بِسْمِ
ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
Unfortunately the discourse around “scientific miracles in
the Qur’an” lacks intellectual rigour. In sha Allah, I will critically analyse
various arguments on the topic in different short articles. During discussions
on the topic, one often hears the phrase “science changes”, a phrase betraying
a Eurocentric, high-school understanding of science. It is so broad that it is
like saying “philosophy or history changes” to discount the use of reason or
history in religion. How many philosophical ideas and historical “facts” have
changed as a result of new perspectives and new evidences? One only needs to
ask a few simple questions and the “science changes” phrase breaks down:
1) What is science?
2) Is all science the same?
3) Does all science change?
Science has many different definitions and they differ
according to its history (e.g. pre-modern vs modern), the philosophy adopted
(e.g. Popperian vs Kuhnian views), practitioners (e.g. ID theorists vs
materialists), location (e.g. Europe vs China), its fields (e.g. physics vs
economics), and theory vs practice. Often the practitioners of the “hard sciences”
have very mythical definitions of science. A short course in the history and
philosophy of science can clarify this matter. The debates over whether certain
social sciences are “science” show how there are different definitions of
science. Therefore, whose definition is adopted impacts the discussion in terms
of “Islam and science” and “scientific miracles”. For example, one definition
would include Hadith science within the definition of science but does that
mean that Hadiths cannot be used in tafsir because it is science? (1)
Furthermore, science is not a monolithic group but there are
many fields within it and not all knowledge is the same within science. There is
some scientific knowledge that is epistemically certain, and there are others
that have lower epistemic values. Also, scientific knowledge obtained through
one type of science can be of a different epistemic value compared to another.
The above implies that there is some scientific knowledge
that will not change, thus refuting the myth that “science changes”. For
example, the scientific knowledge that the “earth is not flat”, or that “at
least some tectonic plates can move”, or that “humans have DNA” will not change
and is epistemically certain. In fact, there are many scientific facts that
have not changed over the centuries, and will not change. For example, the
scientific knowledge that “blood circulates around the body” has not changed
for many centuries and will not change. On the other hand, scientific ideas
about “multiverse universes” are low in epistemic value, can change, and are
arguably unfalsifiable.
The myth of “science changing” may have arisen because its
holders have confused the process of science with the results of science. The
process of science allows its results to theoretically change, even if
it will practically not change. For example, if we get observations about the
earth being flat, then our scientific knowledge of that will change. However,
we will not actually get any observations that show that the earth is flat
because we have epistemic certainty on the matter. The myth is also propagated
by those who devalue scientific knowledge in order to advance illogical
beliefs.
An additional point of history (which is well known) is
that, in tafsir, many Muslim scholars have used reports from the Isra’iliyyat
and other nations in order to provide explanations for natural phenomena or
historical events in the Qur’an, and often such scholars deemed those to be the
true interpretations, not caveating their interpretations with phrases like “this
is one possible interpretation”. Many of these reports have turned out to be
false but no one argues that the “Qur’an is disproven”. Thus, the use of fields
that may change is not unknown in tafsir and Islamic history. Even if
scientific knowledge that can change is used in tafsir, it is not something
without precedence in scholarship and amongst the Sahaba. In fact, many major tafsirs,
such as those of al-Baydawi and al-Razi, have famously used the sciences of
their times to explain the Qur’an.
Whilst explaining certain Qur’anic verses through science is
not the same as claiming “scientific miracles”, precautions should be taken in tafsir
in general because the reader can take any tafsir (such as relating to science
or history etc) as the “one true view” and have their faith shaken if that
interpretation is refuted by someone else or other knowledge. How many times
have tafsirs included weak historical reports (such as gross anthropomorphism) and
not distinguished them from the sound, causing people to doubt Islam!
I have seen the myth of “science changing” propagated from
normally clever Muslims who have PhDs in order to tirade against the notion of
“scientific miracles”. I have not found a single one of such people apply their
principles consistently e.g. to criticise the use of history in tafsir. If
someone insists on the myth that “science changes” and “something that changes
cannot be applied to the Qur’an”, then that person should abandon using science
in explaining any natural phenomena mentioned in the Qur’an (even if they are
not “scientific miracles”) or using historical reports. I hope that this short
article will stop Muslims from repeating the essentialising myth that “science
changes”. I may go into more details in the future if there is a need.
Footnotes:
1) See the series “The Cambridge History of Science” for more about the changing definitions of science.
