You keep trying to make some tortuous point about how come someone on AB can know the Koran's take on embrylogy is based on the works of Galen et al. and the scientists quoted in your beloved article don't.
Firstly, go look it up. It's not secret knowledge. It's in books. In libraries. Just look up Galen's work on embryology. Since this predates the Koran by a great long time, this cannot be controversial, can it? It's not been retrospectively editted to discredit the Koran or what have you. So, read up on that, then compare to the Koran and NOTE ALL THE SIMILARITIES. It really is that simple. All it takes is the ability to read. It's no indication of special abilities on the part of anyone here that we can compare and contrast two texts. Even if you were to argue that there is no proof that the Koran is based on Galen, the fact remains that the ancient Greeks, very much not Muslims, managed to arrive at the same version of events, yet according to you, they would not have had Allah's divine revelation. So, it's just a take on the facts that it was possible to work out by observing and nothing more.
Read the embryology stuff in the Koran and tell us whether it is correct to state that sperm is produced halfway up the back near the kidneys. That's not really difficult science, is it? I don't think there's any controversy over where semen comes from.
I take it you are away that Keith L Moore refuses to even discuss embryology and the Koran, he's so embarrased about his involvement?
I take it you are also aware that the quotes on the page that you seem to think are so very convincing are not off the cuff endorsements of the Koran as they might be presented.
http://hss.fullerton.edu/comparative/islam.htm #Western%20Scholars%20Play