Embryology Errors: The Plagiarized 'Miracle'
One of the most commonly cited "scientific miracles" in the Quran is its description of human embryonic development. Muslim apologists claim that verses about embryology contain knowledge that could not have been known in the 7th century, proving the Quran's divine origin. However, close examination reveals that the Quran's embryology is not only scientifically inaccurate but also appears to be borrowed from earlier Greek and Indian sources available in Muhammad's time.
The Quranic Account
The primary passage describing embryonic development is found in Surah Al-Mu'minun:
"And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay. Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging. Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators." (Quran 23:12-14)
Muslim apologists claim this passage describes the stages of embryonic development with miraculous accuracy. They point to terms like 'alaqah (clot/clinging thing), mudghah (lump of flesh), and the progression through distinct stages as evidence of divine knowledge.
Similar descriptions appear elsewhere in the Quran:
"He created you from one soul. Then He made from it its mate, and He produced for you from the grazing livestock eight mates. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, within three darknesses. That is Allah, your Lord; to Him belongs dominion. There is no deity except Him, so how are you averted?" (Quran 39:6)
The Scientific Problems
Problem 1: The Clot ('Alaqah)
The Quran describes the second stage of development as 'alaqah, typically translated as "clinging clot" or "leech-like clot." This is scientifically inaccurate. The embryo never resembles a blood clot or leech at any stage of development.
After fertilization, the zygote undergoes rapid cell division (cleavage) to form a blastocyst—a hollow ball of cells. This structure then implants in the uterine wall. At no point does it resemble a clot of blood. Blood clots are coagulated blood outside the circulatory system; a developing embryo is living tissue with organized cell division.
Some modern Muslim scholars have tried to reinterpret 'alaqah to mean "something that clings" (referring to implantation), but this is post-hoc rationalization. Classical tafsir (Quranic commentary) uniformly understood 'alaqah as a blood clot. Ibn Kathir, one of the most respected classical commentators, explicitly describes it as congealed blood.
Problem 2: The Bones-Then-Flesh Sequence
The Quran states that bones are formed first, then covered with flesh: "We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh" (23:14).
This is embryologically false. Bones and muscles (flesh) develop simultaneously from the same mesodermal tissue layer. The mesoderm differentiates into various structures including both the skeletal system and muscular system at the same time, not in sequence.
By the sixth week of development, both cartilage models of bones and muscle tissue are forming concurrently. There is no stage where a skeleton exists that is then "covered" with muscle. Modern embryology shows these systems develop together, with complex interactions between them.
Problem 3: The Missing Stages
If the Quran truly described embryology with miraculous detail, it would include mention of critical stages entirely absent from the text:
- Cell division from zygote to morula to blastocyst
- Formation of the three germ layers (ectoderm, mesoderm, endoderm)
- Neurulation (formation of the neural tube that becomes the brain and spinal cord)
- Development of the circulatory system
- Organogenesis of major organs
Instead, the Quran provides a vague, simplified description consistent with what would be observable or imaginable to people in the 7th century: semen, something blood-like, flesh, bones, then a fully formed creature.
Problem 4: The "Three Darknesses"
Quran 39:6 mentions creation "within three darknesses." Muslim apologists claim this refers to three anatomical layers: the abdominal wall, the uterine wall, and the amniotic sac.
This interpretation is forced and inconsistent. If we're counting layers, why three? There are actually more distinct layers: the abdominal wall itself has multiple layers (skin, fat, muscle, peritoneum), the uterine wall has three layers (perimetrium, myometrium, endometrium), and the amniotic sac is part of multiple fetal membranes (amnion, chorion).
Classical commentators didn't interpret this verse as referring to anatomical layers at all. This is modern apologetics retrofitting the text to match scientific knowledge.
The Greek Sources
The most damaging problem for the "Quranic miracle" claim is that these same embryological ideas appear in Greek medical texts that predate Islam by nearly 1,000 years.
Galen of Pergamon (129-216 CE), whose medical texts were widely known and translated into Arabic, wrote in "On Semen":
"But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which... the form of the semen prevails. At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformed animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity... this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts. You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form 'twigs', as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by this term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child."
Notice the remarkable parallels to the Quran:
- Semen as the starting material
- A stage described as having the "form of flesh"
- Distinct periods or stages of development
- Bones forming before final development
Galen's texts were not obscure. They were the foundation of medical knowledge throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East. By the 7th century, they had been translated into Syriac and were taught in medical schools in cities like Alexandria and Jundishapur (in Persia, near Arabia).
Indian Sources
Similar embryological descriptions appear in ancient Indian texts. The Sushruta Samhita, an Ayurvedic medical text from around 600 BCE, describes fetal development in stages remarkably similar to both Galen and the Quran.
These ideas were not revolutionary 7th-century discoveries. They were part of the ancient world's medical knowledge, based on observation of miscarriages and primitive autopsies.
The Historical Context
Muhammad had access to these ideas through several routes:
Al-Harith ibn Kalada: A contemporary of Muhammad who studied medicine at Jundishapur, where Galenic medicine was taught. Islamic sources confirm Muhammad knew him and consulted him on medical matters.
Christian and Jewish physicians: Arabia had significant Christian and Jewish populations, many of whom were literate and familiar with Greek medical texts.
Trade routes: Mecca was a major trade hub connecting Arabia with the Byzantine Empire, Persia, and India. Ideas traveled along these routes as readily as goods.
The claim that Muhammad was an illiterate man in an isolated desert is historical fiction. Mecca was a cosmopolitan commercial center, and Muhammad was a merchant who traveled extensively. He had ample opportunity to encounter these ideas.
The Apologetic Response
When confronted with these problems, Muslim apologists typically respond in several ways:
Response 1: "The Arabic words have multiple meanings that align with modern science."
Rebuttal: This is circular reasoning and post-hoc rationalization. Classical Arabic scholars, who understood the language far better than modern apologists, uniformly interpreted these terms in ways that don't align with modern embryology. Cherry-picking alternate meanings to retrofit the text to modern science is intellectually dishonest.
Response 2: "Scientists have confirmed the Quran's accuracy."
Rebuttal: This refers to quotes from scientists like Dr. Keith Moore, who was paid by the Saudi government to endorse the Quran's scientific accuracy. His statements in promotional Islamic materials contradict his own embryology textbook, which makes no mention of Quranic insights. When questioned, Moore has been evasive about his true views.
Response 3: "The similarities to Greek texts are coincidental."
Rebuttal: The similarities are too specific and detailed to be coincidental. The burden of proof lies with those claiming divine revelation to show how this differs meaningfully from earlier human sources.
Biblical Contrast: Claims That Can Be Verified
The Bible doesn't claim to be a science textbook, but when it touches on the natural world, it does so in ways that have stood the test of time. More importantly, Christianity doesn't stake its credibility on scientific "miracles" in Scripture.
The biblical approach to God's revelation in nature is different. It acknowledges human limitations while pointing to God's wisdom in creation:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
The Bible's focus is theological and historical, not scientific. It makes historical claims that can be verified through archaeology and other disciplines. And indeed, archaeological discoveries have repeatedly confirmed biblical history, from the existence of Hittites (once doubted by scholars) to the Pool of Siloam to the historical existence of figures like Pontius Pilate.
Christianity's credibility rests primarily on the historical resurrection of Jesus, an event attested by multiple eyewitnesses and for which people were willing to die. This is a verifiable historical claim, not a vague scientific statement that can be reinterpreted endlessly.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 15:3-6)
Paul invites investigation, citing witnesses who could be questioned. This is the opposite of vague scientific claims requiring creative interpretation.
Questions to Consider
- If the Quran's embryology is divinely inspired, why does it so closely resemble the flawed understanding found in ancient Greek medical texts?
- Why would Allah reveal embryological information that is scientifically incorrect (bones before flesh, the "clot" stage)?
- If these verses are truly miraculous, why did Muslim scholars for 1,300 years interpret them incorrectly until modern science showed what they "really meant"?
- Is it intellectually honest to reinterpret ancient religious texts to align with modern science, rather than acknowledging that they reflect the limited scientific understanding of their time?
- Why does Allah's "clear book" require such creative interpretation to align with scientific facts, while scientific textbooks clearly describe these processes without ambiguity?
- If Muhammad had no access to Greek and Indian medical knowledge, how do you explain the nearly identical descriptions in those earlier sources?
- Which is more likely: that the Quran plagiarized from earlier sources, or that Allah revealed information that happened to exactly match the flawed understanding of ancient Greek physicians?
- Should religious faith depend on scientific claims that can be proven false, or on verifiable historical events and philosophical truths?