The Great Beyond

Of course that insults the religious values. Because by nonproven and provocative statements he attacks to religious beliefs. There is no evidence what he claims (Theory of evolution). Moreover Harun Yahya is a prominent writer who has shown that his theory is an empty fairy tale. Check out; www.harunyahya.com

Harun Yahya's last book "Atlas of Creation" that cause the collapse of evolutionary theory, is sent all of the professors in Europe and USA. The most important newspapers of the world wrote about Harun Yahya and Atlas of Creation. Richard Dawkins too may had this book. Then why did Dawkins answer Harun Yahya's book if he believes evolution so much? Doesn't he have any comment on Harun Yahya's thoughts? Of course he doesn't. Dawkins only says but never prooves. Like this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzCV-4EUuPA) Dawkins has no answer to the questions asked about evolution. But Harun Yahya has prooves about creation and about Evolution deceit. Harun Yahya 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.

There is no evidence for the theory of evolution?? Wow, I don't even know where to begin with that one. I would love your comment (and that of the webmaster from the site you list) on this story...

A. Religion, A Human Evolution Definition

"A religion is a human artifact for survival of a specific human cultural phenotype, comprising cultural tool-kit and technique ascribed by its adherents to be of higher esteem and benefit than other human cultural survival plans".

Wondering if religious persons who also "accept" science would accept this definition, yet with steady unwavering respect and commitment to their religion. IMO such acceptance would contribute more respect to religion and to religious persons.

Sincerely thinking so,

Dov Henis

B. Major Conceptual Hierarchies:

- Religion is a progeny of culture, which is biology, like
- Technology is a progeny of science like
- Biology is a progeny of evolution like
- Universal Evolution is a progeny of Energy

DH

No evidence for evolution? Well OK, maybe none that you'll believe, unlike the vastly overwhelming majority of scientists. There is so much evidence for evolution I don't understand how anyone can continue to peddle such rubbish.

On the other hand, where is your evidence for God? Any God? I mean real, scientifically verifiable, incontravertible evidence.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. There is no need for evidence, for with evidence there is no need for faith and without faith God is nothing.

Well I've got news for you. There is no evidence for God because God does not exist.

Dawkins is himself guilty of the very sins which he blames on religion – dogma, blind faith, a fervent determination to stamp out heresy as defined by him, and sublime ignorance of the relevant scientific evidence. Several of the assumptions he voices about religion have been disproved at least sixty years ago. Dawkins reinvents the simplistic psychology of Malinowski: which attempted to explain social institutions in terms of individual needs such as the fear of death. Even at the time Radcliffe-Brown pointed out that it could be argued equally well that religion causes more anxieties than it relieves, and not all religions provide such reassurances anyway – Calvinism being one example. The idea that religion is a misguided alternative to science – an ill-informed attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe – was a central tenet of British intellectualist anthropology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The intellectualists – virtually all aristocratic males such as Sir Edward Tylor and Sir James Frazer – also shared his ethnocentric evolutionist assumptions of human ‘progress’: the idea that magic was superceded by religion, and religion by science; or that savagery gave way to barbarism, and barbarism to civilization – with “scientific” western civilization the ultimate pinnacle of evolutionary progress, besides which all else is primitive superstition. This, of course, is the ideology of colonialism. Such views have long since been discarded in anthropology, because they simply do not stand up to ethnographic data. He also fails to note that secular nation states do not seem to be less vioent than religious ones. The evils he opposes so passionarely are the result of politics, not religion as such - and he fails to note the profound difference between institutionalised religions (which of course are political) and spirituality.

I did like the book by Dawkins. Finally, there is someone who is not afraid of saying that the scientific approach does not need the notion of god. Many people think like him ( e.g. at universities in Poland) but a small fraction of them would say it in public .

The notion of God, like concept of string theory, explains everything, but cannot be tested.

Harun Yahya is a plagiarist and propagandist who hires ghost writers to spread his creepy views and can barely get traction outside of Turkey. Richard Dawkins is a scientist with some rather provocative but sound views about the universe, science and the hereafter. I find it insane that anyone, even those who would disagree with Dawkins, can support censoring his writing.

Note the difference: You hear people challenging what Harun Yahya has to say (providing it's him saying it) by rational individuals, and cries to ban and deny access to books by the likes of Dawkins from the rabid fundamentalist choir. You don't actually hear people saying "ban Yahya," though. That's because, you book-burning happy flat-earth luddites, ideas don't threaten people who possess independent thinking skills. I've not heard one fundamentalist echo-hole take time to actually denounce the various attempts by Yahya or others to censor Dawkins or other writers talking about the same things. What cowardliness you all cling to.

But back to the point of the post. there has yet to be any cogent argument that actually undermines Natural Selection. He hasn't made one. No one has made one. Whether god exists is up to you, but the jury is back on Evolution. Sorry if it throws off your notions of the 6,000-year-old earth and literalist Rapture wet dreams. That's the truth, and you can't take it.

I believe in people's free will. If people wants to read Dawkins' book, why not let them read it? As a research scientist, I believe that theory is the humans' explanation for the limited facts that we discover. The facts might lead one to believe in evolution, creation or anything else for that matter, depending on the human's personal experience. I respect the evolution theory and I don't claim to attack or disprove the theory. I was never taught creationism in schools, but I learned it from other sources. To believers, God is real, not a virtual concept. People interact in personal terms with God as one will interact with a human friend. Shall we just claim religious people as insane?

I don't like to read about people attacking each other's views. I believe in letting people believe and interpret however they see fit as long as we allow freedom of speech and literature and we practice courtesy to others. I don't think we can prove or disprove the existence of God. We will only know the truth after death for sure. I only hope that the truth will be pleasant for all of us.

another great thinker & scientist dr. Francis Collins also believes in Evolution,
but unlike mr. Dawkins he also believes in God. (Evolution as God's creation technique)

and there are many other Christian and Muslim scientists & thinkers like him around the world.

so there is no need to push Evolution for atheism only.

-------

but art school drop-out mr. Yahya,

i wish he had never spoken on this serious scientific issues...
this subject is way beyond him.

Gerhard Blume,
aslidinckok,

What readers won't find at Mr. Yahya's website is any admission or remains of the numerous glaring errors in his frankly worthless book. Snakes mislabelled as eels, fishing flies (complete with hook) mislabelled as actual flies. Oh yes, the evidence against evolution is damning indeed. If you're a moron.

"the collapse of evolutionary theory"?

Oh please. The only evidence presented in that doorstop is that the people pushing creationism are incapable of even the most basic literature research, let alone actual science.

Also nice to see the "Richard Dawkins pauses" video wheeled out yet again. The pause that marks Dawkins' realisation that he's just let morons into his house under false pretences. Yes, congratulations to Answers In Genesis for falling off their moral high horse by ambushing a man who refuses to talk to creationists.

I make the humble suggestion to people who believe in the Creation to watch a series of videos on youtube, called "Why do people laugh at creationists?"

Yes, this title is a bit offensive but please do watch these videos has it takes some creationists beliefs and compare them to hard facts that can be repeated with experiments.

Personally, I did watch several creationist presentations to ensure that I could talk about what I know. In many of them they mention things that can be 100% disproved by facts.

Watching these videos on youtube won't prove/confirm nor convice you that Evolution but it will show you that the majority of events described by creationists are simply impossible.

Do not just take someone's word for the truth (evolution or creation) use your brain (which is product of evolution or the product of an omnipotent god)still you have a brain so use it.
Why would a god create such a powerful and ingenious brain which we've used to make reproducible experiments that show that the Earth and the Universe are more than 6000 years old?

All I can hope is that this videos will make you think and question what you're being told to blindly believe.

If science were a religion then scientists isolated from each other would not constantly come to the exact same conclusions.

Science is the cultivation of ideas that describe and predict measurements in a manner that is testable.

Religious ideas make no (or vague) predictions, are untestable and unfalsifiable. This is why every isolated group of people comes up with their own unique god.

(empathy + science) > religion.

Harun Yahya is a typical creationist. He fervently believes most of what is attributed to him. His main fear is that science and evolution have destroyed the parochial fantasies of mankind and we will all start killing each other indiscriminately. He just does not get the fact that Islam isn't all sweetness and light, and that evolution isn't a prescription to murder weaker folks.
I wish that he would read some books on evolution and see that Islam does have a nasty side, like all other religions.
Maybe then he will be ready to criticize evolution and its impact on society.