Talk:Relationship between the Quran and science

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Islamic attitudes towards science
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Islamic attitudes towards science

Islam

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles

Science

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles

Skepticism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles

Cosmology

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauhidaerospace (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The protected roof

Verse ^[21:32] "And We made the sky a protected ceiling, but they, from its signs, turned away." Quran: 21:32 ^[1] or in another translation "And We made the sky a protected ceiling, but they, from its signs, are turning away" The Earth is largely protected from the solar wind, a stream of energetic charged particles emanating from the Sun, by its magnetic field, which deflects most of the charged particles. Some of the charged particles from the solar wind are trapped in the Van Allen radiation belt^[2] . Earth’s magnetosphere provides protection, without which life as we know it could not survive. ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauhidaerospace (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6865743
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field#Importance. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Polar Substorm". NASA Science News. 2009-03-02. Retrieved 2010-12-28.

Major rework / merge

Per #Tags, this remains a dreadful article with no clear purpose. Much of it is / should be in the "foreknowledge" article, no-one has presented any coherent objections to that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long article on this subject, with the same title, in the Encyclopedia of Qur'an, already cited I believe. This clearly suggests that the subject matter is notable, both historically and as far as the "Scientific Hermeneutic" is concerned. Just citing the views of early Muslim scholars on this subject should be useful/notable. These views, on how Qur'an influenced their scientific work, just like Biruni's quote for one example, should be notable and does not belong in a "foreknowledge" article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

already cited I believe - not really. There is a ref to EoQ but not to the article in question. Perhaps you can find the link.

But even granted that, it still doesn't defend the structure of the current two articles: because it still isn't clear what this article is about. This article could be about two things: (a) the scientific foreknowledge pap (Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts), which people like T keep adding; or (b) about what we can learn about the actual real history of science from the Quran as a historical source, whether the Quran encourages or discourages science, that kind of thing. Since we laready have an article on (a), this article should be it. So it should be (b). Which requires major rework William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we already have Islam and science so we have *three* articles, not two. I think that if this article is about (b), then it is more natural to keep the I&S article, not this one William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in EQ is about (a) and (b). We should just follow suit. It's also a long article (used to be cited here by Ahmad Dallal), so there is plenty of material. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New addition (OCEANOGRAPHY, in big shouty letters)

I have added from the reference mentioned from Encyclopedia of Qur'an BARRIER BETWEEN SWEET AND SALT WATERS

Text added to article, pointlessly repeated here

“He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress.” [Al-Qur’an 55:19-20]^[55:19] In accordance with ancient Near Eastern models the earth is viewed as being surrounded by waters separated by the creator through a barrier. which are themselves divided into two “oceans,” the waters of one being fresh and sweet, those of the other being bitter. ^[1]

DARKNESS IN DEPTHS OF OCEAN

^[24:40] "Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!" the deep and dark waters below, the layers of wave upon wave all around, the layers of dark clouds above, resulting in darkness so complete that sight is practically impossible. ^[1]

Tauhidaerospace (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that only the first letter of the first word should be in capital letters, how is this science? It's a simple observation - there's salt water and there's fresh water, you can see to the bottom of a shallow bit of water but not when it gets deeper. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of these verses would make a bit easier for you to understand- Modern

Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity and density.1 Oceanologists are now in a better position to explain this verse. There is a slanted unseen water barrier between the two seas through which water from one sea passes to the other. But when the water from one sea enters the other sea, it loses its distinctive characteristic . This phenomenon occurs in several places, including the divider between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean at Gibralter. A white bar can also be clearly seen at Cape Point, Cape Peninsula, South Africa where the Atlantic Ocean meets the Indian Ocean. But when the Qur’an speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier. This phenomenon occurs in several places, including Egypt, where the river Nile flows into the Mediterranean Sea. These scientific phenomena mentioned in the Qur’an was also confirmed by Dr. William Hay, a well known marine scientist and Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, U.S.A.

This property of the seas, that they come together yet do not mingle with one another at all, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called “surface tension”, the waters of neighboring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.Quran and Science Analyzing Oceanology1 Oceanography, Gross, p. 242. Also see Introductory Oceanography, Thurman, pp. 300-301 also seeThe Quran And Modern Science Compatible Or Incompatible

And for the deep ocean please read Mesopelagic. Prof. Rao said that scientists have only now been able to confirm, with the help of modern equipment, that there is darkness in the depths of the ocean. Humans are unable to dive unaided underwater for more than 20 to 30 metres, and cannot survive in the deep oceanic regions at a depth of more than 200 metres. This verse does not refer to all seas because not every sea can be described as having accumulated darkness layered one over another. The Quran And Modern Science Compatible Or Incompatible Tauhidaerospace (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you think you might learn a bit of wiki-syntax, if you want to contribute here? Also, pasting in vast blocks of text into talk pages is COPYVIO, just as if you did it into an article page. Also, MAKING BIG SHOUTY HEADINGS is annoying. Also, as DW said, nothing you've added really says anything about science at all. Also, simply responding to an attempt at a discussion of a rework by dumping in yet more text is not helpful. The answer to this articles problems is *not* yet more text dumps William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak referencing

The article says stuff like "The [[Quran]] has been interpreted as encouraging of scientific investigation.<ref name="EOQ_SAQ">Ahmad Dallal, [[Encyclopedia of the Qur'an]], ''Quran and science''</ref>". That isn't a proper reference. It is like citing something to "Encyclopaedia Britannica", or indeed to wikipedia, but without providing an article or page name. Since the thing isn't online, someone who has access needs to say exactly where in this (presumably) vast opus the assertion is made William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected

I've done it. All the text that seemed to be of any value has gone to Islam and science or Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts, which is where any future mumbo-jumbo should be directed William M. Connolley (talk)

I fully agree with that merge. It was silly what was being stuck here whereas that other one can form the basis of a good article. The only reason I can think of having this as a separate article is to discuss the pseudoscience, I think some people must be trying to do a van Daniken on the Quran and maybe that is notable. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as well--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree al of you can always agree to delete something you have never researched to make improvements. This article has been a work of hunderds of people from 2008. how can it be deleted and merged without consensus. there were several times this article was asked to be merged but never reached consensus. please male a Proposal to merge then follow procedure to merge they are:

- Make the proposal on the proposed destination article's discussion page 
-Tag the relevant pages
-Discuss the merger
-Close the merger discussion and determine consensus. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far there seems to be consensus (except you) towards the redirect and a redirect is not merge. Most of the stuff in here was unusable by WP standards anyway and if you want to keep it it would have been your job to fix not that of other editors. As long as you fail to address the articles severe problems, which have been discussed for months now a redirect seems to be the best solution.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Consensus is clear. Redirect it without delay. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the redirect, for a simple reason of continues failure of improvements (not notability). I encourage involved editors to improve Islam and science with reliable notable sources, in order to re-create this article when there's enough content (which I don't believe can be done in anytime soon). Therefore, please consider your focus of improvements there. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 02:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the procedures for redirecting. Raise the issue atWP:Rfd. If this is redirected to Islam and science; science and the Bible should be redirected too to meet WP:NPV. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's consensus here and you are edit warring - I've formally warned you about that. And please note that "RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point." Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re If this is redirected to Islam and science; science and the Bible should be redirected: apart from WP:OTHER this isn't a good analogy. Science and the Bible isn't like Q&S was: it actually does attempt to put the science in the bible within a historical context; it doesn't (as far as I can see) attempt to put forward the pseudoscience this article was angling towards. And, of course, there is no Christianity and science article William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a compilation of work by 100s of editors since 2008 most of them must be unaware of this proposal. Redirecting it certainly would diminish WP creditibility. This has been discucessed several times before about it please look at this discussion. It has been proposed 4 times. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

: A Redirect is not a merge.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we have had only 22 editors with 5 or more edits. In any case, if they aren't watching this page either they aren't around or don't care. What counts is what consensus is now. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference EOQ_SAQ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6865743

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field#Importance. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[3] "Polar Substorm". NASA Science News. 2009-03-02. Retrieved 2010-12-28.

[EOQ_SAQ-4] Cite error: The named reference EOQ_SAQ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]