ronaldweinland.info Handbooks WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF MAN MAURICE BUCAILLE PDF

WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF MAN MAURICE BUCAILLE PDF

Saturday, November 9, 2019 admin Comments(0)

by Dr Maurice Bucaille. Table of Contents The Need to Know the Origin and History of the Texts. bullet. Modern Approaches to the Books of. This booklet by Dr. Maurice Bucaille has been in circulation for the when we consider the history of science, and can only lead us to the conclusion that they. Product details. Format Hardback | pages; Dimensions x x 12mm | g; Publication date 01 Nov ; Publisher Islamic Book Service; Publication .


Author:ANJELICA BELLEN
Language:English, Spanish, French
Country:Micronesia
Genre:Biography
Pages:219
Published (Last):16.03.2015
ISBN:733-6-21769-912-9
ePub File Size:23.45 MB
PDF File Size:11.12 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Downloads:29772
Uploaded by: BONNIE

The Origin of Man - Dr Maurice Bucaille - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online. In Maurice Bucaille, we have a rare example of medical practitioner who has closely studied the scriptures of the monotheistic religion. At age 50 he learned. [# 1F2 PB pp Dar Al Wahi, Answers of Science & Holy Scriptures, Tr. Dr. Maurice Bucaille is an eminent French surgeon, scientist, scholar and author of ''THE BIBLE, THE QUR"AN AND SCIENCE'' which contains the result of his research into the Judeo-Christian.

Maurice Bucaille is a surgeon by profession. He is also a renowned scholar. In order to be able to read Quran in its original text and to study its meaning and purport through direct access to its early and modern commentaries, he devoted himself to the learning of Arabic language at the ripe age of fifty. Thereafter, he made a beginning by trying to reconcile proven scientific truths with religious axioms. It comprised Quranic explanations of some of the queries raised much earlier than the period when those queries were logically and satisfactorily resolved by scientific experimentation, to be fully in conformity with the explanations provided by Quran about years before. The Church acknowledged and accepted these researches of Dr.

The latter is a basic agent in photosynthesis, a process by which complex organic compounds are formed from simple components through the effect of light. Fossilized vegetation resembling algae and filamentous bacteria have been found in more recent rock formations 2. The bacteria and certain algae displayed an extremely simple structure, without the well known differentiated elements of the cells. Similar samples dating back roughly one billion years have been discovered in rock formations in Central Australia.

This stage probably gave way to a period in which algae of a different kind displayed a genuine cell structure, with a nucleus and chromosomes containing molecules of deoxyribonucleic acid, D. A for short. Many facts about these algae remain unknown, however. The pluricellular stage was to follow, but "in the animal kingdom, between uni and pluricellular forms, there was still a hiatus".

Two basic notions must be mentioned immediately a The aquatic origins of primitive organisms. We cannot be certain, of course, that today's bacteria are identical to those said to have appeared on earth as the first living organisms.

They may have evolved since then, although bacteria such as Escherichia Coli have indeed remained the same for million years. Whatever the answer, the origins of life definitely appear to be aquatic. According to today's thinking, it is impossible to conceive of life without water. Any search for traces of life on other. On the earth's surface, the combination of certain conditions including the presence of water was required for life to exist at all.

The complexity of living matter in those very first organisms is not likely to have been as great as it is in today's cells. Nevertheless, as P: P. Grasse points out: "In order for life to exist, there must be a production and exchange of energy. This is only physically possible within a system that is heterogeneous and complex. The established facts at the command of the biologist provide a reason for him to concede that the first living form was of necessity an organized entity".

This leads Grasse to stress the important fact that today's bacteria, which appear to be the simplest living organisms, obviously attain a high degree of complexity. They are indeed composed of thousands of different molecules containing systems of catalysis that are themselves highly numerous, and which enable the bacteria to synthesize their own substance, to grow and to reproduce.

The catalysis relies on enzymes, which act in infinitely small quantities, each enzyme performing its own specific function. Like the amoeba, unicellular life forms are composed of differentiated elements.

Within the fundamental substance of unicellular forms, called cytoplasm, whose chemical structure is highly complex, there are numerous differentiated elements, the most important of which is the nucleus. This is composed of many parts, in particular the chromosomes containing the genes. These control every single aspect of the cell's functioning.

They give orders through a system of information transfer, using transmitters and a system to receive the orders as they come in. The chemical vehicle supporting the genes has been clearly identified: It is deoxyribonucleic acid D. Within the cell, it is this system that ensures the formation of new proteins from simpler chemical elements synthesis of proteins. It is difficult not to feel tremendous admiration for the molecular biologists that first discovered these extremely complex mechanisms systems so perfectly regulated to maintain life that the slightest malfunction leads to deformities or monstrous growths cancer is a case in point and ends in death.

As far as I am concerned, however, the brilliant analysis of the way this system works for each and every cell is a kind of computer comprised of innumerable interrelations is just as amazing as the general conclusions cited above concerning the supposed resolution of unexplained facts on the origins of life.

One very important question immediately springs to mind, based on the results of these investigations: How could 'a system as complex as this have been formed? Was it the work of chance, following a host of trials and errors? That seems most unlikely.

What other logical theories are there? It is common knowledge that a computer will only function if it has been programmed, a fact that implies the existence of a programming intellect, that provides the information required to operate the system.

That is the problem facing all thinking people who seek an explanation to such questions; people who refuse to accept mere words of groundless theories; people who will only acknowledge conclusions based on facts. Given the present state of knowledge, however, science has not provided any answer to this precise point.

The Diversity of Living Beings There is tremendous diversity among living beings. From the most ancient times, human observers have noted this diversity and have taken great pains to analyse it in minute detail. Naturalists record the striking precision of certain primitive peoples in their ability to distinguish between the species of animals surrounding them.

Having received no instruction from outside, these peoples have compiled inventories that are not far off the work of an expert. The first distinction to be made between living beings is the separation of the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Although they share a common basic element the cell as well as numerous constituent substances, they are different in several ways.

The vegetable kingdom is directly dependent on the earth for its nourishment. It also requires a much greater capacity for producing complex chemical compounds from simple bodies and light. The animal kingdom, on the other hand; depends on the vegetable kingdom for its nourishment at least with regard to animals that have attained a certain degree of complexity , and carnivores depend on other species of animal.

Henceforth, we shall concentrate uniquely on the animal kingdom, which is extraordinarily varied and large. There may be as many as 1. The list has continued to grow, especially in recent decades, with the discoveries made in the marine world. Ever since the natural sciences gained stature and importance in the seventeenth century, format classifications have constantly appeared, each updated in turn as new data are discovered.

Aristotle drew a distinction between animals with red blood and those without, but no other studies of a serious nature were undertaken until the seventeenth century, when more interesting characteristics began to attract attention.

For example: Some observers were struck by the question of respiration through the lungs or the branchiae fish gills , the existence or absence of a vertebral skeleton backbone , the anatomy of the heart number of ventricles , or the existence of hair as opposed to feathers. The distribution of distinguishing attributes opened the way for classification by group, with series of subdivisions.

Thus the phyla [Plural of Phylum] characterise the broad basic divisions of the living beings presenting similar features, allowing us to put them in the same group. Each phylum can be divided into clearly defined classes; these are also determined by a certain number of specific characteristics.

Similarly, each class contains several clearly differentiated orders, which nevertheless maintain the general features of their class and phylum. An order consists of various families, the families are composed of genera [Plural of genus] , and the genera contain different species displaying both collective and specific characteristics. Classification is further complicated, however, by the existence of intermediary forms. The first phylum of this classification is composed of unicellular forms, known as protozoans.

It includes the most primitive beings, which very probably divided at some point in time, thus giving birth to pluricellular forms: This is the first example of evolution in the course of time. The structure of these pluricellular forms spongiae, cnidariae and ctenophores became more complex as some acquired more specialized functions, without however constituting organs with clearly defined attributes.

For example, some provided the covering of animals, others developed the ability to contract, or became sensitive to outside stimuli, and others acquired reproductory functions.

The system grew more involved when a cavity appeared that served as a digestive tract cnidariae and ctenophores and the sensory organs made their appearance. This group did not as yet possess a head, however.

Embryological data have been of great value in establishing the various classifications in the animal kingdom. Thus an important stage in the growth of a structural complexity was reached with the early appearance during embryonic development of an extra germ layer. The number of layers thus grew from two to three, each layer ensuring the formation of clearly defined organs.

Animals with three germ layers were in turn divided into 2 groups: those containing a single cavity the digestive tract and those with cavities that developed next to the digestive tract and which were responsible for the formation of tissues and various other organs. The broad divisions of the animal kingdom, here reduced to their most basic terms, already seem to suggest a methodical organization.

The latter guided, the birth of the various phyla, of which 20 emerged very unevenly into the following four groups The unicellular forms, constituting a unique phylum; a The pluricellular beings containing two germ layers in the embryo [The external layer ectodern and the internal layer endodern ] , these gave birth to three phyla; b The pluricellular beings with three germ layers [The first two layers plus a third mesodern interposed between the two others] but containing only one cavity, these accounted for six phyla.

Nevertheless, the gaps in our knowledge of the transitions from one of these groups to another are very wide indeed. In the case of the insects, one of the most important groups, we know nothing whatsoever of their origins P. Grasse Likewise, there are no fossils left to indicate the beginnings of the various phyla. This statement should figure at the beginning of any book dealing with evolution. Since we have no firm documentary evidence; statements on the origins of the phyla can only be suppositions, opinions whose degree of feasibility we have no way of measuring.

Grasses observation on the phyla should caution any statement on the origins of the major basic divisions. From this point of view, the determining causes of the phenomena in question are just as mysterious as the birth of the most rudimentary life forms.

The Concept of Evolution in the Animal Kingdom: The Difficulty of Solving the Problem It is difficult to say at what period prior to the nineteenth century the question of evolution in the animal kingdom was first raised. In the centuries before Christ, several Greek philosophers had already perceived that the living world was subject to transformations.

Observers coming after them sometimes displayed startling flashes of intuitive insight. Inevitably, however, their conclusions arose from philosophical ideas or pure speculations. The fact that they later proved to be correct, although the product of sheer guesswork; does not lend any particular value to these early philosophical concepts. Indeed, we should always bear in mind that during the same period, the same philosophers maintained totally inaccurate theories with complete equanimity: the theories concerning the existence of the universe in an identical state throughout eternity, for example.

In , however, Lamarck became the very first naturalist to put forward the idea of evolution.. For the rest of his life, Lamarck collected arguments to support his theory. He compares present day animals with fossilized remains, demonstrating the existence of extinct species.

£8.50

Cuvier's study does not, however, support the idea of evolution. Lehmann suggests the following reason for this: Cuvier thought that the fossils in question could not be older than the maximum figure of several millennia allotted by the Bible to the earth and the animal kingdom. Because, for example, the Egyptian mummy of an ibis did not indicate that a change had taken place in today's animal, evolution did not exist. In , Darwin introduced the idea of the natural selection of species, and it was not long before others attributed to Darwin's theory the general concept of evolution.

It did not appear until the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species, and even then it was used more as a general denial of the fixity of the created species than an affirmation of Darwinian transformism proper. Roger, we shall see that the true father of evolution is Lamarck even though his name is always associated with transformism , while Darwin is little more than a transformist even though he has always been considered the first naturalist firmly to introduce the idea of evolution.

Later on, we shall take a closer look at the ideas of both Lamarck and Darwin. However that may be, the data provided by zoology and palaeontology combined clearly furnished firm arguments from which to approach the question at issue. Zoology strove to classify the different groups of orders, families, genera and species, basing its distinctions mainly on anatomy, physiology, and embryology. Palaeontology, on the other hand, ascertained or tried to ascertain at what periods in time life forms appeared similar to those of today, and at what periods beings now extinct first appeared then disappeared.

This is an important concept to remember, otherwise we run the risk of misinterpreting the information provided by palaeontology: For example, the discovery of certain fossil specimens in terranes dating from a precise geological age does not necessarily mean that these life forms were inexistent before or after the age in question.

Errors of this kind are less likely to occur when fossilized forms are highly numerous within a certain period, especially when there are no specimens to be found in fossils pre- or postdating the specific period: In the case of man, however, whenever there are very few genuine or supposedly genuine remains, and whenever such vestiges are limited to bone fragments, the way is open for a host of errors, as we shall see later on. In spite of these reservations, we can derive many ideas from observing how a clearly defined anatomical form present at a certain point in time has succeeded a similar form with a less developed morphology existing in older terranes.

This change over a period of time may possibly reflect a better adaptation to what may well have been new conditions of life. Observations such as these must, however, be repeated with many different examples before one can seriously talk of evolution.

Only palaeontology can provide us with proof of this kind. Having started promisingly in the early nineteenth century Palaeontology really came, into its own after Darwin. The English naturalist did not employ any decisive arguments from palaeontology: In most cases, his opinions rested on the study of present day animals, suggesting an apparent natural selection that did not, however, explain everything. Thus, Darwin's arguments are by no means conclusive. What can we say today about the definite or extremely probable data of palaeontology when combined with facts drawn from our knowledge of zoology?

As we have, already seen, pluricellular life forms most, probably developed. The most primitive pluricellular beings are likely to have been the spongiae sponges , which although not possessing clearly differentiated organs already display a reproductive organization that is sexual.

From these primitive forms probably derive the cnidarian and ctenophores mentioned earlier. The vertebrates came later, roughly million years ago, and likewise certain fishes, which continued to develop, thereafter.

The first. Terrestrial vertebrates amphibians and reptiles appeared some million years ago, and following them came the mammals million years ago and the birds I35 million years ago. Life forms not only appeared however, they also disappeared, sometimes in. This deliberately brief and generalized survey shows, the magnitude; of the evolution toward ever more developed and. Also evident is the extent to which forms could disappear and not just the reptiles , thus bringing considerable changes to the general, aspect of: the living world.

There are, however, many other groups, to which we shall later return, Each and every one of these data raises considerable problems, thus indicating, the complexity of evolution.

We are forced to account not only for progressions, and regressions, but also, for extinctions. In view of this, the problem of the general evolution of life forms is fantastically, vast and complex. It requires us to search into extremely diverse fields: the natural sciences botany and zoology , comparative anatomy, palaeontology, embryology, and chemistry to mention only those that seem to have provided the most evidence.

There are, however, many evolutionary studies published by researchers who, though undoubtedly extremely well informed in their fields, have an unfortunate tendency to draw generalized conclusions without any detailed knowledge of what experts from other fields have to say oh the same subject. The matter at hand is indeed so vast that very few specialists are able to master each and every aspect of it: To do so would require tremendous experience, as well as knowledge spanning a whole range of different disciplines.

It is for this reason that the observer who by definition is willing to accept any proposition providing it is supported by solid arguments remains very sceptical of conclusions too heavily based on data from a single field of study. Thus it is difficult to accept certain theories, based on molecular biology or mathematical research in genetics concerning the evolution of living forms, when the authors of these theories quite obviously attach very little importance to the work of their colleagues in other branches of knowledge.

For example, what about the work of researchers in the field of palaeontology excavating ancient fossilized forms? What about the wealth of relevant facts supplied by comparative anatomy and embryology? Sadly, we must note that specialists in the basic sciences, preoccupied as they are with the origins of life, the beginnings of man and the evolution of living forms, have lost their appetite for arguments based on solid facts from the past.

This criticism is, in no way intended to undermine the tremendous value of evolutionary data gleaned from the cell.

What is the Origin of Man: The Answers of Science and the Holy Scriptures

It is simply aimed at the overly exclusive use of these data, devoid of any interpretation. Unfortunately, this shortcoming is very common nowadays. So many problems containing countless facets are examined by specialists from a wide range of disciplines, only to be viewed in the light that is most congenial to the eyes of the specialists in question.

A further difficulty is the frequent and unfortunate intervention of ulterior motives of a religious or metaphysical kind, that quite obviously underlie the opinions of many researchers. For example, a theorist f may rely heavily on a material argument, glad to have discovered it if he thinks the argument will support his cherished materialistic theory.

But those who are not informed may think it is dangerous to acknowledge the idea of evolution, even in the animal kingdom, for fear that by extending this view to man, they may go against the religious teachings they wish to uphold. In so doing, they are unaware of the fact that certain aspects of modern discoveries that are usually employed to support materialistic views may indeed offer a solid argument to those of diametrically opposed opinions.

All of which is to say, that questions of this kind ought to be approached without any preconceived ideas at all. In the past, however, the material available for constructing a theory was very limited indeed. The opinions expressed were strongly influenced by philosophical ideas and religious beliefs. In spite of this however, certain ideas did escape these influences, and in view of the concepts prevalent at the time, they were absolutely revolutionary.

In the sixth century B. In the century after, Empedocles appears to have sided with the general concept of evolution. He does not, however, seem able to have produced anything but a bizarre account of the origins of man that is entirely the work of his vivid imagination. The Bible was responsible for the widespread notion that the species were fixed and unchanging, a concept that held sway until the nineteenth century.

Even so, Saint Augustine and several other Fathers of the Church mention certain possibilities of transformation as a result of the potential attributes that God bestowed on the world when He created it. Buffon was the first thinker to uphold the idea of evolution, but he did so with a certain amount of timidity. Initially, he had considered the species to be fixed and unchanging, but as he grew older and his knowledge of nature increased, he came to view them as in a state of evolution.

To be precise, however, he considered the families of animals to have come from a single species, having acquired various characteristics in the course of time while remaining within a certain biological framework.

The fact is, he was not prepared to admit that one species could transform itself into another; he only accepted the existence of limited variations. For Buffon, conditions of life climate, food, and domestication were the prime factors in the changes that took place in animals.

His doubts and hesitations are mentioned in P. Aron and P. Grasse, published by Masson, Paris ] : Buffon's work gives the impression that the naturalist did not want to follow his thoughts through to the very end. Anxious to preserve his peace and quiet, he was afraid of coming into violent conflict with the preconceived ideas of his day.

When the Sorbonne sharply called him back into line, he agreed to everything they asked. Lamarck, on the other hand, enjoyed a far greater freedom to say what he liked. Lamarck, the Father of Evolution Although Lamarck had been the official Botanist to the French king, when the Revolution broke out, he was lucky enough to secure himself a position where he could study and teach without hindrance. Until his dying day, Lamarck worked tirelessly, amassing copious evidence to support his theories.

But for all this, he died in dreadful intellectual isolation; criticized and mocked by his contemporaries, misjudged and underestimated, in spite of the importance of his work as a naturalist. Lamarck had shown the "relative unchangeability" of species, which are "only temporarily invariable.

Changes in their environment modify their needs or create new ones; new habits lead to greater use of certain organs and the neglect of others.

When an organ is left unused, it shrinks and may finally disappear altogether". I owe to P. Grasse this synopsis of Lamarck's ideas on the influence of environment.

Indeed, it has been observed that the teeth of animals that do not chew their food the anteater or the whale, for example tend to atrophy or not to emerge at all. Another example is the mole; whose eyes are so tiny they often see absolutely nothing.

Going in the opposite direction, intense use of an organ leads to its development The feet of birds that live in water become webbed as a result of swimming, the tongue of the anteater grows longer as a result of the way it extends its tongue to catch and coat its victims with a sticky substance.

The study of these variations led Lamarck to conclude that when a change occurred, it was toward a more complex organ in the case of organs that develop as a result of intensive use , and that variations of this kind were transmitted by heredity.

Critical Assessment of Lamarck's Theories In criticizing Lamarck's theories, one must bear in mind the nature of the data on which, in his day, Lamarck was able to base his ideas. While there are undoubtedly points that he treats somewhat superficially, his ideas nevertheless contain an element of truth.

In Lamarck's eyes, the evidence was so striking that in an age where others denied such evidence, the truth had to be proclaimed. All the same, Lamarck overestimated the influence of environment, and his idea that characteristics are automatically transferred by heredity is no longer acceptable.

Zoologists have indeed pointed to the existence of changes that were induced by environment the influence of food on the digestive tract, for example. It is a well-known fact, however, that overworked muscles become hypertrophied. Similarly, when a duplicate organ is removed, the remaining organ is quite likely to grow bigger, although it does not change at all from a structural point of view.

An issue is the usefulness to the individual of the change thus created, a point that has not been proven in the least. Nor is the change definitive within the history of the species, for the hereditary nature of acquired characteristics is a purely intellectual notion. Tests carried out after a change of environment have shown that new characteristics are not passed on to descendants. This is the sharpest criticism to be made of Lamarck's theory.

Nevertheless, Lamarck did indeed show the existence of a kind of evolution in the animal kingdom: Where he went wrong was in his assessment of the amplitude of evolution, as gauged through his observations. The explanation he provided was unconvincing, and thus Lamarck was unable to gain acceptance for his ideas.

Cuvier, who favoured the concept of the fixity of species, vigorously challenged him and it was Cuvier and those of his opinion who won the day. Lamarck's ideas did not come into favour until several decades after his death, when palaeontologists produced evidence lacking while Lamarck was alive of morphological changes due to variations in environment.

Not all of Lamarck's theories are to be dissuaded. Darwin and Natural Selection, or a Hypothesis survives through Ideology In order to establish his doctrine, some fifty years after Lamarck; Darwin advanced many more seemingly significant facts than his predecessor.

Maurice bucaille origin is what pdf the man of

Unfortunately, however; Darwin thought everything could be explained through the postulate of the all-pervading power of natural selection. There is no doubt, moreover, that Darwin was strongly motivated by sociological considerations, factors which should have no place in a scientific doctrine, and yet his work is still very well known today.

The following reasons may account for his continuing fame: Darwin's arguments are extremely cleverly presented, and often subtlety is more effective than the rigorousness of the arguments themselves.

Nor should we overlook the satisfaction of certain scientists who were quick to use Darwin's theory to discredit Biblical teachings on the subject of the origins of man and the fixity of species. Indeed, with regard to the evolution of species, Darwin's theory was used to prove that man was descended from the great apes.

While this may be perfectly feasible in theory; it tells us absolutely nothing. What a pity it is that we live in an age where sensational but erroneous information is more likely to capture the public imagination than carefully weighed judgements expressing reservations and pointing toward the existence of facts as yet unknown.

Perhaps it is enough to remain at this stage, simply devoting our discussion of the origins of man to a review of the facts that modern scientific knowledge allows us to present as certainties or hypotheses, and at the same time refuting ideas that appear incorrect.

What, indeed, is the point of bringing into the discussion the Holy Scriptures of the monotheistic religions? First let me reply to those who consider their scientific knowledge to be one thing and their religious beliefs to be another a group that has continued to grow over the past few decades.

To the atheist, mention of the supernatural will seem anachronistic, even in cases where science encounters enigmas the genetic code, for example. The idea of approaching a question such as this in metaphysical terms is unacceptable to the atheist, even though there is little room for any alternative solution. The existence of this separation between science and religious belief is in keeping with the reasoned ways of modern thought.

As far as I am concerned, however, the separation provides grounds for a discussion of the reverse theory one, which seems to me to correspond to the reality of the situation. Many other reasons abound, not least of which is incomprehension. This has often been noted between those of different faiths, who know little of other religions and often little of their own Scriptures as well.

We must bear in mind the fact that the monotheistic religions [I have not studied the ideas on the origins of man expressed in the religions of Asia. The question is not dealt with in any depth by these religions, nor is it treated in the concrete terms we are used to in the West - as far as I know, at least] - chronologically, Judaism, followed by Christianity and then Islam represent the religious beliefs of over one third of humanity. We cannot overlook these religions, and it is imperative to know how each of them views the origins of man.

Particularly interesting is the examination of a religion's approach when seen in the light of what we know today about the origins of the Scriptures specific to each religion. In the case of the Bible, the information provided on the Biblical authors has modified archaic or obsolete opinions, and has helped us distinguish the human factor in the texts. One of them is short, possibly having been truncated long ago, and it sheds light on what people in the ninth and tenth centuries B.

The best-known text, the Sacerdotal version, is the work of priests in the sixth century B. It is the time-honoured description of the Creation, which appears in the first part of Genesis, setting forth the traditions of the day. Later on, the Christian religion adopted the Biblical tradition and reproduced in the New Testament data concerning the length of time man had been on earth.

For centuries, the data were faithfully repeated in Bibles, and Y can remember seeing in a manual of religious instruction, which stated that according to the Bible, man's appearance on earth should be placed at roughly 4, B. That is the sort of instruction budding young Christians received in my day! Mistaken ideas regarding the Qur'an have been common in Christian countries for a very long time.

They still persist, as far as the history and content of the Qur'an are concerned. Because of this, the data in the Qur'an on the subject of man's origins must be preceded by a description of the way in which the Qur'an was communicated to man. The assertions on the origins of man to be found in the Qur'an will undoubtedly astonish many people, just as they astonished me when I first discovered them.

The comparison of the Biblical and Qur'anic texts is moreover highly revealing: Both of them speak of God the Creator, but the scientifically unacceptable detail in the Biblical description of the Creation is absent from the Qur'an.

In fact, the Qur'an contains statements concerning man that are astounding: It is impossible to explain their presence in human terms; given the state of knowledge at the time the Qur'an was communicated.

In the West, such statements had never before formed the subject of a scientific communication until November 9, , when I presented a paper to the French National Academy of Medicine on the physiological and embryological data present in the Qur'an, roughly fourteen centuries ahead of modern discoveries.

When taken together with Qur'anic statements on other natural phenomena, the details in the Qur'an on the origins of man form an important factor in the age-old debate between science and religion.

They reopen the discussion by focusing on new arguments. In view of such significant points of agreement between firmly established scientific data and a Holy Scripture, we must reconsider hasty judgements, which have devoted more attention to abstract concepts than facts. From the nineteenth century onward, religion and, science have been set in opposition in the West.

The argument in favour of this has been the discrepancy between the Biblical text and scientific data. If we adhere strictly to 'the facts, however, we shall see that the opposition between the two was totally deprived of meaning from the moment the human origin of the texts in dispute was established.

It is important to remember that the authors of the Biblical texts are considered by Christian exegetes themselves to have been inspired by God. All the same, the Biblical authors may have introduced inaccuracies to the text, without in the least betraying their divine inspiration. These inaccuracies could have arisen from the language of the day, or through references to traditions still honoured during the period.

In the light of this, the presence of scientific error is hardly surprising. What would be surprising, from a logical point of view, would be the absence of any errors at all. Although the document does not actually state which material, in reading this, I do not think we can find a better confirmation of the accuracy of the theory put forward in the present work. I have every reason to believe that similar opinions prevail in the most enlightened circles of Judaism.

I refer in particular to my conversation several years ago with an extremely important figure in the Jewish world; the main subject of which was the, Sacerdotal narrative of Genesis. In the course of our meeting, we agreed that the scientific errors in the text could be explained by the fact that the main preoccupation of the priests of the sixth century B. To do this, they related a story traditional at the time describing the origins of the heavens, the earth, living creatures and man.

The story was cast in images and words that could be readily understood by the priests' contemporaries. The length of time that has elapsed since man first appeared on earth, as stated in the Hebrew calendar, should also be viewed in this light. Indeed, the statement of Biblical teaching that is most obviously at odds with science is that man first appeared on earth 5, years ago calculated from late The moment we accept the existence of arguments that prevent us from taking this affirmation at face value, we can no longer use it as a legitimate accusation against the Bible in the confrontation between science and the Scriptures: It must be placed in its human context.

In the case of man, by comparing the Scriptural texts and modern knowledge, it became clear that the data in Genesis referred to here ought to be set apart for the reasons already mentioned.

If we accept this, there is no longer any incompatibility between the teachings of the Scriptures and modern scientific discoveries, concerning the general concept of the creation of man and other views on the first stages of humanity. This is undoubtedly an unusual way of introducing the supernatural, but that does not alter its validity or usefulness. This approach avoids appealing to sentimental arguments that rely on people's emotions or their spiritual state the accusation usually levelled by materialist thinkers at those who tend to offer arguments based on faith.

Why should the idea of God not grow from extremely logical reflection concerning the infinitely large or the infinitely small? The strict order to be seen in both cases is patently obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to find out about them objectively and impartially.

Similarly, in the field dealt with in this book, we shall arrive at the idea that there exists an amazing degree of organization in the functioning and evolution of living matter. Needless to say, God does not manifest Himself scientifically, yet it is perfectly possible to conceive of Him in scientific terms. My personal outlook remains profoundly rational, and although I have adopted the conclusions of modern science when these are firmly established facts and not mere conjectures , I cannot find any incompatibility between scientific findings and Scriptural teachings.

At the same time, however, the origin and history of the Scriptural texts must also be taken into, consideration. If we omit this aspect, we shall make an uneven assessment of the Scriptures, for we shall have failed to make allowance for the part played by error or human interpretation. I am convinced that such errors of interpretation were the result of lack of information. The present book grew from the conviction that on the extremely sensitive subject of man's origins, a comparison between scientific data and Scriptural teachings might help clarify points too often left obscure.

The Origin of Man - Dr Maurice Bucaille

I hope that the discussion of the answers provided by both sources will show that it is time for past antagonisms to disappear. Chapter 1: Evolution in the Animal Kingdom established facts and gaps in our Knowledge The Origins of Life and the Diversity of Living Beings If we are to believe certain researchers and their statements concerning the phenomenon of life, there are no more secrets left to discover today The origins of life no longer form the subject of laboratory investigation, stated an eminent specialist in molecular biology in Always assuming these words still carry a meaning, we may conclude that life does not contain any facts we do not know.

In reality, however, the situation is quite different, and there are plenty of mysteries that still surround the origins of life. Ingenious experiments have for many years been repeatedly performed by biochemists and biophysicians in an attempt to prove the possibility of spontaneously obtaining infinite quantities of certain chemical compounds found in cells that are structurally highly complex.

The scientists in question are of the opinion that due to favourable physical influences, the compounds were able spontaneously to combine together in an organized fashion, and by uniting, were able to produce the fantastic complex we call the cell, or even more rudimentary living organisms. A statement such as this is tantamount to saying that the possibility of spontaneously forming steel particles from iron ore and coal at high temperature could have led to the construction of the Eiffel Tower through a series of happy coincidences that assembled the materials in proper order.

Even then, this comparison is very weak, for the actual structural complexity of an elementary living organism is much more complex than the structure of the Eiffel Tower, considered in to be a triumph of metal construction.

Those who ardently defend the role of chance base their opinions on experiments of this kind, which claim to reproduce the possible origins of life.

They repeat the views of Miller, who in induced the formation of complex chemical compounds; such as the amino acids present in cellular proteins, using electric sparks in an atmosphere of gas composed of steam, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. Needless to say, such experiments do not provide any explanation for the organization of the components; nor do we have any idea whether this favourably composed gas really existed in the earth's atmosphere two or three billion years ago. A theory cannot be built on unknown facts such as these.

Even if a gas of this kind did exist in the earth's atmosphere; even if certain physical conditions did trigger high-powered electrical phenomena; even if complex organic chemical compounds had formed as a result of this fortunate combination of circumstances, there is nothing to prove that they could have induced the creation of living matter.

The determining factor for this phenomenon remains unknown.

Origin pdf of the maurice is man what bucaille

Some researchers admit that there is an enigma in this. Others point to chance a convenient loophole that excuses them from acknowledging their ignorance.

Maurice Bucaille - Wikipedia

We shall come back later to the reasons why it is impossible to explain the phenomenon of life in terms such as these. We must indeed turn to disciplines other than biochemistry to find the first clues to the problem, and in particular we must look toward palaeontology. Certain prehistoric animals and vegetals were not totally destroyed after their death.

Their remains lay buried in sedimentary terranes, protected thereby from disintegration, and thus providing us with vestiges of these prehistoric life forms. The state in which the vestiges are found sometimes allows us ''to draw certain conclusions concerning the morphology and age of these once living beings [The material studied by Paleontology is limited to the bones and teeth]. It is in fact possible to gain an immediate idea of their age by establishing the date of the terranes.

This can be done by various methods, in particular by radioactive measurements radio chronology. For terranes that are geologically less ancient, carbon 14 tests are used, while strontium and rubidium tests are employed for older terranes.

Having carried out these tests, experts can then determine the age of the specimens under investigation. Tests such as these lead us to think that living beings existed in a unicellular state roughly one billion years ago [The earth is 4. Although it cannot be stated for sure, other forms may have existed before them. These organisms may have employed amino acids, or possibly proteins contained in the sea Other microorganisms may also have been present in the sediments, such as cyanophilous algae containing chlorophyll.

The latter is a basic agent in photosynthesis, a process by which complex organic compounds are formed from simple components through the effect of light.

Is the pdf of man bucaille what maurice origin

Fossilized vegetation resembling algae and filamentous bacteria have been found in more recent rock formations 2. The bacteria and certain algae displayed an extremely simple structure, without the well known differentiated elements of the cells. Similar samples dating back roughly one billion years have been discovered in rock formations in Central Australia.

This stage probably gave way to a period in which algae of a different kind displayed a genuine cell structure, with a nucleus and chromosomes containing molecules of deoxyribonucleic acid, D.

A for short. Many facts about these algae remain unknown, however. The pluricellular stage was to follow, but "in the animal kingdom, between uni and pluricellular forms, there was still a hiatus". Two basic notions must be mentioned immediately a The aquatic origins of primitive organisms. We cannot be certain, of course, that today's bacteria are identical to those said to have appeared on earth as the first living organisms.

They may have evolved since then, although bacteria such as Escherichia Coli have indeed remained the same for million years. Whatever the answer, the origins of life definitely appear to be aquatic. According to today's thinking, it is impossible to conceive of life without water. Any search for traces of life on other. On the earth's surface, the combination of certain conditions including the presence of water was required for life to exist at all.

The complexity of living matter in those very first organisms is not likely to have been as great as it is in today's cells. Nevertheless, as P: P. Grasse points out: "In order for life to exist, there must be a production and exchange of energy. This is only physically possible within a system that is heterogeneous and complex. The established facts at the command of the biologist provide a reason for him to concede that the first living form was of necessity an organized entity".

This leads Grasse to stress the important fact that today's bacteria, which appear to be the simplest living organisms, obviously attain a high degree of complexity.

They are indeed composed of thousands of different molecules containing systems of catalysis that are themselves highly numerous, and which enable the bacteria to synthesize their own substance, to grow and to reproduce. The catalysis relies on enzymes, which act in infinitely small quantities, each enzyme performing its own specific function.

Like the amoeba, unicellular life forms are composed of differentiated elements. Within the fundamental substance of unicellular forms, called cytoplasm, whose chemical structure is highly complex, there are numerous differentiated elements, the most important of which is the nucleus.

This is composed of many parts, in particular the chromosomes containing the genes. These control every single aspect of the cell's functioning. They give orders through a system of information transfer, using transmitters and a system to receive the orders as they come in.

The chemical vehicle supporting the genes has been clearly identified: It is deoxyribonucleic acid D. Within the cell, it is this system that ensures the formation of new proteins from simpler chemical elements synthesis of proteins. It is difficult not to feel tremendous admiration for the molecular biologists that first discovered these extremely complex mechanisms systems so perfectly regulated to maintain life that the slightest malfunction leads to deformities or monstrous growths cancer is a case in point and ends in death.

As far as I am concerned, however, the brilliant analysis of the way this system works for each and every cell is a kind of computer comprised of innumerable interrelations is just as amazing as the general conclusions cited above concerning the supposed resolution of unexplained facts on the origins of life.

One very important question immediately springs to mind, based on the results of these investigations: How could 'a system as complex as this have been formed? Was it the work of chance, following a host of trials and errors? That seems most unlikely. What other logical theories are there? It is common knowledge that a computer will only function if it has been programmed, a fact that implies the existence of a programming intellect, that provides the information required to operate the system.

That is the problem facing all thinking people who seek an explanation to such questions; people who refuse to accept mere words of groundless theories; people who will only acknowledge conclusions based on facts. Given the present state of knowledge, however, science has not provided any answer to this precise point. The Diversity of Living Beings There is tremendous diversity among living beings.

From the most ancient times, human observers have noted this diversity and have taken great pains to analyse it in minute detail. Naturalists record the striking precision of certain primitive peoples in their ability to distinguish between the species of animals surrounding them.

Having received no instruction from outside, these peoples have compiled inventories that are not far off the work of an expert. The first distinction to be made between living beings is the separation of the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

Although they share a common basic element the cell as well as numerous constituent substances, they are different in several ways. The vegetable kingdom is directly dependent on the earth for its nourishment.

It also requires a much greater capacity for producing complex chemical compounds from simple bodies and light. The animal kingdom, on the other hand; depends on the vegetable kingdom for its nourishment at least with regard to animals that have attained a certain degree of complexity , and carnivores depend on other species of animal.

Henceforth, we shall concentrate uniquely on the animal kingdom, which is extraordinarily varied and large. There may be as many as 1. The list has continued to grow, especially in recent decades, with the discoveries made in the marine world. Ever since the natural sciences gained stature and importance in the seventeenth century, format classifications have constantly appeared, each updated in turn as new data are discovered. Aristotle drew a distinction between animals with red blood and those without, but no other studies of a serious nature were undertaken until the seventeenth century, when more interesting characteristics began to attract attention.

For example: Some observers were struck by the question of respiration through the lungs or the branchiae fish gills , the existence or absence of a vertebral skeleton backbone , the anatomy of the heart number of ventricles , or the existence of hair as opposed to feathers.

The distribution of distinguishing attributes opened the way for classification by group, with series of subdivisions.

Thus the phyla [Plural of Phylum] characterise the broad basic divisions of the living beings presenting similar features, allowing us to put them in the same group. Each phylum can be divided into clearly defined classes; these are also determined by a certain number of specific characteristics. Similarly, each class contains several clearly differentiated orders, which nevertheless maintain the general features of their class and phylum.

An order consists of various families, the families are composed of genera [Plural of genus] , and the genera contain different species displaying both collective and specific characteristics. Classification is further complicated, however, by the existence of intermediary forms. The first phylum of this classification is composed of unicellular forms, known as protozoans. It includes the most primitive beings, which very probably divided at some point in time, thus giving birth to pluricellular forms: This is the first example of evolution in the course of time.

The structure of these pluricellular forms spongiae, cnidariae and ctenophores became more complex as some acquired more specialized functions, without however constituting organs with clearly defined attributes.

For example, some provided the covering of animals, others developed the ability to contract, or became sensitive to outside stimuli, and others acquired reproductory functions. The system grew more involved when a cavity appeared that served as a digestive tract cnidariae and ctenophores and the sensory organs made their appearance. This group did not as yet possess a head, however.

Embryological data have been of great value in establishing the various classifications in the animal kingdom. Thus an important stage in the growth of a structural complexity was reached with the early appearance during embryonic development of an extra germ layer. The number of layers thus grew from two to three, each layer ensuring the formation of clearly defined organs.

Animals with three germ layers were in turn divided into 2 groups: those containing a single cavity the digestive tract and those with cavities that developed next to the digestive tract and which were responsible for the formation of tissues and various other organs. The broad divisions of the animal kingdom, here reduced to their most basic terms, already seem to suggest a methodical organization.

The latter guided, the birth of the various phyla, of which 20 emerged very unevenly into the following four groups The unicellular forms, constituting a unique phylum; a The pluricellular beings containing two germ layers in the embryo [The external layer ectodern and the internal layer endodern ] , these gave birth to three phyla; b The pluricellular beings with three germ layers [The first two layers plus a third mesodern interposed between the two others] but containing only one cavity, these accounted for six phyla.

Nevertheless, the gaps in our knowledge of the transitions from one of these groups to another are very wide indeed. In the case of the insects, one of the most important groups, we know nothing whatsoever of their origins P. Grasse Likewise, there are no fossils left to indicate the beginnings of the various phyla. This statement should figure at the beginning of any book dealing with evolution.

Since we have no firm documentary evidence; statements on the origins of the phyla can only be suppositions, opinions whose degree of feasibility we have no way of measuring.

Grasses observation on the phyla should caution any statement on the origins of the major basic divisions. From this point of view, the determining causes of the phenomena in question are just as mysterious as the birth of the most rudimentary life forms. The Concept of Evolution in the Animal Kingdom: The Difficulty of Solving the Problem It is difficult to say at what period prior to the nineteenth century the question of evolution in the animal kingdom was first raised.

In the centuries before Christ, several Greek philosophers had already perceived that the living world was subject to transformations. Observers coming after them sometimes displayed startling flashes of intuitive insight. Inevitably, however, their conclusions arose from philosophical ideas or pure speculations. The fact that they later proved to be correct, although the product of sheer guesswork; does not lend any particular value to these early philosophical concepts.

Indeed, we should always bear in mind that during the same period, the same philosophers maintained totally inaccurate theories with complete equanimity: the theories concerning the existence of the universe in an identical state throughout eternity, for example.

In , however, Lamarck became the very first naturalist to put forward the idea of evolution.. For the rest of his life, Lamarck collected arguments to support his theory. He compares present day animals with fossilized remains, demonstrating the existence of extinct species. Cuvier's study does not, however, support the idea of evolution. Lehmann suggests the following reason for this: Cuvier thought that the fossils in question could not be older than the maximum figure of several millennia allotted by the Bible to the earth and the animal kingdom.

Because, for example, the Egyptian mummy of an ibis did not indicate that a change had taken place in today's animal, evolution did not exist. In , Darwin introduced the idea of the natural selection of species, and it was not long before others attributed to Darwin's theory the general concept of evolution. It did not appear until the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species, and even then it was used more as a general denial of the fixity of the created species than an affirmation of Darwinian transformism proper.

Roger, we shall see that the true father of evolution is Lamarck even though his name is always associated with transformism , while Darwin is little more than a transformist even though he has always been considered the first naturalist firmly to introduce the idea of evolution.

Later on, we shall take a closer look at the ideas of both Lamarck and Darwin.

However that may be, the data provided by zoology and palaeontology combined clearly furnished firm arguments from which to approach the question at issue. Zoology strove to classify the different groups of orders, families, genera and species, basing its distinctions mainly on anatomy, physiology, and embryology. Palaeontology, on the other hand, ascertained or tried to ascertain at what periods in time life forms appeared similar to those of today, and at what periods beings now extinct first appeared then disappeared.

This is an important concept to remember, otherwise we run the risk of misinterpreting the information provided by palaeontology: For example, the discovery of certain fossil specimens in terranes dating from a precise geological age does not necessarily mean that these life forms were inexistent before or after the age in question.