rest of the fluid is only a carrier and has no part in the actual fertilization process. 

The crazy part of this one is that THIS too was a fact that was at least believed by very early man.  Aristotle not only believed that the fertilizing agent came from the testicles but that each testicle was responsible for the birthing of one gender.  So that tying the "male one" off (or cutting it off) would ensure the other one ruled sex selection and the woman would birth a girl.  THIS was crazy, but at least they were on the right track.

You want me to do what?!?

Allah keeps the Birds aloft?!?
"Do they not see the birds controlled in the atmosphere of the sky? None holds them up except Allah . Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe" -16:79

Really?  Is THAT what is keeping them in the magical skies?  Not the nature of aerodynamics, lift or thrust, not any of those things? 

How do I do it?  Well, it's a combination of pixie dust, angel spit, and a healthy distaste for science.


Seriously?  Magic is the Islamic explaination for the power of flight in birds?

So this is a sign for unbelievers?  Yea, the VERSE is a sign.  A sign of the inaccuracy of the Koran, and one more reason to not believe anything it says.

What do YOU think?

Is this the word of middle age sheep herders or the word of a Supreme being?


  1. I just don't understand how you came to the conclusion that Quran suggests thunder is an angel. All I see there is that thunder is the wrath of god.

  2. What is this I don't even.

    No, seriously, what is the point of this?

    Either you mount a serious criticism, taking into account the way in which the Quran is written, in which case you know that there's just *no point* in picking up the "birds are held aloft by Allah" silliness, and you don't pretend to take the lightning thing literally...

    ...Or, if you want to do something tongue-in-cheek, make it amount to more than finger-pointing and sneering.

    Honestly, this isn't atheist "evolution". If you are as interested in reason and intellectually healthy debate as you purport to be (and as Atheists/Humanists *ought* to be) then write something productive. Because right here and now, there's this dead horse, and a whole lotta people with baseball bats.

  3. AlexB. You DO know the point of this, as I stated it in the beginning. WHile it is a bit tongue and cheek, it is to quickly debunk the thought that the Quran is scientifically 100% accurate. You can't NOT take things literally if you are making that claim. If you do it only allows for a cherry picking of verses to use FOR that claim. I used some easily debunked verses and showed how they were not scientifically accurate. That doesn't mean that there is no Islamic God, but it DOES mean that the claim that the Koran is 100% scientifically accurate and reveals divine truths about science is an incorrect claim. That is all that was commented on here. Clearly you agree with me, if you think that the topic is a dead horse.

    You are right, it IS a dead horse, but it needs to be stated as the claim is made so frequently. Now that we have established the claim as nonsense, we can move on to other more important topics.

    As for you kemaleetin, you are wrong. The verse clearly establishes thunder as a "he" with actions and attributes. He exhaults, he praises, he strikes and he wills. Wrath can't do that, only a being can. Thunder, here, is being explained as a being. (even if you WERE right, saying that thunder is Allahs wrath is still scientifically inaccurate.)


  4. Don't you have to go a bit further in understanding what Muslims mean by 'Allah' though? Worth checking out concepts such as Wahdat al-Wujud and the more complex concepts of what Allah is. A 'being' doesn't really come close. Its rather like taking a complicated scientific idea and representing it in a deliberately stupid way. For instance, the passage about creating mankind from a single soul is not talking about Evolution or Non-Evolution and in fact, if you think about it, is rather a beautiful idea: that humanity is One, united, not tribal. It may not be literally true, but if you think about it as an idea, if we embraced it as a species, we may get somewhere.

    Just saying - the saying goes that if you want to attack something, go for its strong points, not its weakest. I find the best way to overturn a Muslim fundamentalist is to know more about what the best minds of Islam have said about God and human ethics, rather than attacking what the worst minds have spewed out. No?

  5. I think what Pegasus has pointed out is important for a point I want to make. On the Quran (or any religious text) and scientific accuracy you can have two takes: the sophisticated, such as that outlined by Pegasus, or the literal. And anyone who takes a literal reading of the Quran, even for scientific accuracy, is obviously too far gone to indulge in rational debate.

    As such, I don't see the point of such a tongue-and-cheek and, if you will forgive me for saying so, ham-fisted debunking. It's picking a low-fruit for the sole pleasure of doing given that it is theoretically addressed to people who will never even engage with it.

  6. Edit: meant to read "for the sole pleasure of doing SO".

  7. @pegagus. The entire point of my blgpost as to show that the Koran was not a literal piece. So your response was in agreement with mine. As for not attacking the weakest points of a text, that is nonsense. To say that you shouldn't criticize the parts of a text that are incorrect is nonsense. Those are exactly the things that need to be revealed. It was the point of the blogpost to debunk the claim that the Koran is literal and scientific truth. So in this we agree. It is NOT revealing of literal scientific truth. In this post I made no ther comment. I am glad we agree.

    Allah IS posited to be a being. To say otherwise is
    word salad. It is only the TYPE of being that is in question.

    @Alex. The very point was to show how easy (or low hanging) the Koran was to debunk as a literal text. I made no other comment on the book, so if your beef is to say "please don't be so banal as to take the Koran literally" then we agree.

    Other points are for later posts, but for this one it seems we all agree....

    The Koran is neither literal nor revealing of literal scientific truths.

    Low hanging fruit?

    I agree, maybe you should tell the Muslim populace to stop eating from it and stop claiming it's literal scientific truth.

    I'm glad we agree.


  8. Just ti be clear Pegasus, you say to look deeper. To look at these things like an idea and not scientific truth. Then we may get somewhere.


    I am pretty sure I NEVER looked at that book as literal truth. And that is all I was commenting on.

    As for your other thoughts on the Koran, that is a discussion for another post.

    This one was merely debunking a claim that you obviously aren making. But many do.

  9. Interesting post. I plan to read more of your stuff!

  10. Thanks Missi. I enjoy a good reading! :)

  11. Replies
    1. Yours is a completely immature response to a complex topic. Please refrain from representing yourself (and what I imply, from your reaction, is likely your religion) by posting such nonsense.