Embryology and the Qur'an

The internet provides a vehicle for many to communicate their beliefs.  Muslims have also taken to social media (like twitter) to proselytize for their religion. A popular tactic is to claim that the qur'an is filled with modern scientific knowledge.  This seems to be a bizarre tactic.  The Islamic world has not really been at the forefront of scientific discovery since, well, Copernicus worked out that the solar system was heliocentric before Muslim astronomers.  Despite studying an ancient book that provides apparently, all kinds of useful pointers on modern science, the Islamic world is deeply under-represented in science Nobel prizes etc.

One of the claims does interest me as a biologist, and also as an atheist who gets this ploy used on me a lot.  This is the claim that the qur'an anticipates modern (human) embryology.  This could only have a divine origin (despite its erstwhile similarities to Galen, for whom no such divine inspiration is attributed).

Human Embryo

The relevant verses are 23:12-14.  So I just want to look at these quickly.

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed-like substance)...
[Noble Quran 23:12-14]  

Clay

23:12 claims that humans are made from clay.   Now because clay is mostly aluminum and silicon and contain little of the organic material this is clearly not the case (the 6 macro-elements we look for as life's basic building blocks are Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Carbon and Sulphur). It is perhaps more likely this is meant in an allegorical rather than scientific sense.  But if we accept this is not being scientific, then well, it is not clear why the remaining verses are supposed to be scientific. 

Nutfah

23:13 introduces the drop (nutfah) which also presents problems. It doesn't take divine inspiration to realise that the ejaculate from a male can be a liquid drop.  It would be impressive if the qur'an mentioned sperm and eggs.  But it doesn't. In fact, eggs (baydeh) are nowhere mentioned.  It strikes me that as a guide to modern embryology, omitting any mention of eggs is well, astonishing. Parenthetically, sperm isn't mentioned either. Sometimes special pleading is used to infer that the nutfah means a human gamete. But there is nothing here that hints at the microscopic world. 

The claim of a safe lodging would also contradict ectopic pregnancies, where the gamete might settle in the fallopian tube or abdomen. This unsafe location causes miscarriages or at worst, painful pregnancies fatal to mother and child.

Alqahah

23:14 then gets very complicated as many words gets vaguer. The first stages of  embryology (blastula, gastrula) don't involve any blood vessels, so a clot isn't a good description.  It seems more plausible that the spotting that sometimes occurs in early pregnancies- or even miscarriages- would cause a 'blood clot' deduction.  

Alternatively, alaqah could be a metaphor based on a leech.  If so, it is not a very good one.  Leeches are protostomes whilst humans are deuterostomes. We haven't been alike for about 600my. Leeches lack a notochord, they lack limb buds, they lack pharyngeal arches.  A human embryo doesn't digest its host's blood. It doesn't use its mouth-parts to interact with its host.  

Even if we want to go with a leech-like interpretation over the blood-clot for alaqah, then this does not imply divine insight.  For a people familiar with butchering animals (and dare I say, people on occasion), it wouldn't take much powers of observation to notice small embryos attached to the uterus of pregnant mammals.  For ancient peoples, these likely resembled leeches.

Bones

The text above omits the last part of 23:14.  Here are two translations of it:

Muhsin Khan Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.

Pickthall Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!

The issue here is simply the order bones appear. It appears to describe two stages. First, the mudghah becomes bones, then the bones are covered in flesh. This is likely a deduction of people used to butchering animals, and had no way of conceiving how muscles and flesh could be attached to bones without the skeleton being formed first.

The problem is that bones form last. Reduced to the basic steps, mesenchymal cells within the embryo first differentiate into cartilage lines. Later this cartilage is replaced by bone. At no point would we say that the bones are later covered in flesh. 

Conclusion

 It is obvious that the qur'an does not describe human embryology at any useful level.  Rather the argument depends on some very heroic special pleading. Modern scientific discoveries are retrofitted to vague language to make claims that go far beyond the verses.  It also depends on poor knowledge of embryology.  No quantity of Youtube videos or webpages can hide the fact that the Qur'an simply does not describe human embryology.  Rather than being special advanced knowledge, the qur'an seems entirely consistent with knowledge of the era. I'm reluctant to believe that the "creator of the universe" sic would know as little biology as the typical 6th C Arab.

It's not a sinful life

Atheists often get told they've become so for irrational reasons.  One of the most fatuous claims I've heard (and I'm sure I'm not unique), is that I've become an atheist because I love to sin.  In short, I really know there is a god, but I'm just pretending there isn't because I prefer some kind of sinful life.

This betrays almost no prior thought.  If anyone really believed there was a supreme deity with the attributes ascribed to it (love, unconditional mercy etc) then there isn't really any motive to pretend otherwise.  Especially when you'd be willingly choosing an eternity of presumably, heinous torture (as many theists are fond of reminding me).  Does this actually make sense as an argument?  I know there's really a god but I prefer infinite torture to some kind of eternal paradise?  It's got to be one of the dumbest arguments I ever hear.

Especially, as I should point out, that if you are a theist, you're not banned from sinning.  If you're a theist, you can sin (you have to, it is in your nature because of original sin or some other imperfection). And you still avoid hell.  So you get it all.  Atheists are smart enough to figure that out.  There's no reason to pretend.  We genuinely have no belief in the gods that have been supplied to us.

For the most part, people become atheist for a very mundane reasons.  There is no credible for gods, and the whole concept often sounds wildly implausible.

Prayer Fails

The widespread belief amongst the faithful that intercessory prayers are effective at curing disease is strong.  It is sufficiently strong that it doesn’t waver when children like the Schaibles die of medical neglect. The faithful watch children die as their bronze-age chants fail, and feel no remorse, no doubt.

The best scientific study working with large groups on the effectiveness of prayer remains with Benson et al (2006) [1]. The study overcame the methodological weakness of previous studies by using proper randomisation of subjects and ‘blind’ techniques, combined with large sample sizes.

About 1800 coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patients were in the study. The patients were randomized, such that only 1/3 knew definitely they would receive intercessory prayer to assist recovery. The other 2/3rd did not know if they would receive prayer. Half of them did, half didn’t.

The study showed that prayer had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG. The group that did know they were receiving prayer however, had a significantly higher risk of complications (59% versus 51%). It was speculated that knowing they were receiving prayer, increased their anxiety (perhaps they were sicker than they had been led to believe) and this contributed to the increased rates of complications.

There is no scientific evidence that validates the belief that prayer is effective at curing disease.
—
[1] Herbert Benson MD, Jeffery A. Dusek , Jane B. Sherwood , Peter Lam , Charles F. Bethea , William Carpenter , Sidney Levitsky , Peter C. Hill , Donald W. Clem, Jr. , Manoj K. Jain , , David Drumel , Stephen L. Kopecky , Paul S. Mueller , Dean Marek, Sue Rollins ,  and Patricia L. Hibberd (2006). Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. American Heart Journal 151(4): 934-942

Let's talk about "Macroevolution"

One of the recent Creationist gambits is the invention of the macro and micro-evolution shibboleths.  This is a convenient way to act like a hypocrite- by accepting "microevolution" they can continue to use modern antibiotics and crops.  By rejecting "macroevolution" they get to cling on to their beliefs.

Like so many arguments used before, this rejecting "macroevolution" depends on a combination of ignorance and dishonesty.  The reason I put "macroevolution" in quote-marks is because as far as biologists have ever been concerned, there is only evolution.  This is the change in inheritable traits (allele frequency) in populations over generations.  There aren't different processes.  The Creationist argument starts on an unsound scientific basis.  (This is usually typified by them being unable to define what "macroevolution" is to me).  Paleontologists sometimes use the term macroevolution but this doesn't really line-up with the creationist term. In this context, macroevolution describes the large-scale changes seen in the fossil record.  In the creationist sense, it usually means common ancestry.

DNA- Advances in molecular biology in the 1980s forced Creationists to invent the 'Macroevolution" argument

Ok, so why have Creationists come up with this argument?  Well, basically because older arguments got over-run by advances in modern biology.  When we could only dimly see changes occurring at the molecular level, creationists would appeal to ignorance.  If we can't see these changes occurring, then they weren't going to buy into evolution of any kind.  Once we showed we could see evolution occurring at the level of individual genes, there were only two options.  Accept that evolution occurs or invent a new definition of evolution and insist this is yet to be proved.  The "macroevolution" argument comes down to the dishonest gambit of inventing a new definition. 

The argument is also intellectually dishonest.  The Creationist concept often boils down to speciation.  They insist that a speciation event must be observed for their concept of "macroevolution" to be tested and proved.  Given we estimate it usually takes 50,000 to 100,000 years for a speciation-process to complete, then really, they're just trying to create a test that is impossible to pass.  Human history isn't long enough (usually) to see a new species evolve.  Insisting we observe in 50 years an event that takes 50,000 is appalling dishonesty.  This isn't about creating tests that are falsifiable (truly scientific), it's about contriving a test that is impossible to pass. 

Nonetheless, we have observed speciation events.  While it usually takes a long time, the 'tail of this distribution' can yield some much faster events.  For example, the sunflower Helianthus anomalus and the groundsel Senecio cambrensis are recently evolved plant species.  They've evolved by a process called polypoloid hybridisation.  And the neat thing about this, is we've replicated it in the lab.  We've tested the observations by seeing if we can duplicate it and succeeded.  These are entire new species as demonstrated by their new chromosome count.  

As an aside, we've also observed new structures evolve.  The Italian wall-lizard Podarcis sicula on  Pod Mrcaru has been observed to evolve a different head shape and size, along with caecal valves in the gut. The change to the gut is a major and novel structural shift in response to the more vegetarian diet of these lizards.

The argument based on "macroevolution" isn't just dishonest.  It's already been clubbed to death by a mob of angry facts.

The argument is also redundant.  What is seldom recognised is that the same advances in molecular biology that demolished the original creationist arguments also took out the "macroevolution" argument.  One of the most important things about biology, is that inheritable traits get inherited.  Genes leave a long trail back in time.  We don't need to observe speciation events.  A very good record of them is left at the molecular level.  The same genetic evidence that can show paternity, also shows we have a common ancestor with the other great ape species. It's just following the trail back. And we're at a point where we're looking at thousands of molecules at a time.  Similarities aren't down to random chance.  The distribution is not uniform but very convergent. Common ancestry makes a very important, very testable prediction- traits will be organised as nested hierarchies.  That is what we see.

The "macroevolution" argument  runs into many other problems.

1. What is the barrier to new species forming?  The plant-species above show there's no intrinsic barrier.  And we know that populations keep accumulating differences.  If one early ape species had two separate populations 7 million years ago, and ended up today with a similarity of 98.6% in their DNA, are they still the same species?  There is nothing we've found in biology that can stop genetic changes accumulating.
2. The distribution of non-coding DNA.  Why for example, do we share most of our psuedogenes and Alu inserts with chimps.  It's easy to see why we'd have over 1m identical Alu inserts to chimps if we both had the same ancestor and inherited them.  Because afterall, they're inheritable. Mostly all we can tell about these short, non-coding sequences is they correlate to a bunch of diseases we'd rather not have. Like colorectal cancer.  
3. How and where do new species occur? Paleontology has pretty much determined that 99% of all species of planet earth have gone extinct. If nothing can evolve from existing species, then there's a pretty big problem left to explain the motives and mechanisms by which new species occur.

The Body-Count Proof of God

One of the dilemmas the religious face, is accounting for the horrific atrocities of their religion whilst simultaneously holding on to the belief their faith is the product of a loving, moral creator.  I can't say that I'm persuaded for instance, that a religion that spawned the crusades, inquisition, witch-trials and pogrom demonstrates any divine origin.

There is a type of theist who responds to this by arguing that atheism has killed more. This is done by cherry-picking some of the 20th C totalitarian states and the death toll these perpetuated. In effect, they are trying to justify the body count of their religion with the body count of other regimes.

• The argument is on one hand, simply offensive. The emergence of totalitarian regimes in the early and mid-twentieth century were a product of many factors. These factors were myriad- political economic, military etc.  Most importantly, such states ranged from true Christian regimes (Mussolini, Franco) to Christian-influenced theism (Hitler)

  

  German Wehrmacht belt-buckle with slogan "God with Us".

  to communist regimes in E Europe (Stalin). The mass-slaughter of people in the mid-20th C by totalitarian governments, is just an argument against totalitarianism. That’s the only fair conclusion we can draw from this slaughter. 
• The comparison also fails because the Communist regimes did not kill in the name of atheism. They killed because they identified some groups as being enemies of the state and targeted them. Atheism isn’t a political philosophy. It is not a synonym with Marxism.
• On the other hand, religions have killed in the name of their religion. Christians tortured and executed their neighbours for witchcraft because that’s exactly what their religion said to do. Torture was attendant to this to force a confession- so that the person’s soul could still be saved. It was a strange concern- Christian love- for the soul that made torture acceptable.
• The history of Islam since the days of the 4th Caliph Ali is one driven by sectarian violence. The normally moderate 12th C Damascene historian ibn al-Qalanisi describes the attacks on the Batinis in Damascus- adding with relish how their slain bodies were just left in the streets for the dogs to devour.The current stories of horrific

  

  Two Bombs Kill 66 in Baquba, Iraq

  bombings from the Middle East show little has changed.
• The third problem is the changes in technology are ignored. If the Crusaders had spandau machine-guns instead of swords and spears, the whole body-count comparison would look a lot different. It’s not even a fair comparison.

Lastly, the whole line of argument is a big ‘so what’. If your case for god is that your religion has killed a few million people less than some other doctrine, it’s still a pretty odious religion. And it offers absolutely no evidence for the existence of god. Maybe atheism does make some people evil. So what? It doesn’t make your god real. Only valid evidence can do that.

The - "I was a former atheist" - ploy

Every so often, you run into a religious person who employs this line on you. They claim "they were an atheist but then, they saw the light" (or whatever). There’s a moment of awkwardness that follows this clumsy attempt to build a rapport.

Here’s why it does not work.

• First, there are not any commonly-held doctrines to atheism. You can’t presume your former reasons not to have Jesus in your life are the same as mine. Jumping straight in and assuming I was in a similar state to you is, well, inane. At least ask me why I’m an atheist.
• Second, there’s a difference between being an atheist and non-religious.  Being an atheist is an actual position taken towards the evidence for gods. Many “former atheists” I’ve encountered were simply non-religious for a time. They were indifferent to the claims by religion- they didn’t take an atheist position. It was far too apathetic. But they’re still primed for belief- they are exposed often and regularly to religious influences.

These conversion stories are pretty basic fare for Christians. And I appreciate that from such a perspective, anyone who hasn’t adopted a formal religious stance is clumped into the big atheist set. It must sound kind of exciting, hearing these tales of conversion of atheists. But it doesn’t work like this. Real atheists don’t get converted to Christianity by listening to your faith and convictions.  Witnessing goes down like a cup of cold-sick.

If you want to convert atheist, then the only thing that will work is valid evidence that your beliefs can be substantiated. We’ve all heard the Jesus speech before. We’ve all been witnessed to, we’ve all been prayed for. You need to stump-up with actual evidence rather than assertions describing your faith.

Sigh, a house is not a universe

The return of the Faulty Analogy Fallacy

Sometimes I get this argument popping up. It’s an argument from analogy. Kind of, because we know houses were designed and built, and a house is like the universe, it must be that the universe was designed and built by a creator.

Like most arguments from analogy, it is a weak argument*. It is not an appeal to evidence. It is an appeal to all sorts of hidden assumptions and presumptions that get attached to it. It fails simply because those assumptions aren’t shared by others.

We can test the claim that houses are designed objects. This is based on the following traits:

• Observations: We actually see houses getting built by human agents. So far, nobody has observed a universe being built by an external agent.
• Objective: A house has a specific objective. It provides shelter for the occupants. It is this use- to which it is purposely built- that tells us its designed. Nobody has proved that the universe has a like-objective. The universe appears entirely indifferent to our existence. It was around about 14bn years before we turned up, and will continue long after our solar-system dies.
• Efficiency: This relatives to objective. Objects that are designed try to meet their objectives in efficient ways- needless redundancy, wastage of materials, inflated risks- all invalidate the idea of design. A vast universe that hurtles deadly space rocks at us, and bathes us in deadly UV radiation, could do with some tweaks.
• Economy: designed artifacts are constrained by the resources available for their use. The decision to use one input over another, is driven by a conscious and deliberate observable decision. We don’t observe these substitutions occurring in the universe.

-

* Indeed, if you have to make an argument based on an analogy that cannot be supported by evidence, chances are it’s fatally flawed. Please stop.