Tuesday, January 31, 2012

4. Pseudoscientific Theories to Promote Atheism: Molecular Gene (Genome) Scientifically Untenable

For nearly six decades now biologists have been promoting the idea that a chemical molecule, DNA, encodes biological program. There is sufficient evidence to show this perception is wrong. Listed below are a few important questions on this issue. If anybody would like to answer the question(s), please give the response indicating the serial order of the question. Comments are subject to moderation, if necessary.

I particularly call upon Pharyngula blogger P.Z. Myers, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota Morrris, to respond to the challenge posted here. He countered in a derogatory manner my articles published elsewhere in his two posts at Pharyngula dated March 29, 2010 and December 13, 2010.  Going by his posts against my articles, he appears to claim excellent knowledge of molecular gene – the only person in the world who can tell what it is! Could you please tell the world how you define molecular gene?

I also specially invite The Secular Outpost blogger Taner Edis (The Secular Outpost Dec. 11, 2010) and Improbable Research blogger Marc Abrahams (Improbable Research Dec. 14, 2010) to respond to the challenge. They are also very much annoyed by my questioning the concept of molecular gene in the light of Quranic revelations.

The world does not expect the scientific community and science media to go against belief systems without scientifically examining the veracity of Scriptural revelations. Taking recourse to such unscientific method will only help diminish the trust of the public in scientific community. The scientific community and science media are creating a furor against God and religion without any scientific basis. Now here is the golden opportunity for you to prove what you say is correct. If there is a grain of truth and honesty in what you say, take up this challenge. The challenge is as follows.

The Quranic revelations of nonmaterial basis of life challenge the molecular gene and genome (see post 4 at http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com). These revelations are falsifiable and hence scientific community cannot mislead the world by saying these are unscientific assertions. These revelations imply that it is impossible to create life from non-life chemically without involving a living cell or organism at any stage of the experiment. The revelations also declare that it will not be possible to restore life to a dead cell (or organism) through pure chemical means. That is the challenge.

A lot of work is now going on in many universities and institutes to chemically synthesize life. All these attempts have so far failed; in future also the result will not be different. That is what the Scriptural revelations predict.

Secondly I have posed several questions against the molecular gene. If it is possible to provide satisfactory answers, please do that.

The Quranic challenge can provide answer to the biggest question ever – is there God or not? If scientists succeed in creating life by chemical synthesis without using a living cell during the experiment or in bringing a dead cell back to life by chemical means, that will be the end of God. Until then, God exists. Insofar as the Quranic challenge is falsifiable, the argument of no God has no meaning in the true scientific tradition until it is proved wrong. A falsifiable statement is a scientific theory. Unless and until scientists create life without the help of living cell, the molecular gene theory stands unproven. Most importantly it proves God exists. The existence of God can be questioned by scientists only if they succeed in creating life from non-life thereby falsifying the Quranic revelation. Until then, scientific community’s shout against God is meaningless and unfounded.  

Questions against the molecular gene concept are givne below.

1. Molecular gene (genome) – violation of chemical fundamentals

DNA (genome) is a chemical molecule. Its structure encodes chemical information which is deciphered in terms of its physical and chemical properties. Biologists say in addition to that its structure also encodes genetic program (biological information). Thus the genome is treated as constituting the genetic program responsible for the heritable characteristics and biological functioning of organism. An organism is thus reduced to mere bundle of molecules like any other chemical substance.

Even if superimposition of biological information over chemical information (constituted by the chemical structure) is taken for granted, it should conform to the well-established chemical fundamentals. By this canon biological information encoded by the genome should be specific to the structure. But in reality, the genome defies this chemical principle in several ways.

a) Changes in the phenotype of an individual during ontogenetic development and post-developmental stage reflect change of biological information content of the genome (originally carried in the zygote) with time. A genome even creates two or more phenotypically different biosystems (e.g., larva and butterfly) in several species (Figure 1).

How can a chemical molecule (i.e., genome in the zygote) encode information that changes with time?

If DNA encodes biological program, its constituent elements C, H, N, O and P should also encode genetic information at some preliminary level. This means other compounds of these elements in some combination should also exhibit signs of life. But why does this not happen? Is it not strange that there is only one molecule (DNA) in the whole universe that can encode genetic information?     

If C, H, N, O and P do not encode genetic information, how does their combination acquire that information and where does the information come from?

b) DNA is supposed to encode only information required for protein synthesis. Accordingly, protein-coding DNA is recognized as ‘the gene’. Protein synthesis is not the whole story of “life”. An organism requires information for the synthesis of numerous other substances during its life, development of body structures and their functions, behaviour, instincts, etc. The members of Homo sapiens also have intelligence, consciousness, feelings and freewill.

How can DNA encode genetic information required for instincts, feelings, consciousness, likes and dislikes, etc.? Do biologists think protein is the sole basis of life?  

c) It has been observed that an overwhelming 95% of DNA consists of non-coding DNA in eukaryotes and about 5% is constituted by the coding-DNA (or the genes). The non-coding DNA (ncDNA) is referred to as “junk DNA”. Though structurally comparable to coding DNA, surprisingly, the so-called junk DNA does not encode identical biological information (or vice versa).

How can this be explained based on chemistry?

d) It is believed that mitosis produces daughter cells with identical genome.

If the genomes of the cells in a body are identical, all the cells should carry identical information. But we find the tissues are structurally and functionally different. How can the tissues with identical genome (biological information) exhibit variable anatomy and function?

e) Recently, it has been shown that the genomes of different tissues are not identical [1]. This discovery sprang from an investigation into the underlying genetic causes of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The researchers found major genetic differences between blood cells and tissue cells of the same individuals. The finding calls into question one of the most basic assumptions of human genetics that DNA in every cell in the body is identical to every other cell. Apart from that, “This discovery may undercut the rationale behind numerous large-scale genetic studies conducted over the last 15 years, studies which were supposed to isolate the causes of scores of human diseases. Except for cancer, samples of diseased tissue are difficult or even impossible to take from living patients. Thus, the vast majority of genetic samples used in large-scale studies come in the form of blood. However, if it turns out that blood and tissue cells do not match genetically, these ambitious and expensive genome-wide association studies may prove to have been essentially flawed from the outset.” [2].

How is it possible for the genome of a parent cell (e.g., zygote) to create different genomes in the daughter cells? Is it not a clear proof that the genome does not constitute the biological program? Is this not enough to prove genetic information of the organism exists independently of the genome structure and it is according to that, cell structures including genome are produced? If genome is not identical in different tissues, how is it possible to determine the genome of the individual? Similarly when the genomes of male and female or different castes (polymorphs) are different, how is it possible to determine the genome of the species?

f) Studies at the molecular level fail to demonstrate the expected correspondence between genome and phenotype. The most spectacular example of this is the morphological dissimilarity between human being and chimpanzee despite a 98.7% similarity in their DNA [3]. Although evolutionary biologists speak of genomes of chimp and man as being almost identical to support of their argument of human evolution from an animal, and for establishing chimpanzee as the closest animal ancestor of human being, they have not enumerated so far the identical phenotypic characters in human and chimp in terms of anatomy, physiology, development and other biological features. In fact there is none! A chimp is not even 0.1% human being or a human being 0.1% chimp. A human being differs from chimp in every aspect and at every point of the body. The only similarity between chimp and man is in the DNA! The differences in traits, characteristic behaviour, instincts and capabilities between human (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzee (Pan sp.) are far greater than the small degree of sequence divergence (1.3%) could account for (Figure 2).

The chimp-human comparison is a case of similar genomes but dissimilar phenotypes. The reverse case is also known. Caenorhabditis elegans and C. briggsae are physically very similar organisms. It takes an expert to distinguish them. The two have near-identical biology, even down to the minutiae of developmental processes. Surprisingly, however, their genomes are not so similar. C. elegans has more than 700 chemoreceptor genes when C. briggsae gets on by just 430. There are also many genes unique to each of them [4]. Another anomaly is the lack of correspondence in the number of genes (taking for granted the meaninglessness of gene identification) with complexity of the organism. For example, fruit flies have fewer coding genes than roundworms, and rice plants have more than humans [5].

Are these not departures from the expected genome configuration (i.e., genetic information)-phenotype relationship? Secondly gene counts are also widely published in the journals.  If the gene is not definable, how can it be counted? If single genes do not determine the phenotypic characters, what meaning is there in gene counts?

g) Many insects exhibit alternative morphologies (polyphenisms) based on differential gene expression rather than genetic polymorphism (differences in genes themselves). One of the best understood insect polyphenisms is the queen-worker dimorphism in honey bees. Both the queens and the workers are females but morphologically distinct forms. Besides, the queen is fertile whereas the worker is sterile. Studies conducted with the bee species Apis mellifera revealed that numerous genes appeared to be differentially expressed between the two castes [6]. The seven differentially expressed loci observed in the study belonged to at least five distinctly different functional groups. The queen and the worker castes in honey bee provide an unfailing proof of natural existence of similar genomes exhibiting dissimilar phenotypes.

How is it possible for similar genes (chemical structures supposed to be encoding similar information) to express differently?

h) “Pseudogenes are similar in sequence to normal genes, but they usually contain obvious disablements such as frameshifts or stop codons in the middle of coding domains. This prevents them from producing a functional product or having a detectable effect on the organism’s phenotype…. The boundary between living and dead genes is often not sharp. A pseudogene in one individual can be functional in a different isolate of the same species… and so technically is a gene only in one strain…. there are other pseudogenes that have entire coding regions without obvious disablements but do not appear to be expressed.” [7].

How can a chemical structure function as gene in one strain and fail to function similarly in another strain? Can it be explained chemically?

i) The variation observed in the use of triplet codes among organisms is another issue. Like the pseudogene this aspect is against chemical fundamentals and remains unexplained. The degenerate nature of the biological code implies several triplets coding per amino acid. Further, two amino acids have only one mRNA codon each; AUG for methionine and UGG for tryptophan. Hence 59 degenerate triplets code 18 amino acids; these 18 have two to six synonymous codons each. Choices between synonymous codons are not random; some codons in the set specific to an amino acid are used more than the others [8]. The ‘genome hypothesis’ which tries to explain the variation in codon use states that codon use is species-specific, i.e., each genome or type of genome shows a particular pattern of choices between synonymous codons. Thus overall codon usage differs between taxa; but codon bias is also influenced by other factors like gene length, gene expressivity (the amount of protein made per gene), environment and lifestyle of the organism [9]. The codon bias gives rise to the paradox whether protein evolution determined DNA sequence or DNA commanded protein evolution. Many such dilemmas remain in molecular evolution. The origin of bias in codon and anticodon frequencies  continues to elude researchers [8].

Are these not departures from chemical principles? How can these be explained?

j) There are many kinds of DNA repairs. Rosenfeld gives a detailed account of the self-healing strategies of the ‘master molecule’. If a base is put in wrong place during replication, there are enzymes to correct the mistake.  Purines, without any errors and without any damages drop out by the thousands every day presumably due to wear and tear of existence in the chromosomes only to be promptly replaced by insertases. A base can spontaneously undergo change. A cytosine, for example, will lose an amino group and become uracil. Uracil is perfectly at home in RNA but not in DNA. The enzymes called uracil glycosylases recognize the uracil, remove it and replace it with a new cytosine. Suppose that an error has occurred in one of the DNA strands say, a T has been put across from a G, where a C really belongs. This would give rise to two strands one with a G and the other with a T. The enzymatic apparatus ‘knows’ that cannot be correct, but how does it know whether to replace the C with a T on one strand, or the C with an A on the other? If the replacement takes place not on the right strand, the result would be either death of the cell or a mutation. How does it know which is the authentic original? [10].

How can a chemical structure (DNA) be aware of the change in its elemental composition and arrangement? How can it detect the ‘wrong’ one and ‘correct’ it with the genetic information encoded by it?

2. Phenomena of life and death remain unexplained in biology

a) Although biology is science of life and DNA is hailed as the blue print of life, biologists have not yet been able to define either the gene or “life”! The reason is very clear – DNA does not encode biological program.

If biologists cannot define molecular gene or “life”, what justification is there to still think that material gene is the driving force of life?  

b) Another important fact that goes against the material gene is both dead body and its living counterpart are materially identical (including genome) but yet the dead body does not show any sign of life. Even if the genome undergoes certain changes at death, repair of those mutations should bring the dead cell or dead body back to life. A fundamental feature of chemical molecule is that it cannot lose its properties assigned by its structure. The genome appears to be an exception to this rule also. Going by the present concept of particulate genetic program, a cell carrying the genome should invariably show life properties. However a dead cell with its genome remaining intact fails to exhibit “life” clearly indicating the genome does not encode the biological program. When I put this question to Nature (Scitable), I received the least expected silly answer from its expert, which is no answer to my question at all. The Scitable answer [11] is reproduced below:

“Questions like yours about life and death spurred the earliest scientific inquiry and keep the field moving forward. It is possible for the genome to be intact in dead cells. For example, think about your local library: at night, nothing is going on and none of the books can be checked out, but all the books would still be there. Similarly, the genetic code is still present in dead cells; however, the absence of certain key biochemical processes, such as transcription and translation, makes reading the code (like checking books out from a library) impossible. Death can be understood at two levels: at the level of the organism and at the level of the cell. In the first case, death arrests all key biochemical processes. No key enzymes are available to translate mRNA and no amino acids are linked to create polypeptide chains. But in the second case death can also help other cells in the same body. This process is called programmed cell death (or apoptosis) and involves a series of biochemical events leading to changes in cell shape followed by cell death. These changes in cell shape include blebbing, which occurs when a portion of the cytoskeleton separates from the plasma membrane and creates an irregular bulge called a bleb. This is like the locking of a door — a change in cell structure arresting cell activity. The cell membrane also loses symmetry and detaches from the cytoskeleton, which leads to cell shrinkage, nuclear fragmentation, chromatin condensation, chromosomal DNA fragmentation, and the eventual damaging of the cell’s genome. All these processes make it harder for the cell’s transcription machinery to read the genetic code, just as locked doors make it difficult for us to check out books from the library at night. A second type of cell death can actually damage neighboring cells, like a fire in the library that spreads to the bookstore across the street. This type of cell death is called necrosis and results from acute cellular injury or infection. Cells undergoing necrosis eventually burst and release their cellular contents, which can damage neighboring cells and induce inflammation. You’re right: the genetic code is essential for all life. But key proteins required to read the genetic code stop working in dead cells. Despite the great wealth of information contained within the genetic code, a genome alone doesn’t lead to the creation of proteins that serve as the basis of life.”

Clearly there is no answer to the natural irreversible cessation of all biological activity (death) at some point of time during the life of an organism with all its material contents including genome intact. Since biologists believe an organism is nothing more than a chemical substance and every atom of the material is present in the dead body as it were before death, how is it possible to explain the cessation of biological activity of the organism (i.e., death) based on molecular gene concept. The phenomenon of death remains unexplained in biology even today. Further, the body starts decaying immediately after death. What makes the body resistant to microbial decomposition prior to death or susceptible to decay after death when the body has not undergone any change in its material constituents is also equally unexplainable. Clearly no chemical structure(s) in the cell encodes or constitutes the genetic program but the program exists independently of any chemical structure as stored information as in computer.

Can biologists offer valid scientific explanation for this anomaly to defend their assumption that DNA encodes biological program? To put it differently, how can a cell or body exist in two mutually exclusive (live and dead) states with no change in their material constituents?   

3. The molecular gene remains undefinable  

a)  Although molecular biologists freely use the term “gene” and claim identification of genes for various characters and diseases, the “gene” remains unknown to them even today. According to geneticist Peter Portin, “The gene is no longer a fixed point on the chromosome, producing a single messenger RNA. Rather, most eukaryotic genes consist of split DNA sequences, often producing more than one mRNA by means of complex promoters and/or alternative splicing. Furthermore, DNA sequences are movable in certain respects, and proteins produced by a single gene are processed into their constituent parts. Moreover, in certain cases the primary transcript is edited before translation, using information from different genetic units and thereby demolishing the one-to-one correspondence between gene and messenger RNA. Finally, the occurrence of nested genes invalidates the simpler and earlier idea of the linear arrangement of genes in the linkage group, and gene assembly similarly confutes the idea of a simple one-to-one correspondence between the gene as the unit of transmission and of genetic function....” [12]. Other leading scientists like Thomas Fogle and Michel Morange also concede that there is no longer a precise definition of what could count as a gene [13, 14]. The objective of genomic research is to ultimately understand the relationships between heritable units and their phenotypes. But it appears that genome concept would not deliver that information. The genome organization is extremely complex. Genes reside within one another, share some of their DNA sequences, are transcribed and spliced in complex patterns, and can overlap in function with other genes of the same sequence families. “Today, in the era of genomic sequencing and intense effort to identify sites of expression, the declared goal is to search for genes, entities assumed to have physical integrity. Ironically, the sharper resolving power of modern investigative tools make less clear what, exactly, is meant by a molecular gene, and therefore, how this goal will be realized and what it will mean”, observes Fogle [13]. These findings clearly expose the meaninglessness of the concept of molecular gene (genome).

When the “gene” remains unknown to biologists, what justification is there in using the molecular gene concept to explain biological attributes and functions?

b) Horace Freeland Judson writing in Nature notes: “The phrases current in genetics that most plainly do violence to understanding begin “the gene for”: the gene for breast cancer, the gene for hypercholesterolaemia, the gene for schizophrenia, the gene for homosexuality, and so on. We know of course that there are no single genes for such things.” [15]. Yet we find even now in every biology journal the term “gene” is used in general sense as well as to indicate specific characters.  

Although biologists find there is no single gene responsible for an attribute or disease and the journal editors accept it, the same people continue to publish the term “the gene for” even now. If there is no single gene for a character, why papers suggesting “the gene for” continue to be accepted for publication? Will the use of the term “the gene for” not corrupt science and mislead the people?  

The findings in molecular biology given above not only invalidate the molecular gene (genome) but also prove Wilhelm Johannsen’s warnings against material gene (i.e., the gene should not be treated as material, and there is no single gene for each  character) correct. Despite this, biologists ignore Johannsen’s non-physical gene and continue to stick to the molecular gene concept. Even after sixty years of worldwide research in molecular gene and genomics, the field of genetics remains as it was fifty years ago. What we have today in the name of molecular biology et al. is unscientific least worthwhile biological information. What justification is there in not rejecting the physical gene?    


1. Gottlieb et al., “BAK1 gene variation and abdominal aortic aneurysms”, Human Mutation Vol. 30, 2009, pp. 1043.  DOI: 10.1002/humu.21046.
2. DNA not the same in every cell of body: Major genetic differences between blood and tissue cells revealed,” ScienceDaily (July 16, 2009).
3. Wells, J. Homology in Biology: A Problem for Naturalistic Science. By Jonathan http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp  Retrieved 24 November 2001.
4. M. Blaxter, M. 2003. Two worms are better than one. Nature 426:395-396.
5. W.W. Gibbs, W.W. 2003. The unseen genome: Gems among the junk. Scientific American 289, November 2003, pp. 46-53.
6. Evans, J.D. and Wheeler, D.E. 1999. Differential gene expression between developing queens and workers in the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 96:5575-5580.
7. Snyder, M. and Gerstein, M. 2003. Genomics: Defining genes in the genomics era. Science 300:258- 260.
8. Grantham, R.L. Codon usage in molecular evolution. doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0001806.
9. Grantham, R. et al., 1981. Codon catalog usage is a genome strategy modulated for gene expressivity. Nucleic Acids Res. 9:43-47.
10. Rosenfeld, A. 1981. Master molecule heal thyself.  Mosaic 12(1).
12. Portin, P. 1993. The concept of the gene: Short history and present status. The Quarterly Review of Biology 68:173-223.
13. Fogle, T. 2000. The dissolution of protein coding genes in molecular biology. In Peter Beurton, Raphael Falk, and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Historical and Epistemological Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-25.
14. Morange, M. 2000. The developmental gene concept: History and limits. In Peter Beurton, Raphael Falk, and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (eds.), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Historical and Epistemological Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.193-215.
15. H. F. Judson, H.F. 2001. Talking about the genome. Nature 409:769.

3. Pseudoscientific Theories to Promote Atheism: Steady State Cosmology

To scientists who do not assign any purpose to the universe, its origin is an accident. Nevertheless, the scientific community gives a lot of significance and spends a lot of time to find out how that accident occurred! A lot of theories have been proposed on the way. Whenever they develop a theory more convincing and suitable, they also find that it implies the need of Creator. This is the case with big bang theory. That is something unthinkable and unacceptable to them; so they sidelined that theory initially and tried to develop another one. Thus they developed a theory to explain the big accident with lot of fanfare. That was steady state theory. However, to their dismay they found that the theory could not be supported by evidence. So they had to reluctantly reject it. Thus as of today, the theory that indicates the need of Creator survives and all others remain in hiding.

In 1917, Albert Einstein described the universe based on General Theory of Relativity, which inspired many scientists including Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann. Much of today’s cosmology is based on Friedmann’s solutions to the mathematical equations in Einstein’s theory. In 1922 and 1924, Friedmann published papers that used solutions to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, to predict the expansion of the universe. The general theory of relativity implied a non-static universe which was however modified by Einstein himself by introducing a cosmological constant into the theory to bring in anti-gravity effect and thereby avoiding the prediction of a non-static universe. It was perhaps that Einstein was so much influenced by the then prevalent view of a static universe that he made such a modification. Einstein regretted this modification later stating that it was the greatest blunder in his life. On the contrary, Friedmann preferred to explain the non-static implication of the theory in an elegant manner. Friedmann’s models predicted that all galaxies were moving away from each other. In other words, the universe has been expanding ever since it began. His models thus indicated that the galaxies were at some point of time (between ten and twenty thousand million years ago), together and compressed into a tiny mass of infinite density. This point of infinite density is known in physics as “singularity” to which Cambridge astrophysicist Fred Hoyle gave the fashionable epithet ‘big-bang’ [1]. Time had a beginning at the big bang. Later, Roger Penrose, a British physicist and Stephen Hawking showed that the general theory of relativity implied that the universe had a beginning and possibly, it would have an end too [2].

Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a shadow of doubt that our universe had a beginning. Before that there was nothing. Scientific proofs validating predictions of the big bang model have been obtained. Direct scientific evidence to the predictions made by Friedmann’s models came in 1924, when the American astronomer Edwin Hubble demonstrated that ours (Milky Way) was not the only galaxy; there were some hundred thousand million galaxies spaced far between. The spectral analysis of the radiations coming from them revealed that most galaxies were redshifted, that is, they were moving away from us. In other words, the universe was expanding (which the Quran referred to in verse 51:47).

Another prediction of the theory was the existence of a cosmic background radiation. This also has been proved correct. The strongest evidence supporting this prediction came in 1965 when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of the Bell Laboratories, U.S.A., reported the presence of a microwave radiation (3 K radiation) pervading the whole universe. The universe was hot and dense in the beginning which implied an ionized plasma (which the Quran mentioned as ‘smoke’ in verse 41:11) where matter and radiation were inseparable. As the expansion and cooling of gas cloud continued, a stage was reached when the radiation (photons) decoupled from the matter. It would have been cooled now to 2.7 K. This radiation is believed to be the relic of the big bang and the one which Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered [3].

A third proof in favour of the hot big bang model is the relative abundances of light elements. The abundances of deuterium (2H), tritium (3H), helium (4H) and lithium (7Li) in the universe are consistent with the predicted reactions occurring in the first three minutes following the big bang.

The big bang theory implied divine intervention since there was a beginning for the universe. The Catholic Church officially announced in 1951 that the big bang theory was in accordance with the Bible [2]. While discussing the big bang model, Stephen Hawking wrote: “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.…There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang. The proposal that gained widest support was called the steady state theory….Another attempt to avoid the conclusion that there must have been a big bang, and therefore a beginning of time, was made by two Russian scientists, Evangenii Lifshitz and Isaac Khalatnikov, in 1963.” [2].

In 1949 Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold (two Austrian scientists) along with British astronomer Fred Hoyle proposed the steady state model. According to this theory, the universe does not evolve or change with time. There was no beginning in the past and there will be no change in the future. This model is based on the perfect cosmological principle which states that the universe is the same everywhere on the large scale, at all times. This theory attracted a lot of attention as it avoided the big bang event and hence a beginning for the universe which implied divine hand. The steady state universe postulates creation of matter out of vacuum so that the perfect cosmological principle (i.e., density is constant) is satisfied. The theory held the centre stage for nearly two decades. The prediction of continual matter creation from nothing is a violation of the law of conservation of the mass and energy. Added to that, discovery of the cosmic microwave background strengthening the validity of the big bang cosmology came as a fatal blow to the theory [4]. There are, however, efforts to revive the theory. The Quasi-Steady State Cosmology proposed by Fred Hoyle, Jeffrey Burbidge, and Jayanth V. Narlikar is such an attempt in order to allow for the evolution of the cosmic microwave background temperature and to explain the faint radio sources in a universe that is always the same over the very long term. All these have been, however, found to be inconsistent with the observations [5]. Thus the big bang theory, which upholds existence of God, remains as the acceptable theory in cosmology despite the efforts of atheist lobby to overthrow it.


2. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. Bantam Press, London.

2. Promotion of Atheism in the Garb of Science

Modern science (read it as scientific community) describes the universe as a system originated by itself by chance with no purpose to serve. Origin of life on this planet is hypothesized as ‘emergent phenomenon’ (with no evidence whatsoever for such phenomenon) that occurred through chance encountering of chemical molecules in a primitive aqueous milieu. Evolution of biological species is also treated as chance event via modification of the existing species and not creation by God. There are several theories advanced to explain all these phenomena as products of chance. Today, atheist lobby in the scientific community has established its unquestionable hegemony and authority in scientific arena. It is atheist scientists who shape science and decide its future. Obviously the product comes out wrapped in atheism.

Religion-science controversy

The rivalry between religion (more correctly, theism) and science is centuries old. The controversy, which started between the Christian Church and scientific community, reached its peak in 1859 following the publication of Darwin’s book Origin of Species, which proposed the theory of chance-driven evolution of organic beings demolishing the need for Creator God. The fight still goes on unabated. A resolution passed by the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 1981 states: “Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief” [1]. A declaration signed by 67 national academies of science under the united banner of the Interacademy Panel on International Issues blasted the scriptural teaching of biology as a potential distortion of young minds (“World science academies hit back at creationists”, Cosmos News, June 22, 2006).

Several verbal battles and confrontations between the clergy and scientists had taken place in the past. Scopes case or ‘monkey trial’ of 1925 in the USA marked the beginning of legal battles. After the Scopes trial, the laws banning the teaching of human evolution remained in effect for more than 40 years. But teaching students about Darwin’s general principle of evolution with reference to non-human organisms has never been illegal in the United States. In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled against balancing evolution lessons by teaching creationism. Attack on evolution is however on the rise once again in the USA. School boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and other states had either restrained the teaching of evolution in science classes or introduced alternative explanations that were essentially religious in character. Creationism took a different form under the new name “intelligent design” (ID). Teaching of ID in classrooms was legally challenged in 2005. Intelligent design lost the legal battle because the court ruled the idea was not scientifically sound (“US judge rules against Intelligent Design”, ScienceNOW Daily News, December 20, 2005). 

Evolutionists even go to the extent of ridiculing scientists who believe in God and religion. When biochemist Michael Behe questioned Darwinism in his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution in defense of intelligent design, evolutionists countered: “Behe’s knowledge of evolution is suspect. His knowledge of his own area of science is suspect. And the same is true when he moves into philosophy and theology.” [2]. Pierre P. Grasse is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the twenty eight volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic. But when he made a frontal attack on all kinds of “Darwinism” by building a detailed and strong empirical case against it in his book “L’Evolution du Vivant”, Darwinists called him wrong. Grass has not gone wrong due to ignorance but as a well-known neo-Darwinist Dobzhansky observed, “the most distinguished of French zoologists did not understand the rules of scientific reasoning!” (exclamatory mark added) [3]. This remark speaks volumes about how evolutionists look at the critics of Darwinism.

Geneticist Francis Collins who headed the famous Human Genome Project has also come under attack of the atheist lobby recently. Collins is a staunch believer in Christianity. When he was appointed the director of the US National Institutes of Health, the scientific community could not tolerate it. An article published in Nature deplored it. “The recent nomination of Francis Collins to direct the US National Institutes of Health does more than raise the question of the agency's future direction. It poses another question. Can a scientific career go hand in hand with religious belief? Put another way, can a great scientist be deeply religious? Collins is well known as one of the architects of the Human Genome Project. He has also achieved notoriety as a highly respected scientist with deep-seated religious beliefs. An evangelical Christian since the age of 27, Collins detailed his views on reconciling religion and science in his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief…. And in a 2006 Time magazine debate with noted atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, Collins suggested that God could on rare occasions choose to "invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous" — a peculiar outlook for a biologist.” [4]. When Collins published a religion book in 2010, there was again uproar in scientific circles. “National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins is again riling some scientists by publicly sharing his religious beliefs – this time by publishing a new book about faith. A debate has broken out in the blogosphere about whether Collins is misusing his position with a collection of essays on religion that he compiled. When Collins took the helm of NIH last summer, many assumed he would curtail such activities. For example, he resigned from a foundation he started to explore religion and science. It took some people by surprise when a press release appeared on Tuesday from Harper Collins (the publisher) announcing Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith, which addresses the question "Is there a God?" It follows a 2006 book in which Collins described how he became an evangelical Christian.” [5].

The stand of science journals in this issue is surprising. Scientists and science media   should not be biased against theism. In the eyes of scientific community a scientist is no longer scientist if he is a believer in God! Although atheists declare there is no God, they appear to be the most scared lot about God. Even more surprising is the self-assumed role being played by science journals. The world has not authorized science media to be the custodian of science. Science should advance on the track of truth unaffected by any other consideration or bias. Unfortunately this is not the case. Science is what atheist lobby decides. This has undoubtedly corrupted the domain of science as is evident from the plight of several areas in science. We shall be discussing this issue later. The world should come out in the open against this biased attitude of the scientific community. What the world want is unbiased (neither for nor against God) science. The scientific community is misleading the public by propagating several theories of no scientific merit. A dispassionate analysis will reveal the deplorable situation in science particularly biology. Science is no longer factual as it used to be. It has become a commercial enterprise as any other sphere of human activity. Biology is the most affected area by pseudoscience.

Hidden agenda of the atheist lobby

It will not be difficult to find there is deep-rooted, well-organized conspiracy going on to promote atheism through science. In this context, it is necessary to distinguish technology-oriented domain of science from technology-not-oriented (or non-tech for short) domain. Scientific knowledge in the technology-oriented domain is self-correcting and directional as otherwise the targeted technology will not result. This domain has therefore factual content. On the other hand, the non-tech domain lacks mechanism for self-correction. Since this space does not contribute to the development of technologies, it does not attract much attention and remains not of immediate concern to people. Obviously, this domain can be easily manipulated and is being manipulated.  It is the non-tech domain of science that nurtures theories against theism. People have immense trust in science and scientific community because science generates technologies for every kind of human requirement and they believe science is nothing but facts. It is this trust placed on the scientific community by the public, scientists exploit covertly.

There are several theories that have been planted by atheists in the non-tech space of science to promote atheism. Some of these are steady state cosmology (see post 3), molecular gene (genome) concept (see post 4), theories of origin of life (see post 5), and worse than all Darwin’s theory of evolution (see post 6). These theories sow the seeds of suspicion in the minds of people about theism. And through science atheists plan to demolish God and religion. The Creator puts it: “…And they (i.e., the unbelievers) plotted and Allah too plotted. And Allah is the best of plotters” (Q. 3:54). It appears from this Quranic statement that in all probability Allah’s strategy is to prove His existence scientifically through atheist scientists. Failure of steady state cosmology, controversy over Darwin’s theory, hollowness of theories of origin of life, scientific inadequacies of molecular gene (genome) concept (see post 4), and failure of attempts to create life from non-life indicate point to that. Despite their inherent inadequacies and weaknesses, these theories are retained as scientific theories by the powerful forum-controlling atheist lobby with the sole intention of imparting credence to atheism and thereby labelling theism as blind irrational doctrine. This is not advancement of science but promotion of atheism in the garb of science. Entry of such pseudoscientific theories in science not only takes science in the wrong direction but more importantly misleads people. Non-recognition of such theories will not affect scientific and technological advancement. It will only help purify science.


1. Johnson, 1994. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences. 1984; cited in: Johnson, P.E. 1994. Darwinism and theism. Chapter 4. In Darwinism: Science or Philosophy. Eds. J. Buel and V. Hearn, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Richardson.
2. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ruseirredcomplex.html  Accessed February 9, 2005.
3. Johnson, P.E. 1994. Darwinism’s rules of reasoning. In Darwinism: Science or Philosophy. (eds.) J. Buell and V. Hearn. Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Richardson, USA. Chapter-1.
4. Russo, G. 2009. Balancing belief and bioscience. Nature 460(654) | 10.1038/nj7255-654a.
5.  Kaiser, J. 2010. NIH director ruffles feathers again with new religion book. Science NOW Weekly February 25, 2010.

1. Irrationality of Atheism vis-à-vis Scientific Validity of the Quran and Theism

Abstract: The truth about theism is it is true. The truth about atheism is it is untrue. Both these truths are scientifically confirmable. The scientific community opposes God without subjecting the Scriptural revelations to scientific scrutiny. They also promote atheism without proving it scientifically. How can they promote atheism when scientific facts are against it? This article exposes the hollowness of atheism from scientific standpoint and brings out clearly the scientific foundation of the Quran and theism, and hence Islam.

The argument that there is no God is neither testable nor falsifiable. The assertion does not leave any prediction either for verification. It is also against well-established scientific facts. The first thing we learn in physics is energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Since energy which makes up the whole universe does not have the ability of autogenesis, there is no scientific rationale behind the argument that the universe originated by itself. On the contrary it proves the universe was created. Further the big bang theory points to a beginning for the universe and time. These provide strong scientific indicators of the existence of Creator God. The argument that life originated accidentally as emergent phenomenon is also not supported by natural evidence or experimental proof. The Quran reveals that life is nonmaterial phenomenon but scientists argue it is material phenomenon. Molecular gene (DNA) is considered the blueprint of life. In fact all the experiments conducted so far to create life from non-living materials have failed proving the validity of the Quran. Atheism is thus relegated to mere hypothesis or more correctly fantasy. Atheism is superstitious to the core; it does not even qualify as scientific theory.

Further proof of God comes from the validation of several Quranic revelations through scientific discoveries. This also proves the divinity of the Quran and the religion Islam. The fact that the Quran is amenable to scientific explanation adds to the authenticity of the Scripture. The history of science reveals yet another proof of God through failure of every theory (e.g., steady state cosmology, Darwin’s theory of evolution, etc.) that questions the existence of God or contradicts the Quran.


History reveals that ever since the arrival of man on Earth, he has been worshipping some natural or supernatural power as God. The archaeological investigations of ancient ruins had unearthed from almost every site, idols supposed to be representations of their gods and goddesses. These evidences give clear evidence of the theistic outlook of people in the early days of human history. This indicates that man is by default believer in God. The information about God is there in his biosystem. It is because of that man is inclined to think of God. Atheism is a recent development most likely an offshoot of irrational beliefs and practices being followed in the name of religion.

The biggest irony in this era of science and technology is the lack of concern for rationality of the belief systems. Religious beliefs and practices have never been subjected to scientific analysis. Although man is bestowed with intelligence and wisdom, rarely does one use these qualities in religious matters. The general notion is that religion is one’s belief and it does not require rational analysis. This blind approach of people towards religion has favoured mushrooming of diverse faiths, cults and human gods. Religion, whatever that word means to you, has become the most superficially and indifferently held belief although it is revered by the believer. That way religion has become a mockery in the guise of devotion to God. The followers of a religion with not so much as fact-finding analysis yet believe that their religion is the correct one and the others wrong. It is also not possible for the follower of a religion to defend his belief against another religion. That being the situation, it is not surprising to see many people consider God and religion as human inventions.  This is also partly responsible for the increase in self-styled rationalists, atheists and agnostics.  According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (July 9, 2009), atheism (the godless religion) is the preferred belief system of most scientists.

“Is there God or not?” is the biggest question before human intellect for which scientifically acceptable answer has to be found. Although no scientific basis has been proposed for either theism or atheism, the scientific community’s declaration of war against theism is uncalled for. When they declare theism as blind doctrine, they themselves uphold atheism blindly. They put theists on the defensive asking for proof of God while they themselves remain covertly silent about proof of no God. Neither camp has shown preparedness for an impartial and dispassionate evaluation of their respective beliefs to arrive at the truth. The attitude of the scientific community to label every religion as irrational without verifying the Scriptural content is also unscientific. This attitude of scientists to keep religion at bay from the ambit of scientific scrutiny only helps proliferation of irrational beliefs and rituals in the society. Both theistic and atheistic doctrines should be subjected to scientific scrutiny to ascertain their validity. The religion Islam and its Scripture, the Quran, are subjected here to scientific verification vis-à-vis atheism. A detailed discussion of these issues may be found elsewhere [1].

Scientific methods adopted

The idea of scientific verification of belief in God or no God and religion may seem impractical at first sight. However, it is not as unwieldy as we think. At least three scientific methods can be used for the purpose. One is to compare and contrast the created system (the universe) vis-à-vis divine objective. It may be noted in this context that the Quran is the only source that reveals to us the divine purpose of creating man and universe. Correspondence between the purpose of creation and the created system will provide proof of the validity and divinity of the Quran. Such an analysis had been done and the results were presented in post 8 at http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com. The amazing correspondence between the divine objective and the created system presented therein provides live proof of the divinity and validity of the Quran and hence God. These results will not be further discussed here.

Another method is to test or falsify the Scriptural revelations. True, we cannot test the question of God or no God through direct experimentation. We do come across several such situations in science where it is impossible to carry out experiments to prove or disprove a theory directly. Theories relating to origin of the universe, origin of life, evolution of biological species, etc., belong to this category. In such cases, the approved scientific method is to prove or falsify the predictions of the theory. The very same approach can be adopted here also. In this case the Scriptural revelations form the predictions.

The general view about the Quran is that it is just a religious book. But it contains, besides religious matters, substantial information relating to man, the organizational and functional aspects of the universe, purpose of creation, and fate of man and the universe. The Quranic verses relating to the universe are mostly falsifiable revelations which can be treated at par with scientific theories. Falsifiability was introduced by Karl Popper as the criterion to judge and characterise a scientific theory [2]. The criterion of falsifiability distinguishes a scientific theory from pseudoscience. It can be applied to any assertion or ideology. In the case of the Quran, scientific validity of the revelations can be assessed based on their conformity with proven scientific facts. Once the validity is confirmed, the revelations become scientific facts.

Application of this criterion to judge the authenticity of the Quranic revelations might be called into question as scientific theories are likely to change over time. This argument is true only for theories developed to explain natural phenomena. The falsifiable revelations in the Quran, as we shall see, are not explanations of natural phenomena but phenomena themselves. Therefore, a change in scientific explanation will not affect the scientific merit of the Quran.

A third method is to examine the amenability of divine revelations to scientific interpretation. Amenability to scientific interpretation is a characteristic of factual information. For example, the Quran reveals to us the fate of the present universe and future events, which for obvious reasons are neither testable nor falsifiable. Nevertheless, it can be examined whether such revelations can be explained scientifically.

The results of analysis based on the latter two methods are summarized below.  

Scientific proof of God and irrationality of atheism

Atheism is neither scientifically testable nor falsifiable as it does not yield any predictions. In the true scientific tradition, therefore, atheism does not even qualify as scientific theory. In other words belief in atheism has no rational basis.  If atheism is false, theism is true. This is the clear scientific verdict. Several known facts about energy and universe also confirm existence of God.

We know total energy content of the universe is conserved. It cannot be created or destroyed; it can only transform from one form to another. This is the fundamental nature of energy. The big bang theory reveals another facet of this truth. It tells us the universe had a beginning implying that it came into existence sometime in the distant past and before that, there was nothing. We also know energy cannot originate by itself. In fact this is one of the reasons for the rejection of steady state cosmology, which postulated continual production of matter out of vacuum so that the perfect cosmological principle (i.e., density is constant) on which the theory is based is satisfied. The steady state theory was proposed to counter the big bang cosmology because of its divine connotations. The prediction of continual matter creation from nothing by the theory is violation of the law of conservation of the mass and energy. There is no proof for autogenesis of energy or matter taking place in the universe either. These facts unambiguously established that energy does not have the ability to self-originate. That led to the rejection of the steady state theory. If energy cannot originate by itself, how did it originate? It had to be created. This is the only conclusion that can be arrived at scientifically. Yet scientists ridiculously argue that the universe originated accidentally by itself.  It should be realized that the origin of energy was a one-time creation event in the history of the universe. Subsequently its quantum is conserved. These scientific facts clearly prove the existence of Creator for the universe. In other words, God is truth. Anybody who refutes God is refuting a scientific fact.
The question of origin of life on earth is also handled similarly by the scientific community. Biologists vehemently argue that diverse organisms evolved accidentally through random gene mutation followed by natural selection without knowing what “life” is and how it originated in the first place. They tell us life originated accidentally as emergent phenomenon when certain chemical molecules combined in a primordial aqueous milieu. This assumption also has no scientific basis as we do not have even an iota of evidence for the origin of life from non-life. Our rational conclusion should be therefore “life” was also created by God. It is indeed baffling to see why scientists deliberately resort to such irrational and unscientific explanations to mislead the public. If it is not for creating doubts about God in the minds of people, why do scientists create such false notions like autogenesis of energy and life?      

There may be several questions about nature of God for which we have no answers. It should be borne in mind however that none of those questions contradicts the above scientific conclusion that God exists. One question atheists used to ask is if there is God, who created that God? The created cannot be called Creator. The very question is irrational. God has no beginning, no end and lives forever. Although atheists are prepared to believe that universe has no beginning, no end and no change (e.g., steady state cosmology) for a system which is known to have no such property, they cannot accept these qualities for God! Why? Moreover we should also realize that the criterion that nothing can originate by itself but has to be created applies only to this universe. God exists outside of the universal system and hence this condition is inapplicable to God. On this count also the question of atheists how God came into being without being created is irrelevant as God is not part of this system. Further, our lack of knowledge about it does not in any way weaken the scientific conclusion that God exists. We also should always demand for scientific evidence and basis for any explanation that scientists concoct against God.
Scientific validity of the Quranic revelations
Scientific validity of several Quranic revelations can be taken as proof of divinity of the Quran and Islam. It also forms another proof of God. This is akin to verifying the predictions of a scientific theory. The Quran offers several falsifiable revelations relating to the universe and man. A few such Quranic revelations are considered here for sample.
a) “Do you not see how He created seven skies in layers, and placed the moon as a light in them and made the sun a blazing lamp?” (Q. 71:15-16).
These verses distinguish the sun and the moon based on the nature of radiation coming from them. While the radiation coming from the moon is described as “light” (noor in Arabic), the sun is described as “lamp” (siraj in Arabic). The distinction is consistent with available scientific information on these two celestial objects. The sun being a natural nuclear fusion reactor generates light and is compared with a burning lamp. The moon on the other hand does not produce light by itself but only reflects the sun’s light incident on it. The revelations about the sun and moon are scientific facts.
b) “It is He who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon; all swimming in their (respective) orbits.” (Q. 21:33).
The orbital motion of celestial bodies is a well-established scientific fact. It is this fact the Quran reveals to us.
c) “With hands did We construct the sky: For it is We who create the vastness of space.” (Q. 51:47). “Do not the unbelievers see that the skies and the earth were joined together (as one unit) before We clove them asunder? We made from water every organism. Will they not believe then?” (Q. 21:30).

These two verses shed light on the formative stage of the universe as well as its post-evolutionary state. The universe before it got separated into components had existed as single unit in the distant past. The universe has also been expanding (i.e., increasing in space) since then. These Quranic revelations agree well with the expectations of big bang cosmology and Edwin Hubble’s observation of expanding universe.
d) “Does man think that he will be left free? Was he not a drop of sperm emitted? Then he became an embryo; then He designed and shaped him in due proportion. And from it (i.e., sperm drop) He made two mates – male and female (Q. 75:36-39). “That He created the two spouses – the male and the female – from a drop of (semen) when it is emitted.” (Q. 53:45-46).

The verses reveal that it is the sperm that decides the sex of the human individual. This is a well-established scientific fact. Whereas female egg carries only X chromosome, it is the male sperm that supplies either X or Y to the zygote. The XX combination creates female and XY combination creates male.  
Non-Muslim scientists (later embraced Islam?) Maurice Bucaille [3, 4], French Catholic Christian physician, and Keith Moore [5], anatomist at the University of Toronto, Canada, were the pioneers in bringing to light the agreement between many Quranic revelations and modern scientific findings. Their works started appearing in print from the latter half of 1970s. (It is not clearly known whether they had embraced Islam later). Prof. Keith Moore discussed what the Quran said about the development of human embryo. He did it because he was astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD before embryology was established [5]. The agreement between the Quranic messages that were revealed in the seventh century before the advent of modern science and scientific discoveries made in the twentieth century is considered strong scientific proof of God and divinity of the Quran. In fact it is part of Allah’s scheme to prove the divinity of the Quran and His existence scientifically through atheists themselves as can be inferred from the verse 21:30 (quoted above), which addresses the nonbelievers. Further the verses 41:52-53 proclaims to the world: “Say: You see if the (Quran) is from Allah and you do not believe in it! Who is more astray than the one who is far opposed (to it)? Soon We will show them Our signs in the (furthest) regions and in themselves until it becomes manifest to them that this (Quran) is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is witness over all things?” (Q. 41:52-53). Islam bashers however do not accept the scientific merit of the Quran or the verses of scientific import it contains. The Quranic verses 41:52-53 appear to address such people. 

e) The Quran is the only source that reveals to us God’s purpose of creating the universe and man. Man was created by God as His robot (abd in Arabic) to serve Him (Q. 51:56). The present universe was created to provide infrastructure facility for testing human robots for their obedience to God (Q. 11:7). Earth is the habitat for man (Q. 2:29, 7:10, 27:61), which forms the venue (laboratory) of testing. The revelations relating to the purpose of creation are also falsifiable. Anyone who dispassionately examines this aspect will find the organization and functioning of the universe finely tuned to suit the stated purpose. For more information on the subject, see post 8 at http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com.

Falsifiable but not- yet- verified revelations
Some of the falsifiable revelations in the Quran have not yet been subjected to experimental verification. They remain as scientific theories. These include revelation of the organization of the cosmic space as seven skies one above the other (Q. 67:3; see also Q. 71:15-16 cited above), the creation of earth as the first component of the universe (Q. 41:9-12), and creation of everything in pairs (or partners - zouj in Arabic) (Q. 51:49, 36:36). It is hoped that further advancement in science will throw light on these phenomena.

Another important falsifiable revelation (Q. 15:26-29) is the nonmaterial or intangible (ghayb in Arabic) nature of the cause of life - the rooh or nafs (see post 4 at http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com for more details). The rooh may be conceptualized as the non-molecular (or nonphysical) biological program or biosoftware (soul) responsible for life based on the computer model of organism [6, 7]. In biology, the material genome (DNA) is supposed to be the blueprint of life or the driving force of life. It is believed that DNA molecule encodes the biological program required for the development of phenotype and biological functioning of an organism. The Quranic revelation of nonmaterial rooh as the cause of life is against the material gene concept. The molecular gene is in deep crisis now though scientific community may not admit it (see post 4 of this blog).The Quran approves the nonphysical gene originally proposed by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1909. The problems associated with the molecular gene concept and the failure of experiments to create life from non-life (without involving a living organism) should be seen as indications of the truth of the Quranic revelation of nonphysical basis of life and existence of God. Molecular gene concept will also meet the same fate as steady state cosmology.   

Scientifically explainable revelations

There are also revelations in the Quran that can be explained scientifically. For example, end of the universe (Q. 7:187) followed by re-creation of the universe (Q. 21:104, 39:67) come under this category. The amenability of Quranic revelation to scientific explanation is also proof of their rationality. For more details, see posts 2 and 3 at http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com.
The foregoing discussion reveals the scientific basis of the Quran and Islam. More importantly, scientific validity of the Quran confirms the existence of God unequivocally. On the reverse logic, it also firmly establishes why atheism is irrational. It is an irony that of all the people, scientists who vow to accept only the rational opt for the most irrational atheism! The scientific foundation of the Quran is clear verdict of its divinity and universality. Only the most irrational will refute it.  

1. Wahid, P.A. 2007. Scientific Foundation of Islam, Adam Publishers, New Delhi, India.
2. Popper, K. 1962. Science, pseudoscience and falsifiability. http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html  Accessed 9-1-2010.
3. Bucaille, M.  2004. The Quran and Modern Science. Published by Abdul Naeem (first published 1977).
4. Bucaille, M.  1975. The Bible, the Qur’an and Science Translated from the French by Alastair D. Pannell and the author, (Islamic Call Society, Tripoli, 1976).
5. Keith Moore, K.  The Developing Human (5th Edition, with T.V.N. Persaud).
6. Wahid, P.A. 2006. The Computer Universe: A Scientific Rendering of the Holy Quran. Adam Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India.
7. Wahid, P.A. 2007. An Introduction to Islamic Science. Adam Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India.