Turkish Scientists Respond to BAV

During the early 1990s, when Harun Yahya’s small inexpensive books started to circulate among the public, academics did not take BAV and Harun Yahya seriously, despite the long continuing dissonance between university and scientific circles and right-wing governments over democracy, secularism, and the creation/evolution issue. University academics simply ignored the books, and most of the biology and medicine professors considered it beneath their dignity to answer the arguments of Harun Yahya and other creationists. A similar position was taken by the intellectuals before 1980s – disregarding the majority of the public and some peripheral movements was an important factor that probably contributed to the rise of fundamentalism in Turkey (for details, see Narli 1999).

However, at the turn of the millennium, scientists and academics in Turkey realized that they were besieged by fundamentalist Islamists and a public convinced by Harun Yahya that evolution has collapsed. Even so, most of the scientific organizations and university professors remain unmoved to act against the pseudoscience of BAV. However, the authors of this article believe that defending science and evolution is indispensable in a democracy, and we believe that every single statement of Harun Yahya and BAV should be opposed by using scientific knowledge. As a part of our effort to do so, we have written numerous articles to defend evolution and inform the public about what science really says (see Kence 1982, 1985, 1994a, 1944b; Sayin 1998c, 1998d, 1998e).

After BAV’s conferences in 1998, we organized an independent commission to answer the arguments of BAV and to warn the public about the pseudoscience of Islamic scientific creationists. The short-term goals of the commission were to:

1) Publish declarations about the scientific facts to the public in response to the activities of BAV;
2) Gather support from scientists in Turkish universities;
3) Write and/or translate books about evolution and inform the public, as well as other scientists, about current scientific information;
4) Contact other centers, foundations, and scientific institutions, especially in the US and Europe, that are also defending science and evolution against scientific creationists;
5) Publish and distribute answers to the arguments of the Islamic creationists and their pseudoscience; and
6) Inform governmental agencies, universities, schools, and the mass media about the danger of Islamic creationists and their pseudoscience.

6 Responses to “Turkish Scientists Respond to BAV”

  1. Joe Morreale Says:

    From Harun Yahya website:

    WE CHALLENGE DAWKINS TO A DISCUSSION BEFORE THE PUBLIC

    Richard Dawkins, a most ardent supporter of Darwinism, has long accounted for the perfect creation of the universe in terms of the theory of evolution, which has lately suffered a global collapse. In his recent writings and interviews, however, Dawkins has started to express that “life cannot form by chance.” It is an absence of sense and reason to support evolution on one hand and to state that life cannot come about by chance on the other. That is due to the fact that according to the theory of evolution, which Dawkins supports, the existence of life is based on entirely random coincidences.

    Dawkins has realized that he can get nowhere with the scenario of chance. But, he is now in the logical impasse as he basically claims that “evolution cannot be a result of coincidences, but has occurred by means of coincidences.” What he should realize is that demagogy no longer works.

    If Dawkins sincerely believes in this theory, we’d like to invite him to Turkey, or else we could come to UK to have a discussion. Dawkins should clarify hundreds of questions, only a few of which are listed below, before the cameras. So we, as well as the public, will be able to hear what he has to say. Obviously, it’s no good to engage in unilateral programs. Moreover, with such an attitude Dawkins only deceives himself. Let us send the first 4 volumes of Atlas of Creation to Mr. Dawkins, and let him examine the photographs of the fossils therein which have not changed at all over the hundreds of millions of years. And let him account for them in evolutionary terms according to his much-publicized logic�quot;if he can!

    Archeological researches unearthed over a hundred million fossils, proving that life forms were created out of nothing. Still, there is not a single transitional fossil supporting the theory of evolution. If Dawkins is sincere in his claim, he should bring a transitional fossil and announce it to the public as “a transitional form!”
    The odds against a functional protein emerging randomly is 10950 to 1�quot;a practical impossibility. (In mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are accepted as “zero probability.”) If Dawkins is honest, he should point at a mass of proteins that formed by chance or by means of the methods he espouses. Let Dawkins explain us how he can account for the origin of life in evolutionary terms, when even a single protein�quot;the building block of life�quot;cannot form by chance!
    Let Dawkins explain us how all colorful, lively, three-dimensional and perfectly clear images, shortly life itself, can form in the pitch dark human brain and who sees this image in the brain!
    Let Dawkins explain us in evolutionary terms how conversations, music and all other sounds form in the sound-isolated brain; who listens to and enjoys these sounds, who knows their meaning, who reflects on them consciously and who answers back these sounds!
    Let Dawkins ask the same questions to us, and let us give our answers. Let us supply our evidence, and let him bring his�quot;if he has any. Then let the public decide who is right. We want the public to know on a larger scale how Darwinism is a false theory and how it is the greatest deception of the world’s history. We are confident that the days are soon to come when people will laugh, asking themselves “How could we ever believe this theory?” In near future, people will be wondering with amazement how they could ever have been taken in by it. In fact, this is already occurring, at an ever-increasing momentum. World-wide polls reveal statistical data proving this state of affairs.

    Darwinism, tried to be kept alive by engaging in demagogy and propaganda, has been refuted in all spheres and it is now widely recognized that it’s no longer possible to defend Darwinism by demagogy. Dawkins’ recent statement along the logic that “evolution cannot be a result of coincidences, but has occurred by means of coincidences” is nothing but a laughable misery of reason.

    HARUN YAHYA HAS REFUTED EVOLUTION AND IT IS TIME TO HUMILIATE IN PUBLIC THAT MUPPET DAWKINS WHO HAS ALWAYS BEEN HIDING BEHIND THE SECULAR ESTABLISHMENT.

    WE ARE WAITING…

    • Morlock Says:

      You might want to read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. He has a paragraph where he completely demolishes the childish idiocy of Harun Yahya.

  2. anwar Says:

    thank u brother morreale for support of creationism.i am a muslim , amedical student and i am against theory of evolution.
    i am from india.

  3. Garry Scholey Says:

    Anwar if you really are a medical student you do yourself no favours by turning your back on science to embrace the superstitious ignorance of Adnan Oktar.
    Richard Dawkins’ book The greatest Show on Earth and Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True are written by real educators, and will explain why scientists reject mythology in favour of evolution.
    Reading Adnan Oktar is a sure way of retarding your education.

  4. charvakam Says:

    I am an ordinary man from India, better than our doctors basis on thinking capability.
    If there is no any doubt on fossils, for instance hominid fossils, how the creationist view of fossils clarification differ from one another?

    See example given below
    (Name of fossil, Clarification, the name of creationist, year accordingly)

    Peking (915-1225 cc), Ape {Cuozzo (1998)}, Ape {Gish (1985)},
    Human {Mehlert (1996)}, Ape {Bowden (1981)Menton(1988)Taylor (1992)Gish (1979)}, Human {Baker (1976)Taylorand Van Bebber
    (1995)}, Human {Taylor (1996) Lubenow (1992)}, Human {Line
    (2005)},
    I have more example from Jim Folley

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: