Harun Yahya’s Islamic creationist book pops up in Scotland

April 7, 2008

Atlas of CreationRemember Harun Yahya’s Atlas of Creation, the lavishly illustrated Islamic creationist book that first turned up in Turkey, then France and other European countries and prompted a disapproving resolution by the Council of Europe? It’s now being mailed to universities in Scotland, the Sunday Herald there reports:

“I find it quite staggering,” said Aubrey Manning, emeritus professor of natural history at the University of Edinburgh. He houses his seven copies in a cupboard in the zoology department’s staff room. “Every academic I know says they’ve got one of those. And it’s peddling an absolute, downright lie…”

According to Taner Edis, a physicist at Truman State University in the US who has written several books on Islam and science, Oktar is “the leader of a small religious sect and an art school drop-out.”

Copies of Atlas Of Creation began appearing in American universities last year. Edis has two in his office. He said they caught academics’ eyes because of their high production value, but also because the book argued for creationism from a Muslim perspective, as opposed to the more widely heard Protestant Christian tradition.

Adnan Oktar, alias Harun YayhaThe Evangelical Church in Germany, the main Protestant church association there, issued a warning last week against teaching creationism in schools. It didn’t mention Atlas of Creation but it’s been reported to have been distributed there.

The mysterious Istanbul writer Harun Yahya (actually Adnan Oktar) is clearly spending large amounts of money sending this unwelcome book around Europe. Where does he get it from?

Since the last time we wrote about Oktar, he has given interviews to several news organisations from Muslim countries. Here’s one with Al-Jazeera (video in Arabic, text in English) and several other news groups.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

His books have been available in all the Islamic bookshops I’ve ever visited and you can download some of HY’s books from his website. Their widely read within the Muslim community, and in my experience, usually the subject of vigorous debate.

Yes, I’ve seen them in Islamic bookshops too. It’s the mass mailing part I wanted to stress here. He seems to go country by country, sending hundreds of copies to schools and universities for free.

Posted by Tom Heneghan | Report as abusive

if you consider the fact that his books are distributed worldwide, with a market consisting of 1.3+ billion muslims, and non-muslims – he has more than enough resource to supply every post secondary institution in the world.
as for the comment by the prof. Aubrey Manning regarding the peddling of a lie; with such a statement one must elucidate why they think it’s a lie. possibly present some evidence to bolster the evololution THEORY? But I can say darwin lied and cite unsimplifiable single celled organisms as my proof. And the fact that every species in the world has a distinct genetic code imprinted in DNA so well organized and common to every living thing – why did the codification system itself not evolve? i.e. there is no other solution asides the aknowledgement of a divine creator. I suppose catholics feel slighted when they see that muslims are more vehement at the muslim insistence on not accepting the evolution lie.

Posted by Shiraz | Report as abusive

I have read this big red book and I have to admit that I’m trully amazed by what it presents as an opposition to Darwin’s theory. It demonstrates million year old fossils of creatures that remained unchanged. It is crystal clear to the eye that there have been no evolutionary process as it is propagated in the school books. I am really stunned and got embarrassed for my lack of ability to see such a definite fact till now. I
think the author deserves a huge applause for the courage, confidence, wisdom and intelligence he performs. Sending these books to the countries suffering from the pleague of Darwinism is a nobel and compassionate attitude when that the fight for survival leads many into a life of misery and sadness is considered.

Posted by Keira | Report as abusive

Shiraz, you say “I suppose catholics feel slighted when they see that muslims are more vehement at the muslim insistence on not accepting the evolution lie.” What do Catholics have to do with this?

Posted by Tom Heneghan | Report as abusive

Thanks Adnan Oktar for all his books and effort against darwinism. As we all know that darwinism is the cause of all the wars, disasters in the world, his ideological struggle against darwinism prooves that he is very valuable for all the people in the world. In his book “Atlas of Creation” there are hundreds of fossil photos that are all prooves of creation of God. This fact may not panic some, this may make people happy.

Posted by elmira | Report as abusive

He has written various books on the fallacy of the theory of evolution. His dedicated intellectual effort against Darwinism and materialism has grown out to be a worldwide phenomenon. Quoting from the 22 April 2000 issue of New Scientist, Mr. Oktar became an “international hero” in communicating the fallacy of the theory of evolution and the fact of creation. The author’s intellectual struggle against materialism and Darwinism has frequently been mentioned in such mainly evolutionist publications as National Geographic, Science, New Scientist and NSCE Reports. The English and German editions of the November, 2004, issue of National Geographic referred to the author’s works concerning the Fact of Creation. The following quotation from one of his books The Evolution Deceit was also included: “The theory of evolution is nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system.”
Adnan Oktar says that : The duty of all believers is clear, whether they are Muslims, Jews, or Christians: to unite and join forces in order to establish societies dominated by peace, tranquility, prosperity, morality, goodness, happiness, and security. If we coordinate our efforts for such a pure undertaking, God will give us success. Every believing Christian, Muslim, and Jew is responsible to do whatever he or she can in this respect. Given that they believe in the One and Only God, try to win His good pleasure, have submitted to Him wholeheartedly, praise Him, and advocate essentially the same values, it is only natural for them to join together to fight their common foe.
Jews, Christians, and Muslims must permanently end all of their historical disputes, prejudices, misunderstandings, and conflicts caused by bigotry and intolerance. They must not forget that we have not even one day to waste. Followers of all three divinely revealed religions must accept each other, for what matters most is to point out their common ground and make things easier for everyone, to be constructive and complimentary, and to unite.

Posted by turker | Report as abusive

It is rather telling for me when Turker posting above mentions materialism. The fact is that anti-evolutionary positions which base themselves on the defense of “divinely revealed” religion are beginning from a biased position. Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in Muslims, Christians and Jews in a God, it is simply a scientific observation. As noted above, it does indeed strengthen the materialist position, which is really what is at issue for religious individuals. However, those who “dominate the world” are not materialists. George Bush is an evanglist who opposes evolution and in fact there are no atheists leading any of the most powerful nations. Religion has always served privileged individuals such as the clergy and aristocracy, the status quo and property rights. It is on the side of those who “dominate the world system,” not the common people whom religion is addressed to.

Posted by Roy Fairbank | Report as abusive


I know you follow Ali Eteraz’s blog. Check out possible links AE noted between Creationist Christians in the US and Harun Yahya.

Brian Whitaker at the Graun also made similar remarks.

Posted by thabet | Report as abusive

Really great to have a different perspective out.
Darwinism/Evolution should not be taught in schools as a fact but should be taught as a POSSIBILITY, just like the other possibilities like Creationism.

Alas, Man is too arrogant to submit and believe in God.

Posted by Five Times | Report as abusive

I am shocked and appalled by the lack of intellectual knowledge of the posters before me. How can you guys link evolution a scientific theory (Theory means the highest order of scientific knowledge) with that of Creationism, and then try an say to other readers that EVOLUTION causes wars… like hello people I can point to nearly every country within the world and show one force that has used religion to justify destroying another. Yet were in the history of man has EVOLUTION been used to kill others.

PS, don’t even try feed me that crap about Hitler being an evolutionist. For one He gassed and killed Jews because when he served in World War 1 it was Jewish officers and the High command who let Germany fall to the Allies. THAT is why he killed them all through world war 2 not because he was an evolutionist. LEARN your history, and for Christ (<- Yes I said it) sake learn some bloody Science.

Posted by Richard | Report as abusive

Before completely ostracizing Darwin you need to look at the times he lived in. The lack of scientific knowledge and the strong and ignorant influence of religon over politics and society. (That still doesn’t happen today does it?!!!). I’m sure Darwin had the insight to know his theories – and being just that – theories NOT fact, would cause a stir amongst certain memeber of society. Mr Adnan Oktar, with his insulting comments of Darwin, I’m sure also had the insight to know his book on creationism would also cause a stir. If people get the impression that the ‘Darwinism’ plague has been pushed or forced upon society, what do you call Oktar and his Oktarism. At the time Darwin made his initial discoveries and theories it was the only way he knew how to try and explain and understand our existence and where we came from. (Not from planet Alpha C – but hey that is possible, for the open minded.) This is what Oktar is doing now. Except Oktar has the benefit of more than 100 years of discovery, palientology and all associated sciences, electronic gadetry etc, etc, to put his evidence forward in the Altas of Creation, against what Darwin had (the Bible). (I’m not knocking the Bible BTW). Of course Oktar’s book would ‘blow’ Darwinism away. How could Darwin compete? At least for some, Darwin’s theories made people notice about life instead of themselves, and continually challenge and seek the truth of how and why we exist. Just because he lacked the knowledge of an extra 100years+ he shouldn’t be knocked for having the courage to search for the truth and challenge the knowledge and ‘primitive’ attitudes and ignorance of his time. How is Darwinism the cause of all wars? There is no logic in that statement and I’m yet to see any written evidence of such. Like ‘Five Times’ said, is there any reason why such a book on creationism shouldn’t be interpreted as a ‘Possibility’ or theory until there is overwhelming scientific evidence to prove/disprove it is a fact – just like Darwin’s theories. Or maybe we should take a trip to ‘Roswell, USA’ to obtain the answers. (For those that are anti-USA, look for your local ‘crop circle’ or crashed UFO….)

Posted by Conscientious Observer | Report as abusive

Hey! What gives? I’m in a major Scottish university, and I didn’t get a copy of that book. Are they avoiding me? Am I being expelled from the inside movement to debunk Darwin, even before I had a chance to join? I cleared all the sciencey books (and even most of the peer-reviewed journals) from my coffee table in anticipation, and still no book . . .

Posted by Mac | Report as abusive

Mac,my friend,you can download the amazing Atlas of Creation for free on the internet.
This is a really work of art,?’ve seen in in my teacher’s office.Not only the pictures, the colours, the quality of the book but the informations inside are amazing. It makes you ask your self, how dare still the darwinists can talk all over the world? Now that this Atlas makes them turn up-side-down!Thanks to Adnan Oktar evolutionnists have no more words to say.I f they had, they should have printed a book like Atlas of Creation and present the so called, imaginary “transitional fossils”.They should have printed at least 100 volumes if their theory is true.Cause as far as the evolutionnists claim, the so called evolution processhas been realised in a looooooong time period, billions of years..Therefor they need 100 volumes at leat to show the pictures of trasitional fossils!!hahahah!It makes me laugh!Cause they do not have one true fossil to make the one single page of a book :)

Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive

Thanks, Marrie. I know I can download it, but you say yourself that the production value of the book is wonderful. If it is truly as good as you say, then it hardly matters whether the evidence it presents in support of a new synthesis of species change is even true. I do love a new book . . . the crack of the spine the first time it is opened, the smell of the ink, turning pages to find claim after claim I just know I will want to believe. And to think that this one book is bold enough, brave enough, and well, just great enough, to overturn 150 years of biological research . . . wow. Just wow.

Except for one thing. It’s hardly anything, really, just a minor point. That bit about transitional fossils that you refer to might need a little revision. You see, there’s this:

Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr (6 April 2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature 440: 757–763.

And this:
Gingerich, P.D., B.H. Smith, & E.L. Simons. 1990. Hind limb of Eocene Basilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-156.

Oh, and this:
Rose, K.D., and Bown, T.M. 1984. Gradual phyletic evolution at the generic level in early Eocene omomyid primates. Nature 309:250-252.

And, well, you see the point. I keep trying to plug my ears and close my eyes and stamp my feet, but the pesky science just won’t go away. I hope your book makes it go away. It’s really hard, learning and reading and stuff. It would be so much easier to go to science meetings, and if I give a presentation and someone stands up to say I might be wrong, I could say no way, cause God did it. How could anyone argue with THAT?

Posted by Mac | Report as abusive

About a week ago, I received this book too. First of all I got amazed the beauty and the glamour of the book but when I started reading it the inside of the book amazed most. I have been always told that people are evoluotined. I never have thought more about it like a robot. BUT when I started to read this book, I started to think about the miracles that I see everyday. Beside the miracles there are lots of facts that proves evolution is a BIG BIG LIE! When I learned the tricks that how people produce their own transional fossil forms, like piltdown man, nebraska man I just feel really sorry bout them! Its sooo desperate I mean! More than hundred years ago the times lack of science a person whos Darwin made up a story and people believe it. Now Thats ok it was yearsss ago! But in the time the science grew, technology grew! I mean come on! How can it still be thought like this man this so ridicilous?! Darwin said he was sure that the transional forms will be found in time. The %99 of the fossils in the world has been found but still NO TRANSIONAL FORMS?? SO??!!
I think its high time that we should start thinking and seeing the reality! Not the stories we have been told since our childhood.
People who think there is a evolution, I invite you to read this book. IF after this book still you believe in evolution I will jump over a building :) seriously, this book proves the truth! The truth the we are all created. Nothing is coincidence. FE. think of three blocks put together on a dessert. Do you think that it came into as a coincidence. Or somebody put it there? So!
Come On , Let’s give up all the prejudice that we have and the be objective. The truth is everywhere. You will see it…

Posted by Michael Chesquire | Report as abusive

Probably the most humorous aspect of Oktar “brilliant work of science” is that some of the pictures are of fishing lures. After copies arrived in America, someone noticed the pictures looked really familiar. Turns out they were pictures of small fishing lures. So, all of you enjoy the science presented by Oktar. I won’t waste the time of addressing all the other foolishness presented by his “book”

Posted by JJ | Report as abusive

Michael Chesquire:
Take a deep breath, calm down, and listen for just a moment. There are many documented transitional forms. All you need to do is look at the evidence. I suggest you start here:

Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr (6 April 2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature 440: 757–763.

That is a paper in the science journal Nature. You can look it up online, or find it in a library. It is one of many hundreds that report transitional forms. They are there. The people who are telling you there are no such forms are lying.

Posted by Mac | Report as abusive

Dear Mac,
I feel just the same about smelling and reading a new book beleive me. You would love Atlas in that way.Why dont you e-mail this request to http://www.harunyahya.org site they will probably send you one Atlas.
About the samples you refer as transitinal forms, it is proved by scientific explainations that they are not. I suggest you should take a look at this link:http://www.darwinism-watch.com/inde x.php You will find a lot of scientific explanations about this subject. I beleive if look at the subject from this point of view, no one can stand up saying you are wrong by saying there are transitional forms.

Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive


Thanks for the reference. But the site you suggest presents a religious argument, not a scientific one. In general, science isn’t equipped to deal with some of the “big” questions that are deeply interesting to humans . . . is there meaning to my life, is there a god, will any part of me live beyond death, and so on.

The issue of transitional fossils has long been settled. They exist. They provide very strong physical evidence that supports the modern view of evolution. Don’t take my word for it; look up some of the papers I referenced in my earlier posting. Read them yourself. Do your homework, and allow yourself to consider evidence that might challenge your beliefs. If you don’t, there is a chance that you could hold false beliefs and never know about it. That would be a waste of time, and life is short.


Posted by Mac | Report as abusive

Dear Mac,
I dont really understand how come you say relegious to the scientific explanations on this site..strange..
Ok forget about it all…It’s obvious you believe in the exsistence of so called transistional forms, I can not do anything about it unfortunately…
But tell me…How can you explain, how can a single proteine be formed?Can it be formed by chance? The scientists say no.(Not me, not relegious sources but the scientists themselves).Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 1040000.110 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1).
So I beleive I have done my homework well all my life. I believe God created everything,every living creature and my heart is full of satisfaction cause sciences proves God as well.

Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive

To JJ,
The evolution is such as stupid and easy thing to explain that even a child of 5 years can understand it has never occured by loking at the fossil records..So I beleive that’s why Mr. oktar has used fossil records to explain the truth to every one, including those who did not have scientific educations.And he did it very well.But seems like it did not work for you:) “Tampis” as we say it in French,it’s your problem.No one has time to waste to convince you as well.

Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive

Looks like evidence points to rampant bioengineering of humans and possibly other species, like the dog and cow (to provide food and companianship). This bioengineering was by some alien species who came here for whatever reason and evidently they did not remain. It is quite possible that this species also was capable of time travel, else why go through the trouble of bioengineering us and then leaving us. However, lets say that for some reason the aliens could not stay, and left a kind of manual for us to follow so that we could stay healthy. Make it a ‘bible’ and make us susceptible to ‘religions’ so we would not ask too many questions. Religions are quite easy to keep ‘pure’ as fanatics will see that this is done. What easier way to keep us from eating an animal whose DNA might have been used to engineer us from chimpanzee root stock…the pig. Simply call it ‘unclean’ in the so called ‘holy book’ and make it a rule not to eat it, as germs habituated to it can so easily habituate to us. It is in our common DNA and that of the pig. No one can find the original bible, nor make any determination of its author(s)…lost in history is as good an excuse as any. But we are talking about new stone age peoples being able to come up with a writing system when they had not done so for hundreds of thousands of years. No, we were made by people, people from another world much like our own, about ten thousand to thirteen thousand years ago, probably somewhere in present day Turkmenistan or the old Black Sea basin when it was a fresh water lake in a glaciated world with low sea levels. No one can find if the so called bibical Abraham or Noah or anyone ever really lived. Even Simcha Jacobovici cannot find the original bible, and he has looked hard for it and has access to sources all over the middle east. The only other possibility is that the original laboratory that created us, the so called ‘garden of eden’, is in a warm place like present day Kenya or the Sudan. Kenyan peoples have the oldest DNA in the world, pointing to a time in our species history when we were reduced to a population of less than a very few, a population bottleneck brought on by the supervolcano Toba seventy four thousand years ago. Possibly our engineers went there to find biologically diverse root stock to create a more viable ‘us’. The idea of using a ‘rib’ to create a woman refers to common recombinant DNA practices. The bible even TELLS us that. Then the idea of ‘other people’ in the world points to unmodified people being able to breed with the new race with the children of those unions being possessed of the new genetic makeup as a dominant over the ‘original rootstock. This is also in the bible when the children of the original ‘couple’ found mates seemingly ‘out of nowhere’. Religious folks of all flavors cringe at questions about this and have no answer. The only question is why the aliens did not stay to take advantage of the labor force they created? Will they return to collect some day? How advanced were they really, as we are even now able to do some of the things that they did?
When we do meet some aliens, we are going to be surprised that they will not meet our expectations of being all knowing. Rather they will be people like us. We might even be able to mate. After all, it is our common DNA. Evolution is confirmed, only it did not happen on our planet alone.

Posted by Skeptik | Report as abusive

Dear Marrie,

The explanations offered by Oktar are not scientific. They do not meet the simplest criteria for science. It is evident that you do not have a scientific background. That’s ok, it would not be a very interesting world if everyone were a scientist. But the criteria for testable evidence applies, whether you are a scientist or not. Oktar’s ideas are . . . well, to a scientist they are the opposite of scientific. I happen to be a scientist, and I teach the scientific method, but I can’t possibly do that for you in a short note here.

But I will try to illustrate one thing. I believe you speak French. In fact, you don’t. You speak Italian. I can show that French words have Latin roots. I can then ignore a lot of evidence that French has developed into a very separate language from Italian. If I do that, then by definition you speak Italian. Now, it would be absurd for me to ignore the history of French, and its separation from the root of Romance languages. Equally, it would be absurd to deny that French is related to Italian. We have to deal with data, with reality, not with how much we might wish some story is true.

It is absurd to deny the clear evidence of evolution. Did you look at the Nature paper I referenced? Read this one paper. You can find it easily via Google Scholar.

Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr (6 April 2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature 440: 757–763.

One final word. In another post, you complement Oktar on his ability to convince people who are not scientists. Think about that for a moment. He is NOT able to convince anyone who is a scientist. He is a scam artist. He is selling a story with pretty pictures (some of them are stolen; they are pictures of fishing lures!). He is lying to you.

I wish you the best.

Posted by Mac | Report as abusive

Dear Mac,
Mr. Oktar is not lying but only showing the truths.My life has changed once I knew his books.He is such a sincere person,it is obvious from his books from the interwievs I have seen on youtube.You may just write Adnan Oktar on youtube search and you will find his interwievs.
You comment in a subjectif way what I told when I said he “explains in a simple way so that everyone could understand”.Thanks to him,everybody can see what a foolish fairy tale is evolution.But also, thanks to him there are lots of scientists who found God.Atlas is being read all over the world.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk  /article673663.ece, or Mr.Sarkozy’s new approach to religion are all the echos…
I know that we wont be able to convince each other.As a Muslim, my duty is to “only tell what I believe is truth” the rest is up to you.One single cell,one single eye or a simple bacteria whip or a fossil of 500 billion years of a trilobit eye are enough for me to know that evolution has never occured.The Piltdown scandal, the Nebraska Man scandal are enough to see the forgeries of the evolutionnists.I beleive that “The only reason that Darwin’s theory is still defended despite its obvious refutation by science is the close link between that theory and materialism.Douglas Futuyma, wrote: “Together with Marx’s materialistic theory of history… Darwin’s theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism.” This is a very clear admission of why the theory of evolution is really so important to its defenders.”
I would finish by a conclusion with a paragraph from http://www.evolutiondeceit.com : The conclusion to be drawn from such pronouncements is that evolution is not a theory arrived at through scientific investigation. On the contrary, the form and substance of this theory were dictated by the requirements of materialistic philosophy. It then turned into a belief or dogma in spite of concrete scientific facts. Again, we can clearly see from evolutionist literature that all of this effort has a “purpose”-and that purpose requires maintaining, at no matter what cost, that living things were not created.

Evolutionists define this purpose as “scientific”. However, what they refer to is not science but materialist philosophy. Materialism absolutely rejects the existence of anything “beyond” matter (or of anything supernatural). Science itself is not obliged to accept such a dogma. Science means exploring nature and deriving conclusions from one’s findings. If these findings lead to the conclusion that nature is created, science has to accept it. That is the duty of a true scientist; not defending impossible scenarios by clinging to the outdated materialist dogmas of the 19th century.

All the best

PS1: By the way I am not French but my French is better than my english….
PS2: Did you explain on any of your comments above “how a single protein can be formed by chance” or maybe I didn’t see it :)

Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive

Dear Marrie,

If you think that the Nebraska-man and the Piltdown-man are the only hominid fossils that are ever found, I guess you have to make some more investigations about the subject.

I would suggest this: look what claims are make by mr. Oktar, and next look if they could be refuted at http://www.talkorigins.org/ As far as I could see, Mr. Oktars theories couldnot stand this test.

With regards,


Posted by Jack L. | Report as abusive

Do you have any idea how dangerous it can be to follow the words of a charismatic person? Unless you actually study biology yourself, it’s insane to take the word of a religious figure on the reality of biology.

You refer to the dogma of the 19th century. Let me ask you this: Can you imagine a physicist saying he only knows about Newton, but not the work that has taken place since then? Would you want your doctor to follow Hippocrates, but ignore modern medical knowledge? Marrie, no modern biologist works within a purely “Darwinian” framework today. Darwin’s ideas got some important developments going, but if he were here today, he wouldn’t recognize the field of biology.

Nobody in biology today thinks a protein could be formed by chance. To understand how a protein came to be, it would be necessary to know what it’s environment was like, what kind of selective pressures were present.

Finally: Materialism is a methodology, not a philosophy or world view for scientists. Science can only talk about claims that it can test. If the claim is that “god did it” then science is simply silent on that issue. It might make you feel nice to think god is so generous, so thoughtful, so concerned for your personal well-being. That’s fine, maybe you derive a lot of satisfaction from your beliefs, and I would not want to take that away from you. But if our goal is to understand a biological process, we must rely only on material explanations. If we allow “god did it” as an explanation for some biological detail, then we have nothing to help us understand the actual mechanisms at work. We would have no hope of developing new drugs, of curing disease.

The only one here who is clinging to outdated dogmas is Oktar, who wants you to follow a medieval philosophy that stops all enquiry and requires you to believe him, without any way to independently test his claims.

Posted by Mac | Report as abusive

Dear J,

Nebraska and Piltdown are few exemples that came to mind mind at that moment. I know much more examples about it.(Ota Benga,Lucy,…and so on..I have no place and time to write&explain them all…)
Thanks for the link.I’ll take a look at it offcourse.
Why don’t you take a look at this one : http://darwinismrefuted.com/ To my point of view, Mr. Oktar’s explanantion are much more than satisfying.

Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive

Yes, i saw this book in our school library, too. It was wonderful. I read this book and other books of Harun Yahya and i am still reading. and visited http://www.harunyahya.com . his works are really wonderful. I recommend everyone to see his web site and read his books.

Posted by janny | Report as abusive

Dear Mac,

The proves Mr Oktar is presenting in his books are recent examples. I see that you did not visit http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php
Maybe I am not a professional sceintist but a real scientist Francis Collins could turn to God and find God in the laborotary.So does he refer to dogmas of 19th century? I don’t think so…There are lots lots of scientists who do not believe in evolution. But they approve the Creation.
Do not worry, science proves creation very well and I have strong reasons (? could only mention few in these comments) to beleive that evolution can not create any living being.
Yes Mr Oktar is charismatic you’re right (I did not tell this but you did :) ) but this is not reason why I support him. I wish you can read all of his books carefully and understand what I mean.
Take care

Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive

Janny, can you tell us where your school is and whether it is a Muslim school? It seems that many schools in Europe — state schools, for the most part — confiscate the copies when they arrive and don’t let them be put in the library for all to see.

Posted by Tom Heneghan | Report as abusive

I read all comments.I surprised because i see that there are some people still belive in evolution.i want to start from begining.From the Big Bang..

According to the Big Bang theory, everything began from the explosion of a point of infinite density and zero volume. As time passed, space expanded and the gaps between heavenly bodies grew.

The findings in question confirmed the Big Bang theory, which states that the universe began from the explosion of a single point of zero volume and infinite density some 14 billion years ago. This theory has constantly been confirmed by tests consisting of decades of astronomical observations, and stands unrivalled on the most solid of foundations. The Big Bang is accepted by the great majority of present-day astrophysicists, and constitutes scientific verification of the fact that God created the universe from nothing.

Hey evolutionists, i want to ask something to u! How do u explain the Big Bang ??

Posted by David | Report as abusive

Tom Heneghan, are you a student? if so, didnt you see this book in your library? i heart from my other friends that, they saw this book in their libraries or in their teacher’s room. they said that even their evolutionist teachers dont get out this book from their room. they keep it. and this is evidence that this book is too much affective.

Posted by janny | Report as abusive

to Mr. Mac,
First of all, i will send you a copy of Atlas of Creation, if you would like to send me you mailing adress. I believe that if you read the book by yourself, you will have satisfying answers. My mail: youarecreated@yahoo.com

Secondly, Islam never forbades scientific evidences or researches. Despite, it courages thinking and searching. This is adviced in several verses in Quran. And I’m a molecular biologist and a Muslim, thanks to Allah.I do serching and will do as long as I live.

As you should know, wisdom is different from intelligence. When they are together, knowledge becomes the most powerful force in the world. This is like, Wernicke’s(22) and Broca’s(44) areas in brain. Broca helps motor talking, Wernicke helps to talk with thinking. Science is the motor part of understanding, without religion you can not think about it deeply. Because this percet order didn’t happen as a result of blind chance. All of them are created. Like you and me…

Islam brings deep thinking to science. And there is a verse about it in Quran, “And such are the Parables We set forth for mankind, but only those understand them who have knowledge.”(Surah Al-‘Ankabut, 43)As you see,
knowledge is important.You can see knowledge in every letter of Altas but you can also see wisdom. This is why, they have tried to forbade Atlas. Because it is telling the truth. If you search the pages of Atlas, you can see that each scientific explainion has a scientific source. Why didn’t they make another book to answer Atlas? Because they can not, it is realy scientific..And it is true…

Also I have searched by myself for DNA, like Collins. And there is no evidence for Evolution, and never will be. Evolution is just a deception for people to prevent them thinking. Evolutionist realy have reasons. I think you must read Atlas. And see Mr. Oktar’s wise explanations about evolution.

Posted by rauf | Report as abusive

Dear Mac,

i think you are in contrast. first you say protein couldnt be formed by chance and then you say evolution. The chances of a protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10^950. In practical terms that figure means “zero probability.” so what does it mean? it means: God created everything. this is said by Newton, Einstein vs. Aren’t they scientific?

i recommend you to read Harun Yahya’s books without prejudgement. you will see the details in his books. you dont have to buy them. you can read them free from http://www.harunyahya.com .

Posted by janny | Report as abusive

Janny, no I’m not a student. I’m the religion editor at Reuters and moderator of this blog. Are you a student? I asked before where your school library is because I was surprised to see that a library had put it in its collection. Most of the reports we hear say the libraries do not make this book available.

Posted by Tom Heneghan | Report as abusive

Dear Rauf
I am glad to say that I totally agree with you.Thank you for reminding the beautiful verses of the Coran and letting us see another “scientific explanation” of the Creation.
Best rgrds,

Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive


Here is a story that appeared today about a recently discovered fossil … a transitional fossil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7339 508.stm

There are many, many examples like this in the scientific literature. Don’t take my word, or Oktar’s, as authoritative on this issue. Go look.

Janny: You are confusing the notion of chance with that of evolution. They are not the same thing.

Posted by Mac | Report as abusive


It is ironic that you allude to Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas. That happens to be my area of scientific expertise. I get your point, and it is well made. But like all analogies, it only works up to a point. Broca’s area does far more than provide motor control to speech, and Wernicke’s is not the sole brain site responsible for the representation of meanings.

I do not disagree that wisdom and knowledge are different and complementary domains, and that one without the other is seriously handicapped. Where we disagree is in how we believe humans can acquire either knowledge or wisdom.

Now, I cannot say for certain that there is no supernatural creator, or god, or whatever. But I do think that the probability of such a supernatural entity is almost zero. Bronze age (Christian) and medieval (Muslim) stories are entertaining and historically interesting, and they may even be sources of knowledge and wisdom, of sorts. But even if there is a supernatural being, scientists can’t do science if their explanations rely on untestable events (like god reaching down and somehow changing the morphology of Broca’s area). It may be true, but there’s no way to know, in the way that scientists use the word “know.”

Posted by Mac | Report as abusive

Dear Marrie,

as far as I know, there never was a scandal aound the Lucy-fossil. And Ota Benga was no fossil, so I have no idea why you bring him up.

Anyway, I studied Harun Yahya’s sites thoroughly, and most of it couldn’t meet my scientific standards. The site is contains so many standard-creationists errors, that it becomes almost funny.

With regards,


Posted by Jack L. | Report as abusive

Dear Marrie,

before I forget:

Francis Collins may believe in God, but still considers evolution as a fact:

According WIkipedia:

In Collins’ book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (published in July 2006), he considers scientific discoveries an “opportunity to worship.” In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE) which he prefers to term BioLogos.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Col lins_%28geneticist%29#Religious_views_an d_debates

I don’t care if people do or do not believe in God. However, I do care about truth in science.

With regards,


Posted by Jack L. | Report as abusive



Posted by Mac | Report as abusive

Dear Mac,
Thank you for all the information. Believe me I will check the sources you gave me.

As a Muslim I believe that God wants us to investigate and reflect upon everything….the heavens, the earth, mountains, stars, plants, seeds, animals, the creation of man, the rain and many other created things. And by examining these, thanks to Allah, I come to recognize the artistry of God’s creation in the world around me.
Islam is the religion of reason and conscience. A person recognizes the truth proclaimed by God through the use of his wisdom, and derives conclusions from the truth he has seen by following his conscience. A person using his reason and conscience, upon examining the features of any given object in the universe, even though he is not an expert in such matters, -just like me- would understand that it was created by a Possessor of great Wisdom, Knowledge and Might.

Therefore, once I make use of my reason and follow my conscience, it quickly apprehends the absurdity of the claim that the world came into being by chance. That’s what I believe.
I just wish to see you understand that my belief in God is not a belief with “eyes shot” nor under the impression of Mr. Oktar, but I follow the science, derive my conclusions from the obvious facts and proofs and than I conclude with God.

The Prophet Muhammad, God’s Messenger,( peace be upon him) also enjoined people to acquire knowledge. He even stressed that it is our obligation to search for knowledge. He said in a Ahâdîth:
“Seeking of knowledge is incumbent upon every Muslim” or “Acquire the knowledge and impart it to the people.”

I love science and reading about it and the more I read the more it directs me to the proofs of Creation.

I would like to underline once more that the religion encourages scientific study. Just as Albert Einstein said, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, “science without religion is lame”, which is to say, that science, unguided by religion, cannot proceed correctly, but rather, wastes much time in achieving certain results, and worse, is often inconclusive.

Here is only one of the millions of examples of the scientists who believe in Creation:

“Dr. Fritz Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry, and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize, and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. Schaefer, a believing scientist, aspires to better know God through his scientific pursuits. As he puts it:
The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it!’(US News & World Report, December 23, 1991)
Kind regards and thanks for this instructive chat.

Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive

Dear Jack,
Here is the fact about Lucy:
“The fact that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The well-known French magazine Science et Vie made the issue its cover story in its May 1999 edition. The magazine considered Lucy, regarded as the most important fossil specimen of the species Australopithecus afarensis, under the caption ‘Adieu Lucy’ (‘Good-bye Lucy’) and wrote that the apes from the Australopithecus species did not represent the origin of man and should be removed from the family tree. (Isabelle Bourdial, “Adieu Lucy”, Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62)
An article by Tim Friend in the US newspaper USA Today made the following comments regarding Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), portrayed as a direct ancestor of man:
“Lucy’s scientific name is Australopithecus afarensis. She looked very similar to a modern bonobo chimpanzee, with a small brain, a protruding face and large molar teeth. But Lucy has been losing favor over the past 10 years as the direct ancestor of the genus homo…
… And most say they now believe that the idea of tracing humans in a straight line back to an ancestor such as Lucy is too simplistic…”
Space was also devoted in the article to comments by Richard Potts, head of the famous Smithsonian University Natural History Museum Human Origins Program. Potts and several other evolutionist experts accept the fact that Lucy must now be removed from man’s family tree.( “Discovery rocks human-origin theories”, Tim Friend, 21 March 2003: http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/200 1-03-21-skull.htm)”

Considering Ota Benga, I gave it as an example of forgery of evolution. Since the evolutionnist could not find any single transitional fossil among the fossil records, they started looking for it among the “living beings” such as pygmies.Ota Benga was one of them.
“An excellent example of the effects of Darwinism on racism is when African explorer Samuel Verner arrived at the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair with seven African Pygmies. These men (called “primitive savages”) were exhibited under the direction of W. J. McGee of the St. Louis World’s Fair Anthropology Department in an effort to “be exhaustively scientific” in demonstrating the stages of human evolution. …Eventually, one of the Pygmies, Ota Benga, returned to the United States after being bought in a slave market by Verner. He was presented to Director Hornaday of the Bronx Zoological Gardens with the intention to display him showing the “hierarchical view of races.” “Hornaday, a ‘believer in the Darwinian theory,’ concluded that there exists ‘a close analogy of the African savage to the apes’ (New York Times, September 11, 1906, from book, One Blood, p. 133-134)…”
….But Ota Benga was just a “man”,a diiferent race, married with children…. not a living sample of a transitional fossil.
That’s why I mentioned them. Hope it’s clear.
I understand and respect that you do not care about the other’s believes.I gave the examle of Mr. Collins as a latest new,after 30 years,he confessed there is a Creator, God.The information of wikipedia should maybe updated considering this latest new of 7th of April.Or whatever…I beleive every one is free on his believes.In a verse of Coran it says “there is no obligation in religion..”(Sourate Bakarah,256).
And if you may refer to my comment to Mr. Mac, you will see that I care about truth in science as well as you do.


Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive

Hello Marrie,

I appreciate your taking the time to explain –very eloquently, I might add — the depth of feeling you have about knowledge and religion.

I have a couple of comments in response.

You wrote:
“A person using his reason and conscience, upon examining the features of any given object in the universe, even though he is not an expert in such matters, -just like me- would understand that it was created by a Possessor of great Wisdom, Knowledge and Might.”

To a scientist, this is a religious statement, not a scientific one. That does not mean it is wrong, simply that it is not addressing knowledge, or the conclusions one can draw from observation about the world, in the way that science does. My point is that using your reason and conscious may lead you to stand in awe of a creator, but that is not evidence for or against a creationist account of origins.

You wrote:
“Therefore, once I make use of my reason and follow my conscience, it quickly apprehends the absurdity of the claim that the world came into being by chance. That’s what I believe.”

No scientist I know claims to know how the world came into being. There are a few ideas, based on observations about the rate of expansion of the universe and other facts, but so far no one has produce a definitive account.

If you are referring to evolution, there are two points I would make. First, evolution theory makes no claims at all about the origin of the universe, or the beginning of life (that is a different field, called abiogenesis). Rather, it provides an evidentiary (naturalistic) account of how species adapt and change over time. Second, no one claims that chance is the force behind evolution. It may play a small role (spontaneous mutations, for example), but there are recent ideas that explain those biological events better than chance, so its role seems to be receding more. Natural selection has nothing to do with chance.

You wrote:
” . . . science, unguided by religion, cannot proceed correctly, but rather, wastes much time in achieving certain results, and worse, is often inconclusive.”

Marrie, this reflects a common misunderstanding of science. Science is almost never conclusive. The phrase I hear most from scientists is “we don’t know yet.” Even when we have solid evidence that helps fill in the big picture, we still can’t say we are certain. That is not a failure of science. Consider: Science is open to change, if any new facts come forward. In contrast, religion does not change, regardless of facts.

Which system of knowledge would you want to lead in the search for wisdom?

I quite agree that the natural world inspires awe. When I see a patient recover with the help of our cumulative understanding of treatment, some social, some physical, some chemical, much of which is based on biology which is in turn informed at its core by evolutionary theory, I am also in awe of our species. We’ve learned how to learn, how to turn our knowledge and the world’s resources to our advantage, We have a lot to learn still.

My concern is that if we look at the wonders of the world, and conclude that god did it, that is a science-stopper. No more need to explore, we have our explanation. End of story. Sorry if that touches on religious sensibilities.

Posted by Mac | Report as abusive

Dear Tom Heneghan,

Yes i am a student at a muslim school. yes, i saw that book in our library.

Posted by janny | Report as abusive


I’m with you all the way. I now work at a big Scottish university after having worked at a big English university, and my coffee table is somewhat underwhelmed with Atlases of Creation too. Even more annoyingly, two of my friends got copies sent to them, but I didn’t. :o(

Have you actually seen this book? I have, and I have to say it is a beauty – and it’s HUGE. You don’t need a coffee table for it… just put some legs on it and it IS a coffee table, but with more pictures. The download version is, by contrast, a let down. The version my friends got is a giant, fabric-covered hardback book, which not only could you rest a coffee cup on, it would also do a pretty good job of absorbing any spillages too. But don’t rush out and buy it just yet. Perhaps Mr. Yahya will track us down and fill our pigeon holes with our own spanking-new copies of this tome?

Dear Mr. Mac,
Although I was not able to read all of your comments(because of a technical problem of the blog I guess,I can not read the ends of phrases),as I have said several times, we can not convince each other to our own truths.So for me, your way of thinking is not understandable, so is mine for you…
You know what?It’s because we are destined to be so!…
Ok..anyway, was nice to talk to you in a ground of respect.I thank Mr. Tom Heneghan&reuters for giving us this place as well.
But we can not keep on trying to convince each other for ever in this blog,can’t we?
I beleive you are quite busy to prove evolution,and me, to prove Creation!
I wish you luck in the future and wish that your soul meets God one day too in a laboratory, in a new fossil or in no matter where…

Posted by Marrie | Report as abusive


From your description, sounds like I may need to build an extension on my pigeonhole for this book. But in anticipation, I think I\’ll stop by Ikea on the way home later and check out science-themed table legs.

Posted by Mac | Report as abusive

Dear Marc,
All through history there have been those who have tried
to justify their atheism – and in today (this age) they think they have found it in the ‘theory of evolution’.
To their huge disappointment and humiliation the oppposite has happened.
The fact that many evolutionists stubbornly still cling to it clearly exposes one important psycological
reality about them:- WISHFULL-THINKING!
The fact of creation cannot be refuted (not successfully anyway) and is CONCLUSIVE. The fact that this has not been made official and is not likely to while the present secular world order is still in place does not alter the reality. Concealing and distorting the truth does not eliminate it and never will do.
The Glorious Qu’ran, the last and final testament to mankind predicted this humiliation for atheists and materialist scientists of our age in a verse chapter 21:30
‘ Do not the unbelievers see how the heavens and the earth were joined together and then we cloved them asunder? And we made every living thing out of water. Will you then not beleive?’
The Big Bang as you know is a 20th century discovery and the Qu’ran was revealed at a time when no human beings much less a people in the desert(arabia) could possible have known this. Reflect carefully also over the verse which is telling the unbeleivers of THIS AGE