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?
So just what is the Muslim ‘Creationist’ belief? I’m familiar with the strains of Christian Creationism, but not the Muslim side. Its bound to be different, and could run counter to the Christian side. (They obviuosly don’t have Genesis, I’ll have to look this up)
Crazy agendas from the religious community are so common that it’s not even worth the debate.
Anything on the Islamic end of things are beyond crazy. They still stone woman there for crying out loud for not wearing a beekeeper outfit.
This has all the humor of a parody, but without an original. I love how they keep praising the high production values of the book. There was one especially proud quote calling it “the most gorgeous-looking attack on evolution seen in a long time.” Unless the full review gets a little more substantive than that, it sounds like a European reviewer that wanted to avoid the really touchy subject of critiquing a Muslim author’s work. Perhaps he preferred to note what lovely pages and binding the book has, rather than engaging more fully and risking street rioting from the religious faithful.
What surprised me about this video was it made it sound like Muslim attacks on evolution are something new. I thought they were a given. In any case, Christian Creationists must cringe to realize that they share their Creationist beliefs with Muslims. We’ll have to be sure and remind them occasionally 😉
#4–Gary==”In any case, Christian Creationists must cringe to realize that they share their Creationist beliefs with Muslims” /// Ummmm, they share the same god supposedly, just different prophets? Yea, same god but they would kill each other if given the chance. What a hoot===or maybe not since I read all about this in a book with a ripped cover and bad binding.
Not sure if that would happen, John, except in the loosest sense. Christians and Muslims have banded together to lobby for religious funding from governments, etc.
Regardless, no surprise that it’s attached to the Gaza conflict. Everything is blamed on Gaza: “If only Gaza wasn’t causing trouble-er, under attack, my students would actually be trying to learn something instead of choosing to believe in a flat earth circled by a winged rainbow dragon named Puff.”
It totally baffles me how people can fall for this type of propaganda so consistently and predictably. Shiny, pretty, wordy and expensive, it MUST be the truth. Sheeple! Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they are there to push out shit! And this is my turd!:-)
Bad news for the EU. 50 million+ Muslims live there…
“WHen will the radical Creationist Muslims join forces with the Christian Creationists to form a united anti-science front? ” – Recommended reading, Ben Bova SciFi books (one of his predictions for the near future).
This book sounds great. Where do I get a free copy?
I wonder exactly what government is paying for all these free copies. My guess? Saudi Arabia.
Through evolution hairless apes developed a large brain. Unfortunately, very little of it is used for rational thought.
#9, Smart,
People with science: penicillin, X_Rays, laparoscopic surgery, stents, and blood thinners.
People without science: prayer.
Some how it’s not comforting to know that this kind of idiocy is going on in Europe too.
Oh for those who wonder, the religion of Islam has god(yup same dude) creating every thing by just saying “make it so” and them putting adam & eve in a paradise sound familiar?
The Age of Endarkenment may soon be upon us. Don’t underestimate the power of large groups who think they have a lock on righteous behavior.
How long before they want to bring us up on heresy charges?
Maybe half of 1 percent of the population has detailed knowledge of cellular biology.
The rest of the 99.5% of the population doesn’t even have the foundation to understand evolution. Nor do they work in fields where this knowledge is needed or applied.
I think humans are suckers into getting drawn into yet another debate that means virtually nothing.
We worry about what people think as if it the answer means something.
Someone asked me recently what I thought about religion. My answer is was that my thoughts on the subject are rather unimportant and was does what I think have to do with anything.
Human vanity is believing our thoughts matters.
If someone can provide an example of an instance where popular culture mainstream beliefs changed the world, please provide an example.
In my experience, popular culture mainstream beliefs get rocked by reality on a regular basis.
#15–HMyers==the germ of seminal thought?
Thoughts are supposed to be important to YOU–not other people. Do you value your own thinking for yourself rather than what you can get out of other people?
Everything you see before you today is the result of someone talking to someone else, perhaps most importantly thru the medium of books, but talking none the less.
I suppose you define pop culture as those communications that don’t result in any changes, so, no I have no examples of pop culture changing anything.
@ bobbo
“Do you value your own thinking for yourself rather than what you can get out of other people?”
I value thinking as the machinery to create order and talking as the vehicle to facilitate action.
It is my belief that only falsehoods require followers, but no matter how many followers false never becomes true and black never becomes white.
And followers eventually fade or mellow out.
At the end of the proverbial day, truth wins by default and no investment need be made to make it so, nor is it fragile.
Evolution is either true or false.
If it is true, it doesn’t need any support and will eventually be conclusively demonstrated true like how the world has been conclusively proved to be round.
If it is false, even an infinite amount of popular culture support will not sustain it.
But the actual answer could be somewhere in the middle (hello panspermia!). If so, any debate framed in a true vs. false context is based on a bad premise.
@bobbo
Btw ..
Have you ever seen the molecular structure of chlorophyll?
I have an extremely hard time imagining such a molecule “naturally” arising even in the span of a billion years.
Yet the ecosystem of the entire world is almost exclusively dependent on it.
I believe in evolution but recognize that this in itself is very insufficient to explain life on this planet.
So I firmly believe debates between creationists and evolutions are insane. I believe they are both wrong and it is a very stupid argument.
An for extra credit:
The current state of evolution has a very hard time explaining:
1. How did single cell organisms evolve into multicellular organisms?
2. Why are plant cells, animal cells, fungus and bacteria cells so different in internal structure?
3. How did sexual reproduction involving a ton of chromosomes evolve from asexual reproduction?
4. The first life appeared to occur very early on Earth, only a few hundred million years later by many accounts. How did sustainable organisms evolve so quickly from whatever original and more primitive ancestors?
Evolution doesn’t have answers to these questions so it is at best a very immature theory that can only describe recent history (the last several hundred million years).
And yet some people would have educated people unquestionably believe this theory is perfect and we should bow down at the shrine of this imperfect theory.
HMyers==well, “I think” your initial question and your followup reveal yourself to be just a tad stuck in “certainties.” Things are black or white for you. Thats a world view with pros and cons==just as all the others.
I think everything truly is “definitional.” Define the words, the thoughts differently and the options change. Never think about an issue without defining your terms–think it thru to conclusions or initial thoughts. THEN==CHANGE YOUR DEFINITIONS and do it again. Thats what I call thinking. Other less repetitive processes is more aregurgitation process. In a blog, one gets one or two iterations out before fatigue, boredom, or a sense of futility sets in, so communication of real idea/thinking/the process thereof is limited. Regurgitators have great sway.
I’m not a scientist, just a casual reader, but to your followup:
Have you ever seen the molecular structure of chlorophyll? /// Sure, high school and college chemistry/microscope work. No direct recall of it though. Still looking for a good USB microscope to play with==everything has to be computer connected these days.
I have an extremely hard time imagining such a molecule “naturally” arising even in the span of a billion years. /// Thats says something ONLY about your imagination, and nothing about evolution. Read more science fiction to exercise those lobes?
Yet the ecosystem of the entire world is almost exclusively dependent on it. /// “almost?” why the hesitancy? I thought certain bacteria were not dependent on chlorophyll at all? That being the case, I could see quite complex organisms evolving without use of the sun although perhaps never a backbone?
I believe in evolution but recognize that this in itself is very insufficient to explain life on this planet. /// Again, why the hesitancy–what contests the logic? I find just the opposite. No other explanation but evolution is very satisfying. It all starts with the big bang, super nova forming heavier elements, elements combining into molecules, molecules interacting with the environment leading to life. I think life evolves thru various mechanisms. Its that black and white thinking trying to or being concerned with “the one way.” No need for that, no concern about the unknowns and uncertainties.
So I firmly believe debates between creationists and evolutions are insane. I believe they are both wrong and it is a very stupid argument. /// Both wrong is illogical. The insanity of religion contesting the pragmatism/demonstrability of science does not equate them.
Don’t be silly. I feel “refreshed.” Thanks.
“The insanity of religion contesting the pragmatism/demonstrability of of science does not equate them.”
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.
Gosh, I love extra credit. Often did poorly answering the extra credit questions and failing to finish the exams!! ((Oh No!!!))
Again, I’m no scientist, but my response just to honor your effort:
An for extra credit:
The current state of evolution has a very hard time explaining:
1. How did single cell organisms evolve into multicellular organisms? /// The sum of human knowledge is doubling every x years and is accelerating? There is a “natural” evolution from simple to more complex. We know it happened because we started with the big bang, and here we are today talking to one another. No other explanation is as complete. I could google, but for now I’ll guess there are several theories and you just find them unpersuasive? I cold easily see that “life” is defined (DEFINED!!) as that which reproduces. I can easily imagine something reproducing and then somehow generation Number Two got stuck to Number One—and we are off and running.
2. Why are plant cells, animal cells, fungus and bacteria cells so different in internal structure? /// Because the evolved for different activities? or–you are wrong because they share many similarities? Cell Walls, Nucleus, Chromosomes, Mitochondria etc? Don’t all live things metabolize sugar the same way etc?
3. How did sexual reproduction involving a ton of chromosomes evolve from asexual reproduction? /// I thought that was a modification of part of one chromosome? The x-y pairing? Initially a defect in copying a chromosome for asexual reproduction that proved advantageous in the environment? Maybe the first 3,000 examples died before the modification even took hold? Who knows exactly how, and does it matter except for those who wish to manipulate it? Again==Big Bang to Us. Had to happen. I can’t imagine not imagining it.
4. The first life appeared to occur very early on Earth, only a few hundred million years later by many accounts. How did sustainable organisms evolve so quickly from whatever original and more primitive ancestors? /// You are completely “presuming” speed here. Why assume it should be slower or faster==based on what?
Evolution doesn’t have answers to these questions so it is at best a very immature theory that can only describe recent history (the last several hundred million years). /// What kind of storybook tale do you want? How exact does it have to be? How much variation and chance can you tolerate? What indeed are the alternatives? You can’t “prove” what happened in the past. TV show nature had a show last month about dog evolution and how “it is difficult to believe the Wolf could be domesticated in so short a time.” Then they took foxes and started to breed for submissiveness and got a submissive dog like fox in about 5-6 generations. UNBELIEVABLE!! it was so fast. Seems that in certain species the genes are interlinked in a way that breeding for one thing gets you a cascade of other changes that in the case of domestication of certain breeds is very desired by man.
If in a laboratory they could show how to get one cell to reproduce and then stick together and then to sexually reproduce==that would show one way how it “can” happen. Evolution would still not explain how it “did” happen.
And yet some people would have educated people unquestionably believe this theory is perfect and we should bow down at the shrine of this imperfect theory. /// Count me in that group – – – -until a better explanation comes along?
You aren’t being “honest” about something.
#21–Better than arguing with Geraldo:
Scientific theories are judged by their ability to explain. /// Correct and by that measure, evolution (actually the Theory of Evolution by natural selection as evolution itself is an observable fact) is one of the very best. Few theories explain as much or are as predictive–another feature of a good theory.
Evolution does an insufficient job at explaining. /// I disagree -or- give it a few more years -or- what alternative do you recommend.
Does it matter to you whether the critics are religious or not? /// No, only if the criticism is.
So HMyers–you post you “believe” in evolution but then list all its faults and that it fails the test of a good theory. Which is it? You could also define (DEFINE!!) a (true) theory as something that works given certain parameters. Eg–evolution works in explaining why we need a different flu vaccine each year, as prayer never works for anything. One is functional, the other not. One a theory, the other religion.
HMyers, I think you’re looking for the wrong type of “proof”. Try math, but avoid Paul Cohen’s work, it’s the sort of thing that would drive you crazy. 😀
And I would add: define proof in several different ways and follow the line of thinking to its conclusion. Compare and contrast. Apply. Come up with something better.
Proof in math is one thing but I don’t think that diminishes the “proof” of a different sort that exists in non-math pursuits. I’m not a scientist, and not an academic==but I strive to be pragmatic, a kind of proof in itself.
HMeyers. You have nailed the main weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution. Obviously it is an incomplete theory.
Some people who adhere religiously to it, attack ALL who question the holes and label them as religious fundamentalists (whether they have a religion or not).
“Cell Walls, Nucleus, Chromosomes, Mitochondria etc?”
Cell walls only occur in plants and are rigid, the rest only have cell membranes which are soft like soap bubbles.
Blue-green algae have no nucleus.
Now we gone full circle back to my post #15
“Maybe half of 1 percent of the population has detailed knowledge of cellular biology.
The rest of the 99.5% of the population doesn’t even have the foundation to understand evolution.”
You are certainly an intelligent person, but real science is achieved by years of hard work, experimentation and observation and reproducing results.
Not by 2 groups of uneducated people that really don’t know what they are talking about arguing over a possibly false premise with rigid and defensive postures contrary to open-mindedness and discovery.
I have a feeling that if we ever manage to do serious space exploration, we might discover something investigating comets, asteroids and the moons of other planets that can plug in some of these big gaps that evolution can’t explain.
They keep finding evidence of organic molecules and somewhat complex hydrocarbons on meteors and comets.
It is more believable that Earth somehow received a head-start to life by comet bombardment. If this is true, then the key would be understanding where or how the comets got to possess these precursors.
The Sun is not a first generation star, the Earth is young but the galaxy is old.
I wouldn’t be shocked if in the distant future, they discovered organic molecules have managed to propagate themselves all over the galaxy over the last 10 billion years.
We’ve already shot countless probes, satellites and rockets into space in under 50 years.
It’s not hard to imagine other past civilizations “infecting” large areas of space with unnatural materials over the course of millions of years.
@ Paddy-O
“HMeyers. You have nailed the main weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution. Obviously it is an incomplete theory.”
Some people who adhere religiously to it, attack ALL who question the holes and label them as religious fundamentalists”
Thank you for the acknowledgement 😉
Funny Paddy-O. HMyers says “Evolution does an insufficient job at explaining.”
Is it perfect? Of course not, it’s a scientific theory. Does it produce testable hypothesis and explain a broad spectrum of problems? You bet.
What is tiresome is people who whine saying they don’t like it (for whatever reason) and won’t do the hard work to develop a better, testable, alternative theory. It’s so whingy and weak.
HMyers–how often did I start by saying “I am not a scientist?” And I’m not. Just a casual reader.
With that casual reading, I don’t see panspermia as anything contrary to evolution–its only contrary to bible based theories as currently thumped. Do I see a “tell?”
You also have a religious “like” bias in your demand that a theory answer every single question thrown at it. NO THEORY DOES THAT and its not a requirement. I don’t think “Because God wants it that way” is any complete theory for the same reasons.
I’m happy, as incomplete and faulty as I am.
#15, Meyers,
If someone can provide an example of an instance where popular culture mainstream beliefs changed the world, please provide an example.
There are too many to list so allow me to discuss one.
Germany, late 1930s. A charismatic leader has convinced the German population that Jews are the blame for all bad that has happened to the German people. It now becomes quite fashionable to hate Jews. Later, there is little discomfort as the “Jewish question” is taken care of by mass genocide.
After the war the victors looked at the mess left by the German solution for the “Jewish question”. More and more countries started looking inside at how they treated their own minorities. Borders that had long been closed to political oppression and minority persecution were opened, not only in the US, but most other countries. Local minorities that were discriminated against were given protection.
In the US it only took a few years (1948) until the military was desegregated. A few more years and “Separate but equal” schools were ruled unconstitutional. A few years after that and the Government used troops to forcibly integrate schools. And not long after that happened, Civil Rights legislation against most forms of discrimination put an end to legal segregation.
Today the world looks upon discrimination and maltreatment of minorities as a Crime Against Humanity. We have set up a World Court to deal with those who wrongly treat others.
Yes, it wasn’t pretty. It did take the death of millions of Jews, Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others to wake us up. And the whole issue may be traced back to the culture of hating Jews.