This blog has given Harun Yahya a platform to defend his Islamic version of creationism, so it’s time to show Richard Dawkins tearing him apart. I noticed this video because it’s about the Atlas of Creation, a book that has fascinated me ever since I first saw it in Turkey two years ago. My blog posts on this have sparked amazed reactions from Westerners hearing about it for the first time, and indignant expressions of support from Muslims who agree with Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar).
FaithWorld is interested in following issues of science and atheism, although I have to say I think Dawkins makes a sloppy case for the latter. His book The God Delusion uses parody views of faith like strawmen to knock down. For someone with his intelligence and eloquence, that’s like shooting fish in a barrel. His approach to Islamic creationism also shows a few holes. Two Pakistanis in the audience mentioned Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist who is a leading critic of Muslim anti-Darwinism, and he didn’t have the slightest idea who they were talking about.
Hat tip to Salman Hameed and his blog Science and Religion News for this.
Trackback
51 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
I didn’t know evil started with a capital letter: maybe it’s a pronoun like ‘Allah’ and share something in common.
- Posted by OneGodDownMay Allah bless Harun Yahya, he is the only person at present time being a shield against Evil and insane Darwinists, actually they are naming themselves apes… what can we say more.. lol
- Posted by RahmatDarwinism is a pagan religion and Harun Yahya destroyed this pagan religion worldwide..
- Posted by richardHarun Yahya made Islam look like a religion for an idiot, we. the moslems not that dumb
- Posted by ataThe distinction between “theology” and “natural theology” is a tenuous one to maintain. Scripture based theology makes up a deity ‘a priori’ whilst natural theology is supposed to offer an ‘a posteriori’ (after the fact) argument for the attributes of God. The reason the distinction is tenuous is because the constant remains: a deity.
- Posted by David OOn the opinion that a deity is a fictitious entity, we can comfortably discard the charlatans charade claiming ‘reasonableness’ and ‘objectivity’ which all the while disseminates misinformation through bad science sneaking falsehoods by the droves under its tattered showman’s cloak.
It follows, this view maintains that, anyone who is impressed by a rebranding of an ancient superstition and attributing to it a veneer of renewed respectability is really no more intelligent, and perhaps even less so, than the millions of unquestioning devotees that follow scripture based theology.
The very simple reasoning for this being, at least with revealed religion, one is accepting a premise however haphazardly created and building an argument on it, whereas with natural theology, acting after the fact, they fail to examine the veracity of their very own premise and thus cannot build an argument that will ever amount to anything.
Notwithstanding, neither of these flaws really matter in the end, because both accept a premise that is fictitious.
Watch this spot carefully now, a fair wager will assure that there will be vitriolic outrage in the form of ‘corrections’ which are equally contradictory and confusing. So without saying anything further on the matter: if there is anything to be gained here is: examine the premise! If it involves a God of any kind: where is the evidence? If evidence is given: how does it prove the existence of God? Is the nexus of causation sufficient to maintain the claim? Do the sources contain bias? What are the controls? Are you required to accept an assumption ab initio?
Finally, one should ask, is the stance theistic or is it deistic? If it is theistic, it will inevitably suffer from flaws in the test phase of the hypothesis. If it is deistic: it is NOT a religious argument and its claim on ‘god’ is more Einstein-ian than anything.
The comment below looks a bit defamatory. However, in these circumstances it would look like the person in question’s reputation is being raised as opposed to lowered: much to the detriment of the very narrow minded would be defamer
The theological and ideological fascists (now this is defamatory) would choose to silence any expression of reasonable thought. This demonstrates exactly why Atheists choose not to enter into these sorts of ‘important discussions’.
To cite an ignorance of science on the logic demonstrated by the tale of the pink unicorn, celestial tea cup or if you prefer the flying spaghetti monster would be to overlook one of the most important downfalls of all religion: their inherent and obvious lack of reason and logic.
What these tales importantly illustrate, as is correctly desrcibed in the comments below, is the foundational and structural problems of not only deity-based theology but the whole discourse of religious scripture.
These are problems common to the Old and New Testament, and let’s not even begin with the Koran: It’s flagrant misrepresentation of science is appalling.
Hang the supposed poster child up for all to see say I, a job well done for raising the issue…
- Posted by OneGodDownDavid Osz’s comment is the poster child for why such discussions are important and ongoing.
- Posted by MarianoDavid demonstrates utter ignorance of natural theology: science and philosophy imply a creator and even some of the creator’s characteristics.
Employing Atheism Sunday School atheology only succeeds in discrediting the atheist whilst leaving theism unscathed.
Yes, perhaps I should write a book about an invisible pink unicorn named Toby. Can you disprove that Toby - ‘the invisible pink unicorn’ - exists?
Or maybe perhaps there is a logical fallacy in here somewhere: to which I am demanding you to commit to?
Oh I know, it’s just Atheists being ’sarcastic’…
Reason and logic quite clearly does not prevail when it comes to religion, MM?
- Posted by David OszDawkins and other evolutionists just use sarcasm. When they are asked something about evolution instead of answer the question they attack a religion and dodge the question. The book is 800 page but Dawkin only picked a few page is to “prove” that the book is false.
I suggest that instead of following dawkins blindly you should see the book for yourself.
- Posted by MMFinally, an answer to that utter fraud Harun Yahya who’s pretension prima facie is resoundingly evoked by his adopted name. Upon reading the utter rubbish of the Atlas of Creation I found it difficult to stomach the sheer cheek and ignorance of such a desecration and lascivious perversion of scientific principle, reason and thought. I can finally rest easier knowing that something is done about this total and unmitigated crime against humanity.
- Posted by David OszI consideration to all events that occur between Dawkins AND HARUNYAHYA And I thank HARUNYAHYA that it is open our eyes ..AND THERE ARE IS Something that Dawkins could not prove either by the fact that he is trying to prove leads me to believe something that all the time we lived in as the blind do not see a total that everything is created by God. I do not understand how most people can follow such a build in public Dawkins as the theory of Evolutionism which brings misery to world.Even from his speach can see that he even not sure what he is trying to explaine..I am really sure that our society does not matter what nationality shall not follow such a ridiculous ideology as Davkina.NO PROFF FOR DAWKINS NO EVEN ONE NOTHING !!!! AND HE is still trying to tell us something witch actually we have never seen If its truth so is very very clear that why a monkeys still life at zoo???they got no changes to be human…Is really finy or why there are no EVEN half developed animals?? OR MAY BE EVOLUTION think that on the ground already enough and stopped the development ?unimaginable lie.Everything is so obvious and simple, even if we take on so much simpler example our body nor those of us either have no notion of what is happening inside us … And from beginning of our inception no one ,not we are ,not our mothers may know how we grow …Or take example about Fruits. As the fruit full of beneficial to health vitamins. When a tree gets out of the land only water and minerals .So how a tree never mix test of fruits??is a tree has a some kind of factory??IS REALLY FINY TO BELIVE TO Dawkins.
- Posted by OLGA RUSSIAP.S MR:Dawkins PLS DO NOT MAKE YOUR SELF MORE FUNY THEM NOW PLS STOP IT ….
HARUNYAHYA IS WON LONG TIME AGO !!!!!!!!!!AND PLEASE JUST REALIZE THIS….