I am currently in India and the Prime Minister recently gave a speech when he was opening a new hospital. He said that ancient Hindu texts contained knowledge of genetic science and plastic surgery.
Some Muslim evangelists claim that the Qur'an contains modern science on diverse subjects such as embryology, cosmology, geophysics, special relativity, water, and astronomy.
A popular website about that is here.
The Wikipedia page about this issue is worth reading. A detailed rebuttal of Islamic claims is here, including a detailed technical critique of the claim that the Qur'an contains the actual value speed of light. A related useful critique of Bucailleism is here, including a discussion of how it is rejected by many Muslim scholars.
I then discuss why I think each step of the argument is problematic.
Here R=Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, …
and T= Bible, Qu’ran, Mahabharata, …
2. W can be equated with a modern scientific concept C [e.g. genetics, big bang, …]
3. Therefore T contains modern scientific knowledge.
4. Scientific expert Dr. S agrees with claim 3.
5. T was written thousands of years ago before anyone knew about C.
6. It follows from 3. and 5. that God must have told the authors C.
7. Therefore, all of text T is “the word of God” and religion R is true.
8. Text T should be taught in school science classes.
9. You, the hearer or reader, should convert to religion R.
Some steps involve logical fallacies.
Examples include Christian young earth creationists claiming that “leviathan” in the book of Job is a dinosaur or Muslims claiming that “nutfah” [sperm-drop] is an embyro containing chromosomes.
It is a set a detailed mathematical equations that make quantitative predictions that can be [and have been] tested by detailed astronomical observations.
Even if one were to accept 2., this is far from the text T containing useful and detailed scientific knowledge.
An example, is Professor Joe Leigh Simpson. In a 2002 Wall Street Journal article, he explicitly states he has been mis-quoted. Nevertheless, Muslim apologists, web sites, and literature continue to mis-quote him.
In some cases I have checked them out and found they were not tenured faculty at the stated institution, but appear to have had some minor part-time teaching, research or technical or support role in the past. Furthermore, they do not have publications in relevant reputable international
peer-reviewed scientific journals.
If someone did a Ph.D in nuclear physics thirty years ago, and has since worked as an engineer, I fail to see how they are qualified to write authoritatively about biology.
Even brilliant experts can be wrong. Linus Pauling won two Nobel Prizes [Chemistry, Peace] but he was wrong about the structure of DNA, quasicrystals, and the therapeutic value of massive doses of vitamin C. On controversial issues, you can usually find equally qualified experts with opposite opinions. The only case where I think appeal to authority has some value is when there is an
overwhelming consensus among experts. For example, 97 per cent of climate scientists accept the evidence for human induced global warming.
Another example, is the fact that New Atheists cannot produce a single academic historian in a major university who believes that Jesus was not a historical figure.
Just because every swan I see is white does not mean there are no black swans in the world. When I read The Hindu newspaper I find that their reports of cricket scores are completely accurate. However, that does not mean I always believe their reporting of political events. Furthermore, the validity of the cricket scores certainly does not give the horoscopes credibility.
Suppose you ask for me to help you solve a mathematical problem and I do. That does not mean you should trust me for financial or relationship advice.
One needs to find alternative arguments to justify belief in a specific religion. Elsewhere, I have written why I believe the Gospel of Jesus is true.
On the other hand, some atheists point out the failure of these arguments and claim that justifies atheism. That is also a fallacy. If I present a faulty argument for Pythagorus theorem in geometry that does not establish that the theorem is false, just that my argument is wrong.