Labda tofautisho inapaswa kufanywa kati ya aina mbili za hoja zinazotolewa na Wanaatheisti Wapya. Tumejadili jinsi Wanaatheisti Wapya wanavyoshughulikia 'dhana ya Mungu' kama iliyokwisha kukanushwa na 'isiyoweza kusimama' mbele ya maelezo mapya ya Darwin. Kinyume chake, pia tumeona kukataliwa kwa dhana hii kwa msingi wa falsafa na wale wanaotofautisha kwa usahihi kati ya utaratibu wa mageuzi (evolution) na madai ya uwakala wa Mungu anayeongoza mchakato huo.

Perhaps distinction should be drawn between two kinds of arguments presented by New Atheists. We have discussed the New Atheist treatment of the ‘God hypothesis’ as disproved and ‘untenable’ in the face of new Darwinian explanations. Contrastingly, we have also witnessed philosophical rejection of this postulation by those who rightly differentiate between the evolution mechanism and the supposed agency of a deity who is guiding it.

Zaidi ya hayo, pia tulibaini tofauti ndogo lakini muhimu kati ya naturalism ya kimbinu (methodological naturalism) na naturalism ya kimetafizikia (metaphysical naturalism). Kwa ujumla, hili linazua swali: je, matokeo haya yanaweza kutumika kwa dini kwa ujumla, au dini yenyewe imekwisha kukanushwa kutokana na ushahidi huu mpya wa kisayansi?

Moreover, we also noted the subtle but important difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. Overall this begs the question; can these findings be generalised to religion in general or has religion itself been disproven in light of this new scientific evidence?

Christopher Hitchens anaandika:

Christopher Hitchens writes:

Dini imeishiwa na hoja. Shukrani kwa darubini na hadubini, haitoi tena maelezo ya jambo lolote muhimu. Zamani ilipokuwa ikiweza, kwa mamlaka yake kamili juu ya mtazamo wa dunia, kuzuia kuibuka kwa wapinzani, sasa inaweza tu kuzuia na kurudisha nyuma—au kujaribu kugeuza nyuma—maendeleo yanayopimika ambayo tumeyafanya (Hitchens, 2019, uk. 282).

Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard—or try to turn back—the measurable advances that we have made (Hitchens, 2019, p.282).

Dawkins claims "as a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise" (Dawkins, 2006, p.284). Grayling extends this from "fundamentalist" religion to all religion by suggesting "…Darwinism is not compatible with religion; the evidences of biological science are evidences against the presence of supernatural agency in the universe" (Grayling, 2014, p.113). Grayling also states that intelligent design is "creationism in disguise" (Grayling, 2014, p.109). Clearly, two separate arguments are defined here. Firstly, an argument against the "God hypothesis", as previously discussed. The second argument concerns religion. To what extent, though, has religious and scientific discourse been entangled according to individuals who take such discourses seriously? This of course is a big question to which there is no simple answer. In what follows I will outline the main approaches that both Muslim and Christian scholars have taken when answering these questions. Dawkins anasema: "Kama mwanasayansi, mimi ninapinga dini ya msimamo mkali kwa sababu inaharibu kwa vitendo shughuli ya kisayansi" (Dawkins, 2006, uk. 284). Grayling anaipanua hoja hii kutoka dini ya "msimamo mkali" hadi dini zote kwa kupendekeza: "…Udarwin hauendani na dini; ushahidi wa sayansi ya viumbe hai ni ushahidi dhidi ya kuwepo kwa nguvu ya kimungu katika ulimwengu" (Grayling, 2014, uk. 113). Grayling pia anasema kwamba muundo wa busara (intelligent design) ni "uumbaji uliojificha" (Grayling, 2014, uk. 109). Wazi kabisa, hapa zimebainishwa hoja mbili tofauti. Kwanza, hoja dhidi ya "dhana ya Mungu", kama ilivyojadiliwa awali. Ya pili inahusu dini. Hata hivyo, mchanganyiko wa mijadala ya kidini na ya kisayansi umefikia kiwango gani, kwa mujibu wa watu wanaozichukulia mijadala hiyo kwa uzito? Hili ni swali kubwa bila jibu rahisi. Katika yanayofuata nitaeleza mbinu kuu ambazo wasomi wa Kiislamu na wa Kikristo wamechukua katika kujibu maswali haya.

On this point, Dawkins claims ‘as a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.284). Grayling furthers this from ‘fundamentalist’ religion to all religion by suggesting ‘…Darwinism is not compatible with religion; the evidences of biological science are evidences against the presence of supernatural agency in the universe’ (Grayling, 2014, p.113). Grayling also states that intelligent design is ‘creationism in disguise’ (Grayling, 2014, p.109). Clearly, two separate arguments are defined here. Firstly, an argument against the ‘God hypothesis’, as previously discussed. The second argument concerns religion. To what extent, though, has religious and scientific discourse been entangled according to individuals who take such discourses seriously? This of course is a big question to which there is no simple answer. In what follows I will outline the main approaches that both Muslim and Christian scholars have taken when answering these questions.

Katika mapokeo ya Kikristo na ya Kiislamu, maandiko ya kidini yametafsiriwa kwa njia mbalimbali. Wakati akijadili falsafa ya kale ya Kiyahudi, David Shatz anatofautisha kati ya uwiano wa kawaida (modest concordism) na uwiano wa kijasiri (bold concordism). Ya kwanza huruhusu maandiko kupatanishwa na sayansi, ilhali ya pili inadhani kwamba maandiko yana mafundisho ya moja kwa moja ya sayansi. Ingawa haiwezekani kujumlisha mbinu zote za ufasiri wa Biblia, mbinu tatu zinajitokeza wazi. Ya kwanza ni mbinu ya uwiano wa kawaida unaofanya fasiri za kimfano (allegorising approach), ambayo inasisitiza asili ya kimfano ya simulizi la Mwanzo. Kwa kuwa mistari hiyo ni ya kimfano, inaweza kusemwa kwamba theolojia haiwezi kupanua mafundisho kuhusu mageuzi (evolution) au nadharia ya Mlipuko Mkubwa (Big Bang cosmology). Ingawa mbinu hii ina msingi wa kifasiri tangu kipindi cha baba wa kanisa (patristic period), hasa kutoka shule ya Alexandria, mara nyingi hukabiliwa na changamoto. Changamoto hizo, ambazo ziko nje ya upeo wa makala hii, zinahusu kuamua ni mistari ipi inaweza au isiweze kufasiriwa kimfano.

In both Christian and Muslim traditions, religious scriptures have been interpreted in a variety of ways. While discussing ancient Jewish philosophy, David Shatz differentiates between modest and bold concordism. The former allows scriptural reconciliation with science, whereas, the latter assumes ‘positive teaching’ of science in a scripture. Though one cannot generalise approaches to Biblical exegesis, three approaches to the Bible stand out. The first is a modest concordist allegorising approach which emphasises the allegorical nature of the Genesis account. Since the verses are allegorical, it may be argued, theology cannot expand on evolution or Big Bang cosmology. Though this approach has exegetical precedent from the patristic period (most notably from the Alexandrian school), it is often met with challenges. Such challenges, which are beyond the scope of this paper, relate to deciding which verses may or may not be allegorised.

Njia ya pili ni njia ya kimaandiko yenye msimamo wa kutolinganisha na sayansi (literalist non-concordist approach). Inapotumiwa kwenye Biblia, haihitaji kuzalisha dhana ya uumbaji wa umri mdogo (young-age creationist), kwa kuwa hata baadhi ya Mababa wa Kanisa wa mwanzo, kama Augustino (ambaye hatumii mara nyingi tafsiri ya kialegoria), huenda hawakuyachukulia siku zilizo katika simulizi la Mwanzo kuwa za kawaida (Brooke, 2012, uk. 8). Hata hivyo, usomaji wa kimaandiko wa Mwanzo una changamoto zake za 'kisayansi' na kihistoria, ikiwa ni pamoja na tafsiri ambazo zina msingi katika Mababa wa Kanisa na zama za kati, na ambazo zinaonyesha kwamba umri wa ulimwengu ni miaka elfu sita. Njia hii si ya kutolinganisha kutoka mtazamo wake yenyewe, kwani inafafanua 'sayansi' na michakato yake kwa namna tofauti na mbinu za kawaida za falsafa ya sayansi. Ken Ham, mfuasi wa dhana ya umri mdogo wa uumbaji, anagawanya sayansi katika aina mbili: 'ya kuchunguza' (observational) na 'ya kihistoria' (historical). Aina ya pili huathiriwa sana na tafsiri za kibinadamu, na pale panapotokea mgongano, usomaji wa wazi wa maandiko ndio unapaswa kutangulizwa (Ham, 2013, uk. 45-55). Wafuasi wa mtazamo huu hurejea mbinu ya kinasaba (genealogical) katika Mwanzo 5.

The second approach is the literalist non-concordist approach which, when applied to the Bible, does not need to produce a young-age creationist conception as even some patristic Church Fathers like Augustine (who is infrequent in his allegorisation) may not have considered the days in the Genesis account to be literal (Brooke, 2012, p.8). Nevertheless, a literal approach to Genesis has its own set of ‘scientific’ and historical challenges including interpretations, which have patristic and medieval precedent, and which indicate the universe’s age as six thousand years old. This approach is not non-concordist from its own perspective, as it defines ‘science’ and its processes in ways that differ from classical approaches of philosophy of science. Ken Ham, a Young Age Creationist, divides science into ‘observational’ and ‘historical’ types, the latter of which is highly subject to human interpretation, and where conflict exists, the plain reading of the text must take precedence (Ham, 2013, p.45-55). Proponents of this view refer to a genealogical approach to Genesis 5

...ambayo huongeza miaka kutoka kizazi kimoja hadi kingine, na hivyo kuhitimisha kwamba ulimwengu una umri wa takriban miaka elfu sita; tazama The Chronology of the Old Testament ya Floyd Nolen Jones. Mtazamo huu unaweza kuainishwa kama wa kukataa, kwa sababu unakataa sayansi inayokubalika kwa wengi.

which adds up the years from one generation to another, thereby concluding the universe is approximately six thousand years old; see Floyd Nolen Jones’s The Chronology of the Old Testament. One can categorise this perspective as rejectionist, on account of its rejecting popularly accepted science.

Njia ya tatu, iliyopata umaarufu hivi karibuni kupitia watu kama Dkt. Hugh Ross, ni mbinu ya "bold concordist" ya kiliteral, ambayo inalenga kuthibitisha jinsi jambo la kisayansi, kama vile Mlipuko Mkubwa (Big Bang), linavyofundishwa katika maandiko. Kwa hiyo, mbinu hii kimsingi ni mbinu ya uumbaji wa Zama za Kale ya kiliteral, lakini ambayo kwa uhakika inasimama katika hatua ya mageuzi ya binadamu (Ross et al., 2001, p.11).

A third approach, popularised recently by the likes of Dr. Hugh Ross, is a ‘bold concordist’ literalist approach which aims to establish how scientific phenomenon, like the Big Bang, is taught in scripture. Accordingly, such an approach is essentially a literalist Old Age creationist approach but one which crucially stops at the point of human evolution (Ross et al., 2001, p.11).

Kama wasomi wa kipindi cha wazee wa kanisa, kama Origen na Augustine waliotajwa hapo juu, wasomi wa mwanzo wa Kiislamu nao walikuwa wakati mwingine wazi kabisa katika kujaribu kulinganisha maandiko na sayansi, wakifanya hivyo kwa unyenyekevu na pia kwa ujasiri mkubwa.

Much like scholars in the patristic period, like Origen and Augustine mentioned above, early Islamic scholars were also occasionally noticeably concordist, both modestly and boldly.

Hata hivyo, wawakilishi wa madhehebu makuu ya kiitikadi, kama Ibn Taymiyyah (kwa Mahanbali) na Al-Ghazali (kwa Maashariy), walifasiri aya zinazorejelea ulimwengu wa kimwili kwa maana ya moja kwa moja (Qadhi na Khan, 2018). Wanafalsafa, au ‘falasifa’, ambao uwakilishi wao mkuu ni Ibn Sina (kama Origen wa Aleksandria, ingawa labda kwa kiwango kidogo cha wazi), walipendelea kufasiri kwa mafumbo aya ambazo zilionekana kutolingana na elimu ya ulimwengu ya wakati huo, kama alivyofanya kuhusu nadharia ya mbingu kumi zinazozunguka (Qadhi na Khan, 2018).

Nevertheless, representatives of major creedal schools of thought, like Ibn Taymiyyah (for the Hanbalis) and AlGhazali (for the Asharis), would interpret verses which reference the physical world in a literal manner (Qadhi and Khan, 2018). The falasifa or ‘the philosophers’ most prominently represented by Ibn Sina (like Origen of Alexandria – though perhaps less flagrantly) would prefer allegorising verses which appeared to not correspond with the cosmologies of the day as he did with the theory of ten celestial spheres (Qadhi and Khan, 2018).

Ingawa kazi za Ibn Sina na za wanafalsafa (al-falāsifa) zimesalia hadi leo, mapendeleo yao ya kitafsiri yamepuuzwa kwa kiasi kikubwa, hasa baada ya mashambulizi makali ya Al-Ghazali katika kitabu chake maarufu *The Incoherence of the Philosophers* na ya Ibn Taymiyyah baada ya *A Response to the Greek Logicians*. Katika kazi hizo, Ibn Sina alitangazwa kuwa ametoka katika Uislamu, na ingawa Ibn Rushd (Averroes) alikanusha baadhi ya mambo haya katika *The Incoherence of the Incoherence*, ulimwengu wa Waislamu wa Kisunni ulionekana kuwa tayari umeshaamua juu ya jambo hilo.

Though Ibn Sina and the falasifa’s work has survived to the modern day, their exegetical preferences have become practically disregarded particularly after the scathing attacks of both Al-Ghazali in his famous work The Incoherence of the Philosophers and Ibn Taymiyyah following A Response to the Greek Logicians. In such works, Ibn Sina was ex-communicated from Islam and though Ibn Rushd (Averroes) refuted aspects of this in his The Incoherence of the Incoherence, the Sunni-Muslim world appeared to have already decided on the matter.

Matokeo ya mwisho ya maendeleo haya ya kihistoria ni kwamba tafsiri ya kiishara ya simulizi za kihistoria au aya zenye maana za kimaumbile ilizuiliwa katika vipengele vya kiitikadi tu, yaani kutaja "kiti cha enzi" (Arsh) cha Allah na majina na sifa zake, jambo ambalo limekuwa na utata mkubwa miongoni mwa Maashariya, Mahanbali, Mamaturidi, Mamutazila, Mashia Ithnaashariya na madhehebu mengine yasiyojulikana sana. Wafasiri wa Qur'ani kutoka karibu madhehebu yote haya ya kiitikadi wanakubali uhusiano wa moja kwa moja wa aya za kimaumbile na "ulimwengu halisi". Hasa, wanajumuisha wafasiri wa madhehebu kama Fakhr al-Deen al-Raazi (Mashariya), Ibn Kathiir (Mhanbali wa kiitikadi), al-Zamakhshari (Mmutazila) na Abu Jafar al-Tusi (Mshia). Ingawa wafasiri hawa walijadili thamani ya kiishara ya aya, karibu hakuna hata mmoja wao aliyefikia kile ambacho Ibn Sina au Origen walikuwa tayari kufanya; yaani, kupunguza aya hizo kuwa aina ya sababu za asili (aetiology), na kuondoa thamani yake ya kimaana ya moja kwa moja.

The net result of this historical development was that allegorising historical narratives or verses of naturalistic significance were limited to creedal aspects of referencing Allah’s ‘throne’ (Arsh) and his names and attributes which is notably controversial among Ashari’s, Hanbalis, Maturidis, Mutazili’s, Shia Twelvers and other less well known schools. Quranic exegetes from virtually all of these creedal schools accept the literal correspondence of naturalistic verses with the ‘real world’. Perhaps most notably including exegetes of schools such as Fakhr al Deen al Razi (an Ashari), Ibn Kathir (creedal Hanbali), Al-Zamakhshari (A Mutazli) and Abu Jafar al Tusi (A Shia). Though such exegetes discussed the verses’ symbolic value, virtually none of them achieved what Ibn Sina or Origen were willing to do; namely reduce the verses to a form of aetiology, stripping it of its literal value.

Pamoja na kutengwa kwa kiitikadi kwa tafsiri ya kimfano ya wanafalsafa (al-falāsifa), mbinu maarufu za kitafsiri za Kiislamu kuhusu aya za kimaumbile zinaweza kugawanywa kwa urahisi katika aina tatu: muafaka wa kijasiri (bold concordism), muafaka wa kiasi (modest concordism), na ukataaji wa sayansi ya kisasa. Kama ilivyo kwa scholarship na utetezi wa Kikristo, makundi haya si ya kudumu, kwani msomi au mtetezi anaweza kuwa mkataaji katika muktadha mmoja lakini asiwe katika mwingine.

With the creedal exclusion of the falasifa’s allegorical exegesis, popular Islamic exegetical approaches to naturalistic verses can be easily divided into three types: bold concordism, modest concordism and modern science rejection. As with Christian scholarship and apologetics, these categories are not fixed as a scholar or apologist may be rejectionist in one context and not in another.

Dkt. Zakir Naik ni mwakilishi maarufu zaidi wa mbinu ya Bold concordist literalist katika ulimwengu wa lugha ya Kiingereza. Katika utafiti wa mwaka 2017, video za mtandaoni 1006 zilibainishwa kwenye YouTube zikiwa na maneno ‘Islam’ na ‘science’ pamoja, na mzungumzaji mwenye kiwango cha juu zaidi cha maudhui alikuwa Zakir Naik (Gardner et al., 2018, uk. 358). Kama Dkt. Hugh Ross, Naik anaonyesha kwamba Qur'an inafundisha kwamba Mlipuko Mkubwa (Big Bang) ulitokea, na pia kama Ross, Naik haukubali mageuzi ya binadamu kwa sababu yanapingana na usomaji wa wazi wa maandiko (Gardner et al., 2018, uk. 385). Hoja za kisayansi za Naik zinafanana karibu kabisa na zile za Dkt. Maurice Bucaille, aliyeandika kitabu cha mabishano kiitwacho The Bible, Quran and Science, kikihoji kwa nguvu kwamba Biblia haiendani na sayansi katika masuala yanayohusu elimu ya ulimwengu (cosmology), jiolojia na gharika ya Nuhu, ilhali Qur'an inaendana na masuala hayo (Bucaille na Fahim, 1977, uk. 96-143; Bucaille na Fahim, 1977, uk. 152-157). Mbinu hii mpya ya kuhubiri/kujitetea kwa Uislamu (inayoitwa i‘jaz ilmi kwa Kiarabu) hata ilisababisha viongozi wa dini wa Kisalafi nchini Saudi Arabia kuanzisha kamati ya Miujiza ya Kisayansi ya Qur'an na Sunnah (Dallal, 2010, uk. 171).

Dr. Zakir Naik is the most popular representative of the Bold concordist literalist approach in the English-speaking world. In a 2017 study, 1006 online videos were identified with the terms ‘Islam’ and ‘science’ together on YouTube, and the speaker with the highest output was Zakir Naik (Gardner et al., 2018, p.358). Like Dr. Hugh Ross, Naik indicates that the Quran teaches that the Big Bang occurred, and also like Ross, Naik doesn’t accept human evolution because of its contradiction with the plain reading of the text (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385). Naik’s scientific arguments are almost identical to those of Dr. Maurice Bucaille who wrote a polemic book titled The Bible, Quran and Science effectively arguing that the Bible is incongruent to science on matters related to cosmology, geology and Noah’s flood whereas the Quran is in line with such matters (Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, p.96-143; Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, 152-157). This novel evangelising/apologetic Islamic approach (termed the Ijaaz Ilmi approach in Arabic) even prompted Salafist clergy members in Saudi Arabia to start a committee on the Scientific Miracles of the Quran and Sunnah (Dallal, 2010, p.171).

Hata hivyo, mbinu hii ilikosolewa kwa kutumia ufafanuzi wa kuweka maana zako mwenyewe kwenye maandishi (eisegesis) na sayansi bandia, hasa katika masuala yanayohusu nadharia ya Darwin na mageuzi (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385).

However, this approach was criticised for employing eisegesis and pseudo-science, especially regarding issues relating to Darwinism and evolution (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385).

Akikosoa mbinu hii, Ahmed Dallal anasema:

Criticising this approach, Ahmed Dallal states:

Wakati Waislamu walikuwa wazalishaji wakuu wa sayansi duniani, hawakuhubiri kuunganisha sayansi na dini. Sasa, kwa mshangao, wakati ushiriki wa Waislamu katika uzalishaji wa utamaduni wa kimataifa wa sayansi unapopungua, wao ndio wanaotaka kuzikutanisha hizo mbili (Dallal, 2010, p.170).

When Muslims were the main producers of science in the world, they did not advocate wedding science and religion. Now, ironically, when Muslim participation in the production of the universal culture of science is dwindling, they call for bringing the two together (Dallal, 2010, p.170).

Mbinu ya pili ya wanaokataa haikatai matukio yote ya kisayansi, bali inakataa tu yale yanayoonekana kupingana na mapokeo ya tafsiri (tafsir) au na maandiko yaliyo wazi. Mfano bora wa hili ni nadharia ya mageuzi ya binadamu, ambayo inachukuliwa kuwa haioani na maana halisi ya Qur'ani (Qadhi na Khan, 2018). Kwa bahati mbaya, kinachokosekana sana katika mjadala (kutoka kwa wanaoitwa Wapya wa Kutoamini Mungu na kutoka kwa wanatheolojia wanaojaribu kuwajibu) ni mjadala wenye maana wa falsafa ya sayansi. Kwa mfano, kinadharia, na katika kutofautisha kati ya naturalism ya kimbinu na naturalism ya kimetafizikia, inaweza kupendekezwa kwamba Waislamu na Wakristo wanaoshikilia maoni yanayoweza kupingana na mageuzi ya binadamu (au mfumo mzima wa Darwin) wanachukua mtazamo wa kiutendaji (instrumentalist) badala ya mtazamo wa kiuhalisia (realist). Kwa kuwa uinstrumentalism hauhitaji kuamini ukweli halisi wa nadharia ya kisayansi, Waislamu na Wakristo wanaweza kukubali uhalali wa mfumo wa Darwin (hata kukubali maendeleo yake ndani ya nafasi zao wenyewe).

The second rejectionist approach does not oppose all scientific phenomena, only those deemed contrary to exegetical precedent or clear text. This is best exemplified by the theory of human evolution which is considered incompatible with literal Quranic meanings (Qadhi and Khan, 2018). Unfortunately, much of what has been missing from the discourse (from New Atheists and theologians who attempt to counter them) is a meaningful engagement with scientific philosophy. For example, theoretically, and when differentiating between methodological and metaphysical naturalisms, it may be suggested that Muslims and Christians who adopt views which may contradict human evolution (or the entire Darwinian enterprise) adopt an instrumental view rather than a realist view. Since instrumentalism does not necessitate believing the literal truth of scientific theory, Muslims and Christians can accept the validity of the Darwinian model (even allowing advances in it within their spaces)

bila ya kuhitaji kuamini mageuzi ya homo sapiens (kwa mfano) kutoka kwa hominidi nyingine.

without needing to believe in the evolution of homo-sapiens (for example) from other hominids.

Kwa hiyo, mageuzi ya Darwin yanaweza kutumika kama mwongozo wa kusaidia (heuristic) wa kufikiri, kama ramani ya Underground ya London; ingawa ina manufaa makubwa, haipimwi kwa usahihi wa kiwango halisi. Kwa sababu hiyo, vikwazo vya maendeleo ya kisayansi vinaweza kupunguzwa. Tahadhari mbili zinapaswa kutolewa hapa. Kwanza, ikiwa njia hii itakubaliwa, madai (yaliyotolewa na Ross na Naik, kwa mfano) kwamba nadharia ya Big Bang inafundishwa waziwazi na Qur'an au Biblia lazima yalainishwe angalau hadi msimamo wa wastani wa kulinganisha (modest concordist).

Accordingly, Darwinian evolution can act as a useful heuristic, like a London Underground map; though highly useful is not properly to scale. Consequently, inhibitions to scientific progress can be mitigated. Two caveats must be made here. Firstly, if this approach is adopted, claims (made by Ross and Naik for example) that the Big Bang theory is explicitly taught by the Quran or Bible must be softened at least to a modest concordist position.

Pili, huenda ikawa vigumu kubishana (kwa msingi wa kiutendaji) kwamba umri wa ulimwengu kuwa miaka bilioni kumi na nne ni 'muundo' (model), kwa kuwa ni dai la kihistoria badala ya muundo.

Secondly, it may be difficult to argue (on instrumental grounds) that the age of the universe being fourteen billion years is a ‘model’, as it is a historical claim rather than a model.