Some muslims like to believe that their holy book contains scientific proofs which could not have been known in 7th century desert Arabia. It makes a much sense to say this is a fulfilled prophecy about the animated movie The Ant Bully.
The Qur’an, Surah 27 An-Naml, Verses 18 – 19:
“Till, when they came to the valley of the ants, one of the ants said: “O ants! Enter your dwellings, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you, while they perceive not. So he [Solomon] smiled, amused at her speech and said: “My Lord! Inspire and bestow upon me the power and ability that I may be grateful for Your Favors which You have bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may do righteous good deeds that will please You, and admit me by Your Mercy among Your righteous slaves.”
Science:
1. Basically all communication between ants is through chemical signals.
2. A few subspecies of ants which do use some sound communication. Although the use of vibrational signals is weakly developed in ants in comparison with communication by pheromones. Two forms of sound production have been identified, body rapping against the substratum and stridulation, the latter employing files and scrapers clearly evolved for a communicative purpose.
4. It has long been known that ants are nearly deaf to airborne vibrations but extremely sensitive to vibrations carried through the substratum.
5. Stridulation in ants produces a monotonous series of chirps with limited meaning. All evidence point to the chirps of stridulation as simple unitary signals. In other words, ants do not “talk” by modulating sound through time. Sounds do not appear to vary within species or within the repertory of one worker ant through time.
6. In all the intensive studies of ants, “speech” (modulated sound of complex meaning) has never been observed.
7. The signaling pattern is independent of the triggering stimulus. That is, the ants do not modify the drumming to identify the category of danger to the nest.
Conclusion:
The use of sound in a few subspecies of ants is not sufficient to account for the kind of talk that the ant of the Qur’an supposedly uttered.
A more rational perspective is adopted by Muslim commentator and translator Muhammad Asad. He claims:
“In this instance, Solomon evidently refers to his own understanding and admiration of nature (cf. 38:31-33 and the corresponding notes) as well as to his loving compassion for the humblest of God’s creatures, as a great divine blessing: and this is the Qur’anic moral of the legendary story of the ant.” (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 578, fn. 17)
The problem is the Qur’an nowhere implies that the talking ant story is a dream, vision, or fable. The surrounding context demonstrates that this is intended to be viewed as an actual historical event where animals have actual conversations with Solomon and with each other. The majority of Muslims throughout the centuries have viewed this story as an actual historical event, not simply a fable illustrating some moral truth (what truth I have no idea).
Was the Qur’an somehow hinting at the communications of the ants (as observed by science) in this story, a fact that could not have been known in the 7th century? Does belief in ants that talk like humans make him an expert entomologist? Is an ancient text that mentions talking ants is so incredible that it constitutes positive proof for the divine origin of that text? Then the Chinese legend of the goddess worshiper, and the collection of Æsop’s fables must be accepted as divine revelation too, since it makes the same statement more than 1000 years before the Qur’an. Even if it were true that ants are talking, the claim that this was unknowable in the 7th century would still be wrong since Æsop knew this already a millennium earlier, and the Chinese goddess religion also had this knowledge.
More likely all of these and similar stories have no more value than fairytale told to children at bedtime.