United Kingdom, Independent, September 21st, 2008

You can read the transcript of this video

- Do you regard your writings as creationist?

Adnan Oktar: Yes, I believe in the existence and oneness of Allah and that Allah created all living things on Earth. I construct all my work around that reality. Science points to Creation, not evolution. If the scientific facts really did show that evolution had taken place, then I would say, “Allah saw fit to create in that way, and He created so” and I would duly espouse that position. But science tells us “there is no evolution.” So to espouse evolution means to reject science and espouse nonsense. The mathematical probability of a single protein coming into being by chance is zero. It is impossible for a theory unable to account for the emergence of a single protein to explain how millions of different species emerged and how perfect systems formed in each and every one. And it actually cannot. Evolutionists are at a particular dead-end in the face of the fossil record. A hundred million fossils have been unearthed from various parts of the world and not one belongs to strange-looking creatures still in the course of development, of the kind supposed by evolutionists. They are all flawless and complete. Fish are complete fish, spiders are complete spiders, and tigers complete tigers. Whatever the ant is today, so it was 100 million years ago. So where is that supposed gradual development? There isn’t any. There are no fossils indicating that living things developed in stages or that one species turned into another. In fact, I have for months been challenging evolutionists to bring up such a fossil, if they have one, but have heard not a word back. That silence is the silence of intellectual defeat.

- Writing from a secular country, do you have any links to creationist thinkers in Christian countries?

Adnan Oktar: We have an intellectual and scholarly dialogue with various pro-Creation circles, of course. Some of the administrators of these institutions came to Turkey as speakers in the “Collapse of the Theory of Evolution” conference held by the Science Research Foundation. But our views are not the same on all matters. For instance, I do not share the views of the Christians about the age of the world. Scientific findings do not show that the universe is very young, as they suggest.

- Should creationism be taught in schools?

Adnan Oktar: Of course, it should. I have always been opposed to intellectual prohibitions. Prohibitions are in any case meaningless in an age when the internet and technology are so advanced and when accessing information is so easy. If they do not learn it in school, they will learn it from the internet, and if not from there then from the library. Prohibitions get nobody anywhere. What is good for students is to examine all the different facts, interpretations and evidence and freely decide on what is true and what is false in the light of their own consciences. Darwinism has been propped up with prohibitions, pressure and propaganda techniques for the last 150 years, or so. But Darwinists are now at the end of the road. As they themselves are well aware of this they are making a last bid to save the situation. They imagine they can defend Darwinism by persisting in bans and oppression. But that’s not possible. The light has dawned and the public have seen that light. There is nothing they can do any more.

- Do you think there is enough of a debate about Darwinism? Would you participate in a debate with prominent Darwinist writers such as Richard Dawkins?

Adnan Oktar: Darwinism has literally been made a taboo and given immunity from doubt or criticism in a great many countries. There is a blatant Darwinian hegemony in schools, universities and research centres. Such a repressive system has been erected that the idea that science is equivalent to Darwinism has been forcibly imposed on everyone, and no-one can easily stand up against it. If they do, they find their careers at an end, or else are forced to resign their posts, or find themselves the targets of smear campaigns. Professor Reiss is the most recent example. Even though he did not actually say anything against Darwinism and merely made a perfectly reasonable and rational suggestion, he was literally subjected to a lynching campaign. This is not the democratic way of doing things. But it is concrete evidence of the panic Darwinists are experiencing. Since they realise that open discussion and debate and the unbiased presentation of all the scientific findings will mean the public straight away seeing that Darwinism is a hollow theory, they are highly reluctant to permit that. We have invited Richard Dawkins to a debate many times. But he has always declined. We even invited him to Turkey and offered to defray all his expenses. But he said he has “sworn not to debate the subject of Creation” and declined. But refusing to debate does not alter the facts.

- Are you pleased with the recent decision by a Turkish court to ban the website of Richard Dawkins from being viewed in the country? Will the Turkish people benefit from this ban?

I am not in favour of bans. But this subject is a most important one: The reason why the court decided that Dawkins’ site should be banned was that the comments published on it contained insulting references. In other words, it was not closed because of Dawkins’ works or articles. Nor because of his expression of his beliefs. It was that the site contained insulting references. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of insults. As you know, the comments on all sites are under the supervision of the site administrators. As a natural human right, our lawyer many times asked the site administrator to remove those comments containing insulting language. Our lawyers asked, very politely, before we took the matter to court and said we would sue if the necessary measures were not taken. When no results were forthcoming they took legal action as a last resort. And the Turkish justice system reached its decision. No justice system in the world allows people to be insulted or defamatory language to be used.

- How would you respond to Richard Dawkins' accusation that your book, the "Atlas of Creation", is "preposterous" and his criticism of its content as "breathtakingly inane"?

Adnan Oktar: Professor Dawkins can express his ideas as he wishes. But we could have spoken on a more scientific basis if he had been able to produce an intermediate form fossil capable of confirming evolution in the face of all the hundreds of fossils in my book, rather than employing such scientifically meaningless language. Note also that this is not a style unique to Professor Dawkins alone, but a classic Darwinist tactic. They are always reluctant to talk openly and clearly about concrete findings. That also applies to their books and writings. They resort instead to word games, and lengthy and complex descriptions with an impenetrable content, and write pages and pages about fictitious phenomena. They behave as if they are discussing something that cannot possibly be denied, although closer inspection immediately shows that they are never able to come with anything concrete. I repeat that I have issued a call to all evolutionists. I have said I will give 10 trillion Turkish lira to anyone who produces a single intermediate form fossil demonstrating evolution. And I reiterate this through yourselves.

- Clearly giving away huge numbers of the "Atlas of Creation" must have involved great funds - how did you manage to finance this?

Adnan Oktar: This is something concerning the publisher. It is something I know nothing about and take no interest in. But one thing does attract my attention: some people take an enormous interest in this subject, but are very careful to avoid any discussion or mention of the Atlas of Creation’s content. If anything should be discussed, that is the book’s subject matter, rather than anything else.

- What is your next project?

Adnan Oktar: I am preparing the Atlas of Creation in seven volumes. The fourth is just about finished and I am still working on the others. Once the first seven volumes are complete I am planning seven more, and have already commenced work on them. These seven volumes will be intensively illustrated. I have also written a separate book consisting of fossil skulls alone. That has been published in Turkish. The English-language version has been published on the internet (http://harunyahya.com/en.m_book_index.php). I am also currently preparing new volumes for this book.

- What do you feel you could do across the world to promote peace and understanding between Muslim and non-Muslim faiths? Tell me about your ideas for a "Turkish Islamic Union" - how would you see it working?

Adnan Oktar: The Turkish-Islamic Union I have in mind is a union of love and hearts—a moderate, rational and trustworthy union. It is an inclusive, protective union that provides solutions; a union in which Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics and atheists, in short people of all beliefs can live at ease. A union based on respect, compassion, secularism and freedom of thought. The foundation of such a union is both easy and most necessary. The establishment of this union is essential for the peace and security of Muslims and other communities. Once the Turkish-Islamic Union has been set up there will be no more terror problem, and economic difficulties and problems with access to raw materials will disappear. Trade will flourish and military spending fall to almost nothing. There will be a huge cultural and economic regeneration. Art and science will progress. Europe will breathe easy when such a union is established, as will America, Russia and China.

There is really no reason why there should not be peace and friendship between members of different faiths. All that is needed is love, a requirement of religious moral values. We need to treat one another with compassion and understanding. We all believe in the same God. We all love, respect and praise the prophets Jesus, Moses, Solomon and Abraham and all His messengers (peace be upon them all). We love and believe in the same things, so why should we be divided? Why should we not be brothers? Enmity, conflict and disputes do not become any of us. This age is an age of love; an age of friendship and brotherhood. I love my Christian brothers very much. I am utterly delighted by the sincere joy they feel in the Prophet Jesus. And I love my Jewish brothers. I respect their loyalty to their faiths and beliefs. There is no problem we cannot resolve if we approach one another with love.

2009-02-01 12:08:32

Harun Yahya's Interviews and Conversations ⇒