Eric Michael Johnson: Alright well I just want to thank you for agreeing to sit down with me to have this interview. I really appreciate it.
Adnan Oktar: I thank you too.
Eric Michael Johnson: First I would like to ask you with so many problems on earth today, why do you focus on evolution?
Adnan Oktar: The root of the problems in the world is in any case Darwin’s theory of evolution. There is no love where there is no belief in Allah, but there is war where there is no love. There is egoism and selfishness. And this turmoil occurs. There is no respect for people. No love for people. Darwinism lies at the root of all this oppression, anarchy and terror. Anyone who looks carefully into this can see this.
If someone claims humans came into being from the worms, from the microbes, then this person would feel no respect towards the others. He wouldn’t respect the others. I mean people can have no respect for an entity which they believe will just disappear nor for a primitive organism according to their own logic. So such people regard the others as insects. They regard killing, crushing or eliminating the others as something perfectly ordinary. Wherever we look we can see that Darwinism lies at the root of cruelty.
Eric Michael Johnson: Okay. That is the same argument you used in your book. The scholars that developed Darwinism. And you say that you are opposed to evolution because it argues against creation. And causes people to abandon their faith in Islam. However the Islamic philosopher Ibn-i Haldun who lived in the 14th century argued that all life evolved from minerals and that he was evolved from monkeys, he felt this process was guided by Allah. Jamal Al-Din Al-Afgani accepted Darwinism. He thought it was compatible with Islam. He even stated that Muslim scholars invented the idea. If Muslims in the past could accept both Islam and evolution why do you think that is impossible today?
Adnan Oktar: Some religious scholars gradually fell under the influence of ancient pagan religion. They were influenced by shamanic religion. They came under the influence of ancient Sumerian religion and ancient Egyptian religion. The Qur’an makes it clear that human beings are created. There are no references to evolution in the Qur’an. Whoever says there is, whichever Islamic scholar says that, he is wrong and in error. Because these statements have not the slightest thing in common with science. When we look at fossils, 100 million of them all prove Creation. There is not a single transitional fossil. If there were, we would see that when looking at transitional fossils. In other words, Allah could have created in that way, He could have created through evolution, but we would see the evidence for that. But there no such evidence. Not a single piece of evidence. That is why we need to be very honest and genuine on the subject. Allah’s perfect creation is astonishingly obvious. It is not important that earlier Islamic scholars said this. They were wrong and in error. They were influenced by other ideas, by pagan religions. The fact is the path that reason, sience and Qur’an shows us. Reason and science and the Qur’an shows us the truth. We can clearly see that creation exists. This is very clear and distinct.
Eric Michael Johnson: In your critiques of evolution, you always emphasize the conflict and competition in the theory of natural selection. But Darwin also put in a lot of attention to the evolution of cooperation and morality. Many evolutionary biologists have spent their careers looking at cooperation and came up with kinselection, reciprocal alturism and generalized reciprocity to show how cooperation is the result of evolution. Are you aware of this research?
Adnan Oktar: Of course I am aware. The phenomenon known as natural selection is the law created by Allah. It is something tightly joined up with creation. A bird goes and catches insects, for instance. It eats and feeds on them. Let us assume this is selection, but we also see it is closely bound up with creation. I mean this is a law of creation, and not something that brings about evolution. Because there is a created bird and also created insects and they are in biological equilibrium together. We can see this is a law of creation. It is a violation of science and reason to depict this is as evidence of creation.
Eric Michael Johnson: Darwin writes; “Those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring.” How does it change your view of evolution if natural selection can create cooperation and is not only about conflict?
Adnan Oktar: Not everything that Darwin said is wrong, of course. The thing being described, the struggle between living things, is a law of creation. Living things could not survive in the absence of that system. The bird needs insects. The insects need leaves. Or smaller organisms. Allah has established a flawless equilibrium among them. And there is also mutual cooperation among living things. Animals are exceedingly affectionate toward their young, for instance. They protect and watch over them. They show them affection. But there is a need for created entities in order for these things to be possible. There is a need for perfect, very well designed living things. These living things were created and exist in perfect readiness. What we are talking about is their living within such an immaculate system. But Darwinism claims that these living things came into existence entirely by chance. In that case, according to their way of thinking, there was an environment of chaos and unconsciousness. This is therefore a belief that entirely contradicts belief in creation. That means that no purpose to life is left. Just animals fighting one another and humans fighting one another. So these people will not have to account for what they do. The message from this is that love and affection are meaningless. That what follows in the wake of non-belief. Of course this system will develop where there is no belief in Allah. Darwinism lies at the heart of communism and fascism. That is what non-belief leads to. He was amazed at the structure of the eye. He was amazed by the mutual solidarity between animals. But he sees all this in amazement in the absence of Allah. That is what is so wrong. The fact is that Allah exists and this is the reason of the existence all these amazing these. That is what he has to say. He has to be honest on this subject.
Eric Michael Johnson: Let’s talk about your work for a moment. In Atlas of Creation there are multiple errors that questioned the quality of your research. On page 468 you discussed eels in the order ofAnguilliformes and claim to show both the fossil and the modern example. However the photograph is that of a sea snake which is in a total different order. On page 402 there are four fossils of Brittlestars but what one of the modern photos is of a starfish which is in a different class. On three different pages you have pictures labeled as crinoids except that the modern photograph is a sabellid, an animal in an entirely different subkingdom. You also used four photographs that are not animals at all. But fishing lures created by Graham Owen, who did not authorize you to use his photographs. How do you respond critiques about the scientific atrocity of a book that you sent out to thousands of scientists around the world.
Adnan Oktar: Thousands of pieces of evidence clearly reveal and demonstrate the phenomenon. It is cyrstal clear and explicit. I mean just think of a person, he may have a slightly twisted ear, or a bent nose or disheveled hair, but he still is a human. It is apparent with thousands and ten thousands of proofs that he is a human. The books make it clear, with thousands of pieces of evidence, that evolution does not exist. But there is a small error regarding the fossils here. There is a small error just in the corner of the fossil No. 74. These things do not change the big picture. None of these are important. This is just demagoguery. There are 100 million fossils. We just included a very small proportion of those 100 million fossils. That is a really minute proportion. All these 100 million fossils are like the ones in my book, all proving creation. This is very important. Of course there will be minor technical errors in the presentation of 100 million fossils, indistinct errors. Such do not prevent 100 million fossils constituting evidence. This is really unnecessary, desperate, resistant behaviors. There is no need for unnecessary resistance. There is not a single transitional fossil. But on the contrary there are 100 million fossils all proving the fact of creation.
Eric Michael Johnson: However this goes beyond a few simple falsities. For example on 790 you state that the archaeic homo sapien fossil skull found in Atapuerca was 800.000 years old. But the fossil is actually only about 300.000 years old. You nearly tripled the age of the fossil. On 792 you state that the 2.3 million years old fossil mandible is known as A.L.666-1 was from homo-sapiens and you quote book written by Donald Johanson as a source. I looked up that reference the book states clearly that the fossil is not homo-sapiens but earlier species probably homo-habilis or rudolfensis. These are not small errors.
Adnan Oktar: There are even older homo-sapiens fossils. The important thing here is that there existed no evolution in any of living things. I mean we are not proving this only with humans. We prove this with species of plants, species of animals. I mean no evolution ever took place neither in plants, nor in animals, not in bugs. We for instance were to discuss only the so-called evolution of the grasshopper it would be wrong. Evolution is an undivided subject, when we examine it within that whole, we see that evolution does not exist anywhere. I mean just taking out the humans from that whole, just taking out a lion for instance or a tiger would not be right. Evolution should be discussed as a whole. When we look at the whole, we see that the living things have not been subjected to any kind of evolution. Homo-sapiens fossils exist in a sufficient amount on earth. There are lots of homo-sapiens fossils on earth. However at the moment their amount found are not sufficient. Probably they will be found in the next steps, and they are being found. Foot prints of homosapiens are found. However this is not our mail proof. Evolution did not take place as a whole, that is the main thing. It would have been okay even if they did not find any fossils of homosapiens. I mean it would be okay even if they have found only 10.000 years old. This does not constitute any evidence proving that humans had been subjected to evolution or not. We understand the phenomenon when we look at the fossils of all living things. I mean the matter is done and over fundamentally. We understand fundamentally that evolution did not happen.That is what is important. Or else there are lots of other varieties of apes. I mean there are lots of ape varieties resembling to humans. Or gorillas, gibbons, and other such animal species, moreover there could be other animal species unknown to us resembling to humans. These are not materials to be used in the evolution of humans. These are completely different living species. If they attempt to classify these, they would be making a great mistake. These are all extinct species each lived in different ages. Consequently considering them as ancestors of humans does not have anything to do with being scientific, reasonable or logical.
Eric Michael Johnson: You didn’t answer my question. You understand that the concern here is that you are misrepresenting scientists. You are trying to show that Dr.Johanson was saying that this mandible was from the homosapiens but that was not what he was saying at all. You misrepresented what he was saying. How do you respond to that?
ADNAN OKTAR: When a scientist makes an analysis on a subject, that is not an absolute law. He may have made a misinterpretation. In my opinion, Neanderthal Man was a perfect human, though for others he may be a species of ape. In other words, this is something open to interpretation. Because it’s skull volume, it’s brain volume, is highly developed. But the important thing is the soul inside it. I mean once he has that intelligence, we see that Neanderthal Man made musical instruments and lived a pleasant life. From that, we can see he was an entity with a soul. What matters is that he had a soul. A large or small brain volume is irrelevant. Pygmies have very small skulls, but they are highly intelligent. Some people have very large heads, but they are stupid. Skull size does not equate to intelligence. The important thing here is the soul inside that person. And that the brain is inside a powerful structure. For example, the skull of a chineese person will not be the same with the skull of a black person. The skull of a pygme and a bushma are not the same. There may be skull differences. But we cannot infer on the basis of that, that these are different entities. They are all entities with a soul. They are all intelligent beings, and what counts is their intelligence and reason. That is the important thing. In other words, we see no correlation between brain size and intelligence.
Eric Michael Johnson: That may be. But still doesn’t answer my question to state that scientists are sometimes wrong and I agree that this is the case, authors often correct other scientists errors. But are you saying that Donald Johanson is wrong about this mandible? What evidence do you have that the A.L. 666-1 is a homosapiens mandible?
Adnan Oktar: What we call Homo sapiens, other people may not call Homo sapiens. Or what they call Homo sapiens we may think is a kind of ape. That is perfectly normal. In other words, it is open to scientific interpretation. But it is certainly not the case that the person in question’s analysis is infallible.
Eric Michael Johnson: In Atlas of Creation you also claimed that the process of evolution is a straight line. You say Australopithecine to Homo habilis to Homo erectus, to Homo sapiens. You then argue that if any one of these species lived at the same time with the same time with another, it disproves the evolution of humans. This is the same argument that many creationists made in the US, they say that if humans evolved from apes there shouldn’t be any more apes. How you respond to scientist who is saying you are using a flawed understanding of evolution?
Adnan Oktar: Actually, this is not all that complex, and is something that is perfectly clear. It is not something that would need raking. When we look at millions of species of plants, when we look at their fossils, we see that they never underwent evolution in any way. In the same way, when we look at insect species we see that they never evolved, either. When we look at all animal species, we see they had never evolved either. Consequently when we look at ape species, we see there have been many ape species like gorillas and gibbons, and species of apes very closely resembling human beings, but these are extinct. The fact we come across their fossil remains does not mean we come across the ancestors of man. They are independent animals that happen to resemble human beings. There are several species of animal that resemble human beings. Many living things resemble humans. Primates resemble them, as do other life forms. That is quite normal. That is because their resemblance to humans bestows beauty on them. In other words, they would not have been so beautiful if they did not resemble human beings. We like them because they resemble humans. That is why Allah has created them in that form. But it would be utterly illogical to say, on the basis of that similarity, that they are the ancestors of human beings. We can see this from millions of proofs. It is not just me who says this, but Darwin, too. Look what he says: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? “ That is all, it is quiet clear. “Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?.. But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” The matter is done and over with. “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?” If a person admits this, is also admitting that this matter is over and done with. I mean this is what I am describing anyway. A chorus of millions of plant, insect and animal fossils tells us of creation. This is very clear and explicit. We need to be honest on this. In other words, we cannot get anywhere with forced commentaries.
Eric Michael Johnson: However scientists have found many forms that Darwin called transitional forms. And not even once, many times the transitional fossil within each of nine levels in modern layers. Archeopteryx, the transition from being dinasours to modern birds. And Tiktaalik Rosaea a transitional fossil between ancient fish and modern amphibiens. Why do you reject these fossils as transitional forms?
Adnan Oktar: These are not transitional fossils. These are independent living species. They are fully formed, perfect living species. All scientists know what a transitional form should be like, and you should know, too. There are no such intermediate fossils. A whole, complete perfect living being does not make a transitional form. Indeed, Darwin says that there is not a single specimen in the fossil record to show that one species turned into another. Not a single example, he says. “We cannot prove that even a single species changed.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. This is made clear in the first edition. Darwin admitted it very honestly there. It would therefore be wrong of us to take a cat as the forerunner of the tiger. Cats are completely different species. Pumas and panthers and leopards are all different. It would be a lie to collect their fossil remains, set them out in order of size and say that this is how they developed. It would not be honest behavior. Therefore, when we look at the fossils you listed we see that they are all perfect entities. I have shown what the concept of transitional fossil means in my book. You can see it there if you look carefully. One needs to look at events in more detail in order to free oneself from such error. It is a violation of science to say that perfect life forms are transitional.
Eric Michael Johnson: Scientists would say that when two species, sorry, the two groups of the same species separate from each other and salvage breeding, that there will be small genetic changes that will grow up over time. When one group migrates to a very different environment, those changes will be even greater. Because the different environment will start very different traits. The group that stayed in the original environment may not change much at all. You see that how what you are saying is different from how scientists describe evolution.
Adnan Oktar: A feature acquired subsequently cannot be passed on. For example, a body-builder’s child will not look like a body-builder. That cannot be passed onto the next generation. Or if someone constantly hits his hand against somewhere, it will end up calloused. But his child will not be born with calloused hands. That is one of the perfect laws of creation. But it is not a feature passed on to subsequent generations. Someone who sunbathes all the time does not turn into a Negro. Scientists explain all this in their works. I mean if one evaluates things genuinely that is a clear fact. Moreover the real thing that Darwinists are unable to account for is the soul. For example, I am seeing you now. You appear in my brain. And you are seeing me in your brain. You look at the camera, but what you are seeing is the camera in your brain. You watch the camera in your brain. This is a most extraordinary phenomenon. Darwinists never dwell on this. They never talk about this most important subject. For instance, there is no light outside. There are waves outside. The human brain perceives the image as light. For instance, I am seeing you in full color. And you are seeing me in full color. An in-depth 3D image even forms. Because of the quality of the image it is really as if I am sitting in front of the television at this moment. Even the image of the television forms inside my brain. And you are now watching me inside your brain. In full color and 3D. And with my voice, your brain converts sound waves into electricity, and the brain then interprets that electrical current in the form of sounds. You interpret signals inside your brain. The ear inside your brain hears me. Evolutionists have to account for this eye and ear inside the brain. But they never broach the subject. I advise them to look into the question.
Eric Michael Johnson: Well I think the problem is that you were trying to prove that evolution is wrong but what you are describing is not evolution as scientists describe it themselves. For more example in the skulls that develop Darwinism you show imaginary skulls of horses with misplaced eyes or three nostrils. You claim that if evolution were true there should be many examples like this because of mutations. However you must know that Darwin talked about small almost imperceptible changes in the theory of evolution. If major skull changes like you discuss were to happen to each, then that animal would have ot survived. And they wouldn’t exist any longer. The fossil records made up of those species that succeded over a long period of time. So how you respond to the criticism that you don’t understand the science of evolution, and so you are not in a good position to criticise it?
Adnan Oktar: Darwin himself provides the response to that. See, how explicitly he states; “if species really did descend gradually from one another” -gradually he also states that it should be gradual- why is it, he says, that we do not encounter countless transitional forms? Why is nature fully defined rather than in a state of disorder? “ He says there is a perfection, an immaculate harmony. He says “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” See, Darwin himself provides the response. Not a single transitional fossil has been or can be found. On the other hand, we see a perfect structure in insect, plant and animal species. When we look at 100- or 200-million-year-old plant fossils, for example, we see that they have never changed in any way. We look at insects preserved in amber and see that they have never changed. We look at petrified insect fossils, and these have never changed, either. We look at fossils of other living things and see that these have remained unchanged. However, we do see that a great many species existed but that these have become extinct. For example, out of 100 living species, 99 have become extinct. But their fossils still remain. Yet when we look at their fossils we see that they are all flawless and perfect animals. Darwinists are well aware that they see no transitional forms. Darwin himself says that right from the outset. If transitional forms existed, we would say so; the existence of intermediate fossils would mean that Allah created through evolution. But there are no transitional fossils, although there should have been hundreds of millions of even trillions. Allah could have created in that way. But there are none. So we must be very honest and truthful on the subject. It clearly and openly indicates creation. That can be seen as soon as one looks. There is nothing difficult or complicated about it.
Eric Michael Johnson: But I think you have misunderstood how evolution works as scientists describe it. Populations evolve over time. Individuals do not evolve over time. I have just given you three examples of transitional forms that fit the definition as Darwin laid forth. Well let me switch here slightly. In your book The Evolution Deceit and in the Atlas of Creation you claim that mutation does not add new information to genes therefore making evolution impossible. Have you ever heard of a frame shift mutation?
Adnan Oktar: If we go into the science of genetics, Darwinism can explain nothing. In that event it cannot account for anything. They sometime try to come up with evidence, even though all are false, and seek to depict some things as transitional forms even though they are not. But when we look in the micro level, the very minutest level, when we look at the structures of human beings and other living things, at proteins, we see that it is totally impossible for proteins to come into existence by chance. It is scientifically impossible for a protein to form by chance, and especially for the proteins that will give rise to life, to be collected side by side. Similarly, when we look into the structure of DNA, we see that a information coding system that is much more perfect that the whole bookcase behind you is encoded inside the DNA. Not even a child would believe you if you said that all this came about by chance. Wherever we l ook, Darwinism has collapsed. When we look at fossils, it has collapsed there. Darwinism has collapsed in terms of Darwin’s own statements. It has also collapsed at the molecular level. Research into the structure of proteins, the structure of DNA and the structure of the cell all show that Darwinism is impossible, that evolution is impossible. And there are a great many scientists who gained faith, who grew to believe in Allah after seeing these facts. For example, the person who developed the genome project has declared his belief in Allah solely because of that, because he saw its marvelous structure.
Francis Collins, for instance, the person I just mentioned, see what it says about him; “the director of the Human Genome Project came to believe in Allah through the knowledge he obtained about DNA.” See what Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome project, says “This was a task given to me by God.” This is what he says about other scientists; “Many scientists believe in God but prefer to remain silent on the subject. I was also once an atheist, but I was astonished by the proofs of the existence of God I found in nature.” Who says that? Francis Collins. Look at Antony Flew, the eminent British philosopher and one-time atheist. Flew says, “DNA research shows the Creator behind creation. Biologists’ research shows that the almost unbelievable sequence of DNA and its exingency for life necessitates the existence of a Creator. As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done.” In other words, he says he will strive to spread belief in Allah.
Eric Michael Johnson: You mentioned Francis Collins, he accepts the evidence of evolution. So I don’t understand why bringing him up matters. Original question was about adding new information to genes which you say is impossible. And I mentioned a frameshift evolution, I am sorry, frameshift mutation. Just to briefly explain what it is; as you know the DNA is made up of various combinations of four nucleotides; Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine and Guanine. When the DNA changes grade a group of three of these nucleotides called a codon make up a single amino acid. Many amino acids together make up a protein. A frameshift mutation is the one or more of these nucleotides added or deleted. This shifts the three nucleotides in a codon, causing a different amino acid to be produced. And making a different protein. This creates new information. A good example is the Japanese flavor bacteria. A frameshift mutation made us see that this bacterium could no longer digest carbohydrates. But it could now digest not alone waste allowing bacteria to eat a fruit source that no other bacteria without that mutation could digest. Do you think this is an example of a mutation adding new information to the genes?
Adnan Oktar: Mutations occur in DNA, but they are usually deleterious, in other words, crippling. That has been observed in experiments on fruit flies. The result is abnormal life forms. And therefore deformities. But we know that genetic structure does not change. We can see that from fossils. From species of insect dating back 50, 100 or 150 million years. When we look at plant species dating back 200 or 250 million years, at 300-400 million-year-old life forms we see that have never changed in any way. It is totally unscientific to try to get anywhere using such specious evidence when we have such concrete, irrefutable proof to hand. Fossils tell us, quite openly and inarguably, that evolution never happened, that there had been no genetic change. Wherever you go and excavate you come across fossils, but when we look at them we see they never change. It is totally unscientific to try to get anywhere using such specious evidence when we have such concrete, irrefutable proof available.
Adnan Oktar: Allah had bestowed us the whole world as a labarotory and Allah is presenting us the developments seen within 300 -400 million years in these labarotories. Just as the humans conduct researches in the laboratories and reach results, Allah is presenting us ready researches and information. We have the possibility of examining researches, laboratory researches of 300-400 millions of years. When we look at these we see that there is no genetic malfunction in any of the living species and that they have all continued their genetic structure as it is. For instance only yesterday night my friends have brought me three-four pieces of insect fossils and I have looked at them. One was approximately 100 millions of years, the other 150 millions of years, and they have not been subjected to no change at all, they remained the same, I compared them with the photographs and we saw that they were already species we are accustomed to. While these are so explicit and clear it is impossible to ignore this. As a matter of fact people saw these facts at the moment, the rate of people not believing in Darwinism is 95% in Turkey. However this happened as the result of such reasonable scientific researches, it was exactly the opposite before in Turkey. I mean the rate of people believing in Darwinism was very very high. At the moment the rate of people not believing in Darwinism is very very high. But this only happens as the result of facts being put forward.
Eric Michael Johnson: You didn’t answer my original question. You state explicitly in Atlas of Creation and you are talking about microbiology at this point. You say that mutation cannot add new information to genes. And I have just given you an example of how mutation can add new information to the genes. How do you respond?
Adnan Oktar: I have already made this clear. Mutations may happen, the structure of DNA may be damaged from the outside. It can be damaged artificially and with x-rays. It can be harmed by a number of reasons. But the end result is deformities. Defective life forms result. This is not something new. Scientists have been talking about it for years. What you are talking about is a new claim. The person concerned is talking about something already known and just changing it a bit. This is no extraordinary state of affairs. This is no surprising information. Of course DNA will be damaged in the event of an intervention from the outside. But this does not perfect the structure of DNA that is to say it does not perfect the structure of the living species. It leads to damage. What you mentioned is nothing to be amazed at.
And it would be wrong to try to use peculiar methods to establish something that has already been practically determined. For example, when we enter this house we identify it by going into it and see what it is with our own eyes and touch it with our hands. We actually experience entering the house, instead of studying it through satellite photographs. In other words, it is not all that sound to consider things along the lines of what such and such a Japanese professor might have said when we can actually look at fossils and make a direct determination that way. This person is just repeating what everyone used to say. It is no surprise announcement. It is something that can clearly be seen from the fossils. If more than a hundred million fossils prove it. The Japanese professor can say whatever he likes, it does not alter the facts.
It would be something far removed from the scientific approach to step up with something a Japan professor had said, while we have the results of 300-400 million years of laboratory studies. We have the results of “laboratory researches for 300-400 million years”, while everything is very explicitly clear from this respect, to dwell on such weak claims would be far removed from scientific approach.
Eric Michael Johnson: But you understand the problem is that you are trying to present in your book a proof that evolution is wrong. Except that your descriptions of science itself is what? You have not presented an accurate depiction of evolution as scientists discuss it. Do you see that as a problem?
Adnan Oktar: The important thing is to espouse the true facts. In other words, we must not wander around in a fantasy land. We must base ourselves on concrete facts. And the concrete facts lead us to the fact of creation. Darwinism accounts for everything in terms of chance. Chance is the most illogical explanation possible. We ask how protein formed – by chance. We ask how the cell came into being – by chance. We ask how the eye formed – by chance. We ask about the structure of the brain, and they say it arose by chance. That is incompatible with science. The attempt to account for such a perfect and organized structure in terms of chance, and, what is more, in the absence of any evidence, has destroyed the theory. You can count the number of adherents of Darwinism in Europe on the fingers of one hand. And the number is falling by the day. Before this number was very high in turkey, but now you cannot find a professor to defend Darwinism. This shows that people are now looking at events more rationally. It shows they are looking more on the basis of the scientific evidence. Darwinism is the teaching of a pagan religion based on fantasies. The ancient Sumerians had the same belief. The belief you are talking about was around in the time of Ibn Khaldun. It was also around in ancient Egypt. It is not something that was discovered in Darwin’s time. A supposedly Muslim scholar called Ibn Miskavah espoused that idea. There is no difference between his statements and those of Darwin. But he is someone who lived hundreds of years ago. Darwin’s accounts are identical to ancient Egyptian, ancient Sumerian and ancient shamanist accounts. They therefore have nothing to do with science. Darwin is a primitive pagan religion entirely based on chance.
Eric Michael Johnson: I am not talking about evolutionary theorists from hundreds of years ago. I am talking about evolutionary research right now. One more example I can give; in a lot of parts of the Atlas of Creation you stand several times talking about the improbability that all parts of a cell could randomly come together and that therefor evolution cannot be true. But why do you say that evolution is random when all evolutionary biologists say that natural selection is the opposite of random?
Adnan Oktar: Darwinism claims that all the perfect living things we see in the world, plants, cherries, tomatoes, human beings, leopards, pumas and panthers and everything else all came into being as the result of chance. It says that this colored, high quality image you are seeing in your brain is the work of chance. I am seeing you now in my brain far clearer than on any television set. That is the perfect system that has been brought into being. Allah brought such a perfect system into being. I hear crisp and flawless sounds in my brain of a far better quality than the finest musical instrument or music set. The image is totally clear and three-dimensional. No such image has yet been obtained on even the highest quality television as the image inside the brain. But Darwinism this came about by chance. That is so illogical not even a child would believe it. The idea that life came into being by chance is an idea that has come down from ancient beliefs. Darwin also said that. Miskavayh also said that. People said it in ancient Egypt. And in ancient Sumeria. It existed in all those pagan beliefs. In other words, Darwinism drew its ideas from pagan beliefs. Pagan belief did not draw its ideas from Darwinism. Darwinism is a belief that emerged subsequently. And Ibn Miskavayh said exactly the same thing as Darwin. People said the same thing in ancient Egypt. I do not think you made the connection when I described the matter to you a while back. This is not a philosophy that has newly emerged. The belief that everything, living things, appeared by chance. It was present in the beliefs of ancient Sumeria, ancient Egypt and the shamans. Ibni Miskavayh espoused the same idea as Darwin. These are all a whole. That is what I want to get across.
Adnan Oktar: People’s eyes do not see, and their ears do not hear. It is the eye in the brain that really sees. The eyes just serve in the way a camera sees. They take an image and convert it into electrical energy and then transmit that to the brain. The eye in the brain sees the world. The same goes for the ear. The ear is deaf. The ear just converts sound into electricity and transmits it to the brain. The ear in the brain does the hearing. The eye in the brain does the seeing. That is why these matters head the list of things that evolution need to account for. But they never touch on these matters. But these are the subjects they have to explain.
Eric Michael Johnson: But the issue is that you inaccurately represent how scientists are discussing evolution. The process is not random. For example researchers will describe evolution as taking place with organisms adapting to the environment. When a genetic change adapts an organism, then it will be transferred to the next generation. This is not random, it is the orderly adaptation to a specific environment. Do you even disagree with that description of evolution?
Adnan Oktar: If they interpret this as a conscious entity organizing this, the intervention of a conscious entity, then I have no problem with that. That means they accept the existence of Allah. But if these people claim that totally unconscious, blind atoms came together and began to see in time and form the eye, that the deaf atoms had came together and formed “hearing”, that atoms with no sense of taste came together to constitute taste, that atoms devoid of the sense of touch came together to establish the sense of touch, and that all these things happened by chance, than that is totally irrational. But if they say that a conscious power intervenes, that these things happen by the management of a conscious entity, then that is creation anyway.
Adnan Oktar: No scientist entering a laboratory can establish direct experience of it. He can only establish direct contact with the image of the laboratory in his brain. It is impossible to directly touch any object inside that laboratory. An object whose image is seen in the brain is touched through the sense of touch in the brain. It is therefore impossible to directly hear any sound on the outside. We hear the sounds in our brains. Every scientist sees the images in his brain. For example, you are now watching me in your brain. It seems as if you are hearing me in this room, but the room is in fact inside you. There is a room on the outside, but you are currently seeing the room in your brain. And the image you see in this screen appears in your brain. The screen is therefore everywhere with you,; you, your shirt and jacket and the screen you are watching are all inextricably bound up with you and form inside your brain. This is a wondrous thing, but calls for deep reflection.
Adnan Oktar: As you know, there is no color or light on the outside. Our brains interpret light and color in that form. Light reaches us in the form of particles, waves, as light is described as a wave. It has no brightness in the sense we understand. It is dark on the outside. Our brains interpret it as light. And there is no color on the outside. Our brain interprets it as color. This is a very great marvel. It is totally unscientific to maintain that this system could have come about by chance. For instance, a three-dimensional image forms inside our brains, bright and in full color. The brain gives rise to light for us. It produces light inside the brain. Color and a three-dimensional form arise inside our brains. Not even the most perfect technical device can do that. That is why it is utterly unscientific to maintain that this occurred by chance.
Adnan Oktar: And as you know, there is no sound on the outside, only waves. Our brains interpret sound as sound. In other word, it is our souls that interpret it. All there is on the outside is waves. Sound waves. There is no sound on the outside, it is our brains that interpret it. This cannot happen by chance.
Eric Michael Johnson: You said before that you have been open to ideas of evolution if it was guided and organized by the God. Would you agree with Francis Collins and Michael Behe that intelligent design is the way that evolution proceeds? Would you accept evolution, if it was directed by Allah?
Adnan Oktar: There is a misunderstanding there. Allow me to put that right. If these people maintain that all these developments and stages are created by a conscious power, then that means they believe in Allah. And that means they believe in creation. Although their beliefs are wrong, the idea of their belief in Allah is true. They are right to believe in Allah, though it seems they misinterpret how Allah’s might is manifested. Because Allah creates directly. But they may believe that Allah creates through evolution. That is wrong, though their belief in Allah is correct. I meant it in that sense. If they believe in a conscious power, then I deduce that they believe in Allah. And it is easy for someone who believes in Allah to correct his erroneous ideas, those ideas that are not scientific. That is no problem. I think I could easily convince Michael Behe or Francis Collins if I were to talk to them face to face. To make them aware of the existence of Allah, for us to give them a full account of this image that forms within the brain, of how the universe forms inside our brains, how the universe does exist on the outside but that we only experience the universe inside our brains, and what a marvelous thing this is. It is impossible for someone who knows this not to believe in Allah. I could describe this in much greater detail and I am sure they would be influenced by it.
Adnan Oktar: There is a universe on the outside, a structure. But we can only experience its image. In other words, people are unable to see the original of matter. We can only see matter through the images that form in our brains. We can only see the essence of matter in the images in our brains. And this image in our brains is for us the real universe and true life. It is impossible for us to step outside that. And it will remain so for all eternity. Since we have direct experience of images inside our brains, that means there must be an entity that creates them. Because a three-dimensional, high-quality, sharp image forms. And very high-quality sound. But there is neither image nor sound in the outside world. There are just transparent bodies stemming from the electrons in atoms being at a distance from their nuclei. In other words, scientists say that the whole universe is in essence transparent. This structure stems from the loosely woven nature of atoms and the distance between their electrons and nuclei. Our brains perceive this as a whole. But matter is not like that on the outside. On the outside is silence, and darkness. When we look at the Sun, it seems very bright to us. But the Sun is not actually bright. It emits light rays. And when our brains interpret these the result is light. That is how the brain shows them to us. There has to be a power that creates this. And we call that Power, Allah.
Adnan Oktar: With Mr. Eric’s permission I would like to close this discussion for today. We can continue tomorrow or the day after, or any day he likes in the week. I have been very pleased with our conversation. If there are any last words I can take them quickly. Let us call a halt for today. My apologies to him for any inconvenience.
Eric Michael Johnson: I appreciate you sitting down and answering these questions. I have got one other question that I would like to bring out to your attention if that is okay?
Adnan Oktar: Yes, of course, go ahead.
Eric Michael Johnson: In October of last year you have sued and several websites were banned in Turkey. That included richarddawkins.net , that is the website of the evolutionary biologist. According to your lawyer the reason of that “is that severe insults and untruthful imputations directly aimed against my client's good name appeared on these sites” I have read Dawkins’ articles about you. What specific insults do you feel justified the banning of his entire website for the entire country?
Adnan Oktar: There are comments on his web site, if I remember correctly. Some people have left comments. There are defamatory comments, and he did not remove those, even though we requested him to. I do not think he made any defamatory comments himself, directly if I remember correctly. But there are defamatory comments left by people, and we asked him to remove them. When he refused, the court closed the site. But he had been warned before, and the site was not closed down, despite that warning. In that case, under Turkish law and all universal laws in the world, such a site has to be closed down. In other words, at least those sections had to be removed.
In fact I do defend the freedom of speech and democracy to the core. I can never accept the fetter on ideas. My approach on this issue is that all men, no matter which idea they represent, should be able to live together as brothers.
I thank you very much. Insha’Allah we can talk some other day again. I’ve been honored to know you. Your attitude was very respectful and very good. I would very much like to meet with you again.
Eric Michael Johnson: Thank you but there is one more thing. Very last question. In May of 1999 your organization was found guilty of intimidating members of the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBITAK) for teaching evolution. It ended with thousands of dollars of damage pay to the scientists. How does having websites banned and intimidating scientists help your cause? Doesn’t it make you look like you have something to hide?
Adnan Oktar: No. There is a global Darwinist dictatorship. My books have been banned in many places, for instance. Many scientists opposed to Darwinism are sacked from their universities. People who are not Darwinists are subject to intense social pressure. I am opposed to this. On the contrary I favor freedom. I believe people should be freely able to express their ideas. These claims are therefore unfounded.
There is no basis to them, and I have documentary proof of that.
Thank you, now with Mr. Eric’s permission....
Eric Michael Johnson: However you did call them Marxists and separatists and you had to pay penalties of thousands of dollars to the scientists?
Adnan Oktar: No. No such thing has ever happened. There may be a misunderstanding. Let us meet again later this week to talk if you like but that is all for today.
Eric Michael Johnson: Of course, thank you very much. Selam.
Adnan Oktar: Thank you. Did you say Selaam? Aleikhum selaam.
Web Siteleri
Makaleler