Part 3 of a 5 part video. This is some of the best low-rent propaganda I’ve seen for decades.
Harun Yahya – LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR HAS CONFIRMED ADNAN OKTAR’S VICTORY OVER DARWINISM
Below are a few passages from the report that serve as confessions of the defeat suffered by Darwinists. Expressions in the report such as “The greatest Creationist offensive ever,” “Panic in [Darwinist] education,” “Adnan Oktar is the leader of the most influential anti-evolution movement in the Muslim world,” “His deterrent force is impressive,” “terribly effective” and “There has never been such a great anti-Darwinist movement before”, are evidence of Darwinists’ and materialists’ helplessness and despair in the face of Mr. Oktar’s works. Another striking passage in the text reads, “If Creationist ideas are victorious in these lands of laic philosophy, THE STRUGGLE WILL BE WON. HIS GREAT DREAM OF PIOUS EUROPE WILL BE A REALITY…” The laic philosophy referred to here is not, of course, the laicism that respects all beliefs, and espouses freedom of ideas and both believers and atheists being freely able to express their ideas, of the kind supported by Adnan Oktar and all Muslims.
Much of this is explained in the commentary below:
Steve Jones, intrepid explorer of Darwin’s Island review | Non-fiction book reviews – Times Online
He is actually less angry, and less baffled, by the rise in creationism among his students, which he attributes with surprising certainty to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. Most of these students are Muslim, he explains, and “it’s an attempt to give themselves a stronger personal identity built around Islam”. If that sounds odd, it’s not half as odd as the multimillion-pound Islamic creationist campaign run by one Harun Yahya, whom Jones believes is behind the whole phenomenon. Yahya, based and formerly jailed in Turkey, is “a very sinister character” who has distributed tens of thousands of books on Islamic creationism at his own expense to spread the view that “if you believe in it you’re Islamic and if you don’t you’re anti- Islamic”. Which, Jones adds, “is completely potty because if you look at the Koran it says almost nothing about creation”.
You have to ask yourself one question. WHen will the radical Creationist Muslims join forces with the Christian Creationists to form a united anti-science front? It’s bound to happen.
related link:
Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar) site. Egomaniac? Or Great Marketing man?
#39 This is the basic problem”
“A hypothesis that can not be disproved becomes a theory;”
The hypothesis of evolution was incorrectly elevated to the status of theory. Now, the “scientific” community is saddled with something they have to defend that shouldn’t be there in the 1st place. And, people who have NO understanding of the scientific method jump on to the band wagon.
#39–HMyers==is yours only a philosophical point? We follow the gods until Newton, then Einstein, then Quantum Mechanics, then the Theory of Everything (sic).
There are no HOLES in evolution that you have identified. Things start simple, are modified/changed, compete, adapt. Complaining there is “no proof” at some spot along the way does not negate the theory–it only shows a lack of proof or indication at some point. Silly to confuse the two. But, lets “think” about it. Theories are only as good as they work. What other theory would you use instead? You look a bit foolish criticizing the completeness of evolution theory without advancing anything AT ALL to do a better job.
Do you understand the applicability of PRAGMATISM at all?
To any and all faults/weaknesses you identify/make-up==we all would consider another theory to fill the gap/eventually supercede evolution. In 150 years, it hasn’t happened. Pretty good track record I think.
#42 Again, you don’t understand the scientific method. Debunking a bad theory doesn’t include introducing a replacement theory as a prerequisite.
Theories aren’t defended by scientists, they are only attacked to be disproven. If you even run into someone trying to defend or prove a theory then, you have encountered a person who isn’t a scientist.
@Bobbo
“Complaining there is “no proof” at some spot along the way does not negate the theory”
There is more than no proof in the things I pointed out; there is not even any evidence.
Saying things “start simple and then evolve”, what does that mean? What is the process? How did this occur?
Evolution doesn’t need to explain the start because that isn’t in the scope of the theory.
But it certainly needs to explain how most simple organisms diversified into different kingdoms, classes and phyla.
Since it can’t do this, trying to apply evolution to these gaps isn’t science, it’s speculation.
HMyers–I could be wrong on this but isn’t the first or best evidence of the Big Bang that it was observed that all the matter of the universe could be SEEN expanding away from what would be a common point?
So–we can observe/measure the matter of the universe expanding “as if” from a common point==but we can’t “prove” what happened before we started observing.
Same with evolution. It is “accepted” as the best most logical explanation==not obviated by what it can’t explain before we started observing. It used to be said evolution failed to explain the evolution of whales. That gap “in the evidence” was filled==there never was a gap in the theory. Same with all your other gaps.
Paddy-Zero-Dumbshit==STFU.
@Bobbo
Support for the idea of the big bang is rather strong..
1. We have an observation limit of around 15 billion light years indicating that light has only had 15 billion years to travel, suggesting an age.
2. We have uniform background radiation.
3. All observation accounts of distant objects indicate a strong blueshift indicating they are moving away from us at great speeds.
4. Hydrogen is the dominant element in the universe; the ideas of how stars synthesize the heavier elements agrees with the spectrum of light emitted by stars.
5. There are very large trails of ionized hydrogen gas in the intergallactic medium left by the movement of galaxies.
Evolution makes a great deal of sense with what we see in recent history with fossil records and all the usual yada, yada with birds, speciation and all that good stuff.
But if you go back to the more primitive organisms it requires a huge leap of faith (religion sized) to try to use evolution to explain just how the hell certain radical and substantial biological changes occurred and the ideas start sounding as silly as using Noah’s Ark to plug the holes.
I think it would be far better if people quit using evolution as a tool to explain what it clearly does not explain, acknowledge the limits and refrain from using it as a belief system.
Instead, it get used a political tool by people who have some other agenda for an argument that doesn’t matter by people who don’t listen who don’t feel that evolution needs to be explained truthfully and honestly but taken on faith (sound familiar?) instead of questioned like all science should be about an issue in schools where kids aren’t paying attention anyway.
“Big Bang that it was observed that all the matter of the universe could be SEEN expanding away from what would be a common point?”
Actually, no. We are all at the common point.
The Big Bang is about inflation of space from a single point.
# 45 bobbo said, “HMyers–I could be wrong on this but isn’t the first or best evidence of the Big Bang that it was observed that all the matter of the universe could be SEEN expanding away from what would be a common point?”
Umm, no.
#46–HMyers==you say: “But if you go back to the more primitive organisms it requires a huge leap of faith…….” /// No. It just takes patience for the evidence to continue to mount.
Fatal to your errant insistence that the theory is less than perfect is to come up with an alternative theory. Very bad philosophy. We go with the best we have until something better comes along.
# 49 bobbo said, “Fatal to your errant insistence that the theory is less than perfect is to come up with an alternative theory.”
Really? No. That is not the scientific method.
#21 HMeyers wrote, “Scientific theories are judged by their ability to explain. Evolution does an insufficient job at explaining. Does it matter to you whether the critics are religious or not? If so, you are judging the messenger, not the message.”
I think it does matter when evolution’s critics are religious, although that alone doesn’t completely discredit their message. But it does matter because it is the strongest possible indicator of inherent bias, like when tobacco companies studied smoking to determine if it’s safe or harmful. A Creationist’s belief system will be torn asunder if any portion of their myth is proven false, so their criticisms of evolution often go well beyond pointing out the immaturity of the theory and its insufficiency to explain everything, as demanded by Creationists who ironically demand no evidence for their own beliefs.
In their criticisms, Creationists (some of them clergy) often stray well into the territory of blatant misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Then they hold those misrepresentations up to ridicule among their fellow believers as proof of how disingenuous evolution advocates are, and how advocates are using evolution as an excuse to deny God’s existence and his authority over their lives. These false accusations poison the discussion and also cloud their message in suspicion, just as we were rightfully suspicious when Philip Morris reported that no links between smoking and cancer could be concluded.
And because I’m writing this on Sunday morning, I can say almost unequivocally that this practice of misrepresentation and subsequent ridicule of evolution is taking place somewhere in America even as I write this. The link between the church and habitual misrepresentations of many types is rather conclusive, so try to resist the urge to believe your pastor when he tells you that man evolved from monkeys.
Of course I meant to say…
…try to resist the urge to believe your pastor when he tells you that EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM that man evolved from monkeys.
#50 Paddy-O
Really, yes. Seriously dude. Criticism, by itself, only works if the research methodology or statistical analysis is flawed.
You’re criticizing the theory as a whole. No problem, but at that level you must, at a minimum, propose a alternative testable hypothesis on a critical aspect of the theory which would lead to an alternate outcome.
Until you do that, it isn’t science. It is philosophy and that is a valuable discussion. The tools used in philosophy to analyze and argue do lead to critical thinking and are worth teaching to students.
@ Gary
“Creationists (some of them clergy) often stray well into the territory of blatant misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.”
Ironically, I was introduced the theory of evolution in 10th grade by a creationist biology teacher.
He started that day “Today I am going to present a theory that I disagree with but am required to teach.”
It may have been the only day I (and maybe others) really paid attention in class because I wanted to know about this controversial theory he didn’t agree with.
@ Bobbo
“Fatal to your errant insistence that the theory is less than perfect is to come up with an alternative theory.”
I have to come up with an alternate theory? Hehe, I had no idea such an obligation exists but here goes …
The early Earth was a warmer place with radioactive deposits on the surface.
The Earth spun much faster as it was much younger and a day with a mere 8 hours long.
The moon orbited much faster around the Earth acting a giant spoon stirring the oceans, with the radioactive stew assisted by cosmic rays (there was no ozone layer back then to stop ionizing radiation) baking our early microbes and creating several different varieties of life’s ancient microscopic ancestors.
Ironically, this may better describe the origin of early variations of microscopic organisms and I have presented just as much evidence as evolution (exactly none) for explaining how the most ancient life forms diverged into several severely different types.
@ Gary
“try to resist the urge to believe your pastor when he tells you that EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM that man evolved from monkeys.”
I’ve heard the rumors a superior species evolved from our common ancestors.
What happened to this species and where did they go?
#54–HMyers==weird combination of intelligent and stupid you got going there.
But cosmic rays causing genetic coding changes is a leading cause of mutation==leading to variability==upon which the environment selects. So–I’m not following your point at all, you are using one mechanism of change as proof that evolution about what happens after the change occurs as proof of its inadequacy?
Also telling you got your education from a creationist and here you are as an adult today speaking against one of the strongest theories/laws/facts of science. See any connection?
But yes, it is only being obnoxious to fault “anything” and not have something better in mind. Thats not part of the scientific process that Paddy-Zero can’t figure out==its part of engaging responsibly in social criticism and applies to any comments you wish to make.
You and Patty not following that little bit of custom is like not wearing shoes to a fashion ball–not the right thing to do.
HMeyers wrote “What happened to this species and where did they go?”
In an act befitting their superiority, they packed up and left for better digs. The grass is always greener on the other side of the galaxy
# 53 QB said, “You’re criticizing the theory as a whole. No problem, but at that level you must, at a minimum, propose a alternative testable hypothesis on a critical aspect of the theory which would lead to an alternate outcome.”
Umm, again, no. What you’re saying has nothing to do with science, theories or laws.
Nice opinion, but, irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
#58 Ha! Now you’re just trolling.
HMyers, I understand your skepticism and it sounds like you’ve thought about it a lot. I think the problems you bring up are amazingly difficult to study since most of them happened literally billions of years ago.
The thing that really saddens me the most is the story about your Creationist Grade 10 Science/Biology teacher saying “Today I am going to present a theory that I disagree with but am required to teach.”
Anyone who dislikes a subject they have supposedly devoted their life to teaching must have had a profoundly negative influence on their students. You deserved better.