Friday, June 08, 2007

'Darwin made me do it!': Fundamentalist Muslim blames terrorism, world's evils on Charles Darwin

Controversial Muslim author Adnan Oktar, also known by his pen-name Harun Yahya, held a press conference aboard a luxury yacht in the Black Sea today to proclaim the evils of the world were a direct result of Darwinism, according to Reuters News Service.

"Communism, fascism, and Freemasons stand on the tenets of Darwinism, and the world power of capitalism stands on the same.... Hitler and Mao were both Darwinists," said Oktar.

Oktar, every bit as fundamentalist in his Islamic beliefs as American fundamentalist Christians are in theirs, believes in the creationist theory that Yahweh/God/Allah created the universe in six days, as described in the Bible and the Koran. He says he has no formal ties with Christian fundamentalists other than the "exchange of information."

"We will not deceive ourselves that scientists have a monopoly on truth," he said.

Oktar's group mass-mailed copies of his lavishly illustrated Atlas of Creation, which argues that Darwin's theory of evolution is at the root of global terrorism,to libraries and educators throughout France recently. Echoing Christian fundamentalist Kent Hovind, known as Dr. Dino, the book carries over 700 pages of images comparing fossils with present-day animals, arguing that Allah created all life as it is and that evolution never took place.

Oktar said one million of his books and movies were being downloaded from Internet sites every month, and that copies of his books and movies had been distributed in 170 countries.

No one knows who is financing Oktar's publishing efforts. Some believe it is Islamic fundamentalists, while others think it is U.S. Christian fundamentalists. Ah, sweet conspiracy....

| | | | | |


  1. Fundies should be ashamed of themselves for lying to the public. They have convinced the ignorant masses that the Bible is irrefutable in its history when, in fact, it has never been demonstrated to be so. From accounts contemporary to the Bible, we know much of the New Testament is inaccurate historically. The same must be true of the Old Testament.

    That being said, claims that evolution is false cannot be supported on the basis of a book which is intrinsically and inherently flawed in the accuracy of its information.

    Much as the Catholic Church--which now accepts the tenets of evolution--has stated, the Bible is a narrative story. If only the Fundies could admit that, the world would be a better place.

    And yes, science DOES have a monopoly on truth. When there is a better tool than the scientific method to obtain truth, let me know.

    Fraternally yours,
    The Libertarian

  2. I do not, and never will understand anyone who has been exposed to modern science and can still cling to the creation stories told in the various religions as literal truth. After all:

    Science has carbon dating. They have a book.

    Science observes galactic red shift. They have a book.

    Science has the fossil record. They have a book.

    Science is able to create the building blocks of life in a laboratory. They have a book.

    It just seems to elude these folks that there are several kinds of truth. There is literal, factual truth, and then there is what I refer to as poetic truth.

    Given the preponderance of evidence, why in the name of everything spherical, can't they see that in some instances what they've got just might be the "poetic" truth?


    Traveling Man

  3. I am not a Freemason, so I cannot comment from the Masonic perspective, but I am a Fundamental Christian with a serious scientific background, and yet I believe in a 6-day creation without hesitation. You probably think me a fool, so I simply ask you this:

    As Freemasons, you believe in God. What I don't understand your conception of God, so can you please enlighten me?

    For example, if you believe that God exists. separated and apart from us, then your scientific claims can absolutely hold true.

    If you believe that God created everything and then "set it into motion" and stepped back (ie: letting Evolution then take its course) then again, your claims again hold true.

    But, if you consider the Biblical account, it presupposes a God that is truly omnipotent and all-powerful. If your belief that God could possibly be "all-powerful" then is it outside the realm of possibility that this God actually did create everything as-is in six days? To believe anything less is to place limits on God.

    Does Freemasonry's perception of God impose such limits?

  4. Masonry demands belief in a Supreme Being. I think I can speak for most Masons as a Mason who believes in such.

    Even though I am a baptized Catholic, I do not buy into much church dogma or the Bible as something other than a narrative. I see god(s) in a deistic perspective. It (god or gods) created the building blocks that led to our existence. Period. No omniscience, omnipotence, interference or the like. Those are creations of the human mind that attempt to explain in a simplistic sense what we cannot understand in a post-analytical sense.

    Because humans do not have the power to create the universe, that would make the existence of the god(s) that created it "Supreme" or above our limited power. Whether there is one Supreme Being or a race of Supreme Beings, I cannot say. Nevertheless, I have fulfilled the Masonic requirement for such a belief which to me is intuitive. Belief in more than one god (as in Hinduism) does not violate the spirit of the Masonic code.

    If one doubts the existence of god(s), I suggest they read St. Thomas Aquinas' inductive proofs for the existence of God. Like it or not, we have "nothing to lose" by believing. If you read between the lines, we have nothing to gain either.

    As for creationism, I too am a scientist with 16 years of post-graduate education. Belief in the literal creation interpretation is not supported by the non-human fossil record, cumulative DNA mutations in plants or animal, carbon-dating or human evolution itself. Science has answered most of these questions in some form.

    To deny science as the supreme tool of determining truth is to deny humanity of its most basic Aristotelean desire: The Desire to Know.

    Fraternally Yours,
    The Libertarian

  5. It is my opinion that it is neither Darwinism nor science that is to be blamed for anything except causing debate and further research.

    "Beliefs", cast in stone as it were, are not open to revealed truth. Beliefs make people do the most incredibly wrong things because there is only ONE truth to the believer. No other possibilities, period.

    Science is open to changing it's professed IDEAS when further truths are revealed. The ideas we hold today may and will change as we gain further insight.

    It's not comfortable to change beliefs. It makes people really upset to have their beliefs challenged. Ideas are simple to change, ang fewer die because of them.

    Hence, humans, with their beliefs, continue to be the dominant and most stupid life form on the planet.

    Please God, save me from your believers.

  6. To the Anonymous Poster:

    While I said I cannot understand those who hold a belief in the literal interpretation of the Biblical story of creation, I didn't mean to say that I looked down upon it. I certainly *don't* think you are a fool. Please don't misconstrue a statement of my thoughts to be an attack on your beliefs.

    Freemasonry has no "teaching" about God that is monolithic. Belief in a Supreme being is a prerequisite for membership; but exactly *what* those beliefs are, is left to each individual Brother.

    Were you to petition my Lodge, and I assigned to interview you, your beliefs would not be an impediment to membership even thought they contrast sharply with my own.

    Whatever faith a Brother has when he enters the Fraternity is his; Freemasonry does not try to change it.

    Perhaps this link will help explain things a bit better:

    Traveling Man

  7. You always have great responses Traveling Man. always a pleasure


  8. I never understood why religion and science couldn't co-exist. One should never be ingnorant in either.

    I believe these quotes sums it up:

    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

    "The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer."
    ---Albert Einstein

  9. "One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh." — Robert A. Heinlein

  10. Every idea must be questioned. I advise evolutionists to observe Creationism without prejudice. I believe that every person who has a little intelligence and conscience will admit the truth of Creation.

  11. What are the main principles behind Darwinism. I think first we have to question that.

    - The strong ones are better fit, so they will survive
    - The weak ones are not fit, they will be eliminated

    These are the Darwinist principles that Karl Marx so happily embraced and turned into the Dialectical Mechanism to be applied over people and nations. Lenin and Stalin, also Mao supported the teaching of evolution and included it in curricula. Hitler also loved the idea because he could establish Racism and Arianism on the basis of Darwinist thinking.

    What followed then? World War which ended in the death of millions, concentration camps, genocide, ethnic cleansing, anarchy and terror in every nation. This is the legacy of Darwinism to every one of us.

    Adnan Oktar is very right, yes, Terrorism is based on Darwinism. There is no question on that. We should question how the world should immediately hold onto this truth and get rid of any prejudice against the clear facts.

    There is nothing to be afraid of, Adnan Oktar is describing a world of love and brotherhood, where each idea can live along the other, but in harmony and peace. You may listen to his words in his press conference with the French media at YouTube.

    All the best regards.

  12. What are the main principles behind Darwinism. I think first we have to question that.

    - The strong ones are better fit, so they will survive
    - The weak ones are not fit, they will be eliminated

    It's unfortunate that so many people have this misinterpretation of Darwin. What you are describing pertains to individuals. Darwin was writing about populations within a species. And you completely miss the point that the idea of evolution does not even discuss "weak" or "unfit;" rather, it's a way to describe the adaptations that a population makes to accommodate changes in their environment over long periods of time.

    None of this has anything to do with religion or politics, of course, so it's ridiculous to even make those comparisons.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.