In my opinion Zakir Naik is not at all a scholar. He is just a Munazira Baz. He tries to impress his listener by pretending that he has a sharp memory. His explanations are often flawed and references wrong. I quote a few examples in this regard (in 2007, I transcribed and edited his CDs in book form for Jahangir Publishers).
Download his book The Quran and Modern Science.(Download link is
http://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&so...3Z43-g&cad=rja I ll point mistakes in the first 6 pages of this book, ie, from pg 9 to pg 15. I left one mistake on page number 12 because it requires much detailed explanation
1- On page no 9, Zakir Naik wrote “According to the Big Bang, the whole universe was initially ONE BIG MASS (PRIMARY NEBULA). Then there was a Big Bang (secondry separation) which resulted in THE FORMATION OF GALAXIES. THESE THEN DIVIDED TO FORM STARS, PLANETS, THE SUN, THE MOON, ETC." (mistakes in capital)
But according to big bang, initially all the matter, energy and space of the universe was concentrated at a MATHEMATICAL POINT. Mathematical point has no mass and no volume and infinite density. So according to big bang universe was created from NOTHINGNESS and not from ONE BIG MASS. ( In fact no one has still able to calculate what happened at zero time T = 0)
2- As already stated, Naik said that after big bang first Galaxies were created followed by stars, planets, sun and moon.
Now this is wrong because after big bang first atomic particles (electron, proton, neutron ) came into being which join to form hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms then came together to form stars and stars came together due to gravitation to form galaxies.
3- In the same book pg no 10, Naik wrote: “ in early times people believed that the earth is flat. For centuries, men were afraid to venture out too far, lest they should fall off the edge. SIR FRANCIS DRAKE WAS THE FIRST PERSON WHO PROVED THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL WHEN HE SAILED AROUND IN 1597.
It is wrong to say that people in 15th century believed that earth is flat. Aristotle (340 BC) told that “earth is not flat like a plate but spherical like ball” and he also gave logics to support his argument.
4- Same book pg no 11, Naik wrote, “IT WAS BELIEVED BY EARLY CIVILIZATION THAT THE MOON EMANATES ITS OWN LIGHT”.
This is also not right … Aristotle knew that moon does not have its on light but reflects sunlight.
5- Same book same pg (no 11) Naik wrote, "The Arabic word for the sun in the Quran is Shams. It is referred to as Siraaj, which means a torch, or as Wahhaaj which means a blazing lamp or as diya which means shining glory. All three descriptions are appropriate to the sun, since it generates intense heat and light by its INTERNAL COMBUSTION".
Even a 10th grade student knows that the sun owes its heat and light not to combustion but fusion.
6- Same book pg no 15 Naik wrote, "The light of the sun is due to a CHEMICAL process on its surface"
well, well, well ... fusion is not at all a chemical process.
Also watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5q9...layer_embedded