Creationists infect Europe

By Phil Plait | December 23, 2008 12:07 pm

People around the world like to point to the United States and laugh at how we are ruled by the far-right religious zealots. I see this every single time some school board gets the zombie-bite of young-Earth creationists packing their membership, or the Disco ‘tute gets some bug in their britches about reality.

Well, here’s my message to the world: welcome to our nightmare.

1) A survey in the UK shows that about 1/3 of the teachers in England and Wales think creationism should be taught in science. About half think it shouldn’t be (one assumes the rest have no opinion), while 2/3 of the teachers think it should at least be discussed.

70% of science teachers think creationism should not be taught, which sounds good until you realize that means 30% of science teachers think it should be. About 3/4 of science teachers think it should be discussed in the classroom (one assumes the survey distinguishes between discussing it and teaching it). In my opinion that’s a mistake, as most science teachers are probably not prepared to deal with the issue very well. It’s not simple to go over the many failings of creationism versus science, and it’s made far more treacherous in the classroom because you’re dealing with the beliefs of children.

Only about 1/4 of teachers overall understand young-Earth creationism for what it is: wrong.


A funny thing. The newspaper article linked above has this headline: "THIRD OF TEACHERS WANT CREATIONISM". The headline for the actual survey (done by the Ipsos Mori research organization, was: "Teachers Dismiss Calls For Creationism To Be Taught In School Science Lessons", which is more accurate, but still downplays the fact that way too many teachers think creationism should be taught.

I guess with creationism, the water glass is half empty if you’re a newspaper editor, and half full if you’re a researcher.

But neither attitude changes the cold, hard fact, that the hydrogen in that water is 13.7 billion years old.

2) The UK newspaper The Guardian has a big article in it about convicted criminal Turkish Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar, aka Harun Yahya. This is a wealthy man who wrote a book called The Atlas of Creation, filled with plagiarized pictures and chock full o’ lies and nonsense about evolution and fossils. I invite you to go through PZ’s site for a dissection of this guy’s overarching pogrom against reality. Here’s a fun one by PZ to give you a taste.

The Guardian article takes Oktar to task pretty well, essentially pointing out how creepy and slick he and his organization are. However, the author made one error I think is important. She points out that his creationist tome is huge and expensive, and that it "has thudded onto 10,000 doormats since its publication in 2006." However, she never actually explicitly states that these copies were not sold. Oktar sent them unsolicited all over the place, to schools, Universities, and what-have-you. This is important because the way she wrote the article implies that it has sold a lot of copies. It hasn’t.

And, as PZ points out in the links above, it’s hugely packed with lies.

I am not happy about creationism infecting Europe at all. In many cases over there, it’s not the literal Bible kind we have here, it’s the literal Koran kind. Both are wrong. To believe the Earth and Universe are only thousands of years old is to deny many thousands of separate pieces of evidence. Oktar himself has a prize he claims he will give to anyone who can show him a single fossil that proves evolution. Of course, it takes a series of fossils to show evolution is true, but that misses the bigger point: they all show evolution to be true.

His prize is for trillions of dollars, by the way, so one can assume that even that claim Oktar makes is full of it. I guess when you lie so often and so easily, telling the truth about anything becomes nearly impossible.

So what can be done about all this? Fight. Make your voice heard. Keep talking about it. Keep pointing out where young-Earth creationists are wrong, and where their most famous mouthpieces are lying (and maybe drop in a hint about the Ninth Commandment). Point them to the Creationism FAQ at And wherever you are, do what you can to defend reality. In America, it means voting. The same is probably true in the UK, though in Turkey that option may be limited. When your country is ruled by religious zealotry options do tend to be restricted. That’s one reason I remain vocal in my own United States about religious control of politicians, no matter what that religion may be. For a society to remain free, it must remain secular.

The truth, it turns out, really will set you free.


Comments (132)

  1. My knowledge is limited, but isn’t Turkey’s government pretty rabidly secular, or is that just rabid relative to its neighbors?

  2. Oded

    It is funny that because of many blogs, I actually think I know more about how creationism is treated in countries such as USA and European countries, but I know very little about its status in my country – Israel.

    I can only state my own personal experience to creationism – I have never even heard about the word “creationism” until recently when I started reading these blogs. I don’t think I ever had any formal education in evolution, but I was certainly familiar with the term, probably without entirely understanding it – though never seen as a negative thing.

    And in my childhood, I remember most references to Genesis in the bible were about it being a fairy tale or metaphor for each day being billions of years or something vague like that.

    So in general, I think there is no such thing as creationism in Israel, at least not from my experience. There is a lacking in education – but I wouldn’t single out evolution in that department… (there is *no* mandatory science education in any science subjects, only optional. Mandatory subjects are Math, English, Literature, …)

  3. hale_bopp

    When I taught science, I will admit that occasionally I creationism was discussed in my classroom…but the discussion usually revolved around what a load of BS it all is!

  4. undercover

    Karl Marx said that religion is the opium of mankind or something like that!

    Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett described it as a viral mental disease that’s currently a pandemic in today’s world of the dark ages of thought!

    You should watch the documentary The Root of All Evil!

  5. Helioprogenus

    Once the Turks actually accept reality and the truth of evolution, they may have to accept other aspects of their history of which they’re in denial. They may just have to start accepting the Armenian Genocide, or the fact that men and women are equals in society. They may have to come to grips with their fundamentalism and actually be the first predominantly Muslim country to embrace rationality, science, and actually contribute qualified scientists to the field. Don’t get me wrong, there are many diligent and hard working scientists within Turkey, but with an undercurrent of fundamentalism that runs through their secular society, their voices are overshadowed by the incompetent (hmmm, seems kinda familiar to us Americans).

  6. Oded, it sounds like you are part of the liberal population.

    “When the movie Jurassic Park was shown in Israel, it was condemned by some Orthodox rabbis because it accepted evolution and because it taught that dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago–when, as is plainly stated at every Rosh Hashonhan and every Jewish wedding ceremony, the Universe is less than 6,000 years old. [Carl Sagan, _The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark_, p. 325]”

    I was SAD to hear there is no mandatory science education in Israel. I guess the orthodox folks got their way…

    “We should be teaching our children the scientific method and the Bill of Rights. [Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan]”

  7. Oh, gosh! When I read the headline I thought to myself “Oh, no! We’re screwed!” I thought you were writing about Europe. But then I read the post, and I figured out that no, you were just talking about the UK. Still safe. Phew!


    Seriously, though: I don’t know what are those percentages in other countries. I know that there have been some pretty disturbing news coming from Eastern Europe, especially Rumania, but out here in the west of the continent the issue is pretty much moot. We’ve got some IDiots, of course, but most people seem to understand that one thing is one’s religious beliefs and quite a different one is scientific curricula in schools. I’d wager that even if the Vatican began promoting that oxymoron called “Intelligent Design”, which it doesn’t, people would mostly shrug it away. Our society has been showing and increasingly healthy indifference towards what the clergy say, even amongst the catholics.

  8. GK4

    I once had a copy of _The Atlas of Creation_, Volume One, before forwarding it to the fine people at the National Center for Science Education. But while I still had it I took a few pictures to share with folks online. If you want an idea about just how nutty this Adnan Oktar/”Harun Yahya” guy is, look no further…

    Oktar’s mutant ape-human hybrid fantasy:

    Oktar’s multi-skull fever dream:

    As I’ve written elsewhere, when “Harun Yahya” says there are no transitional fossils, he means that there are none *as he thinks they would have to be*. He is not using the term the way any actual scientists do. So, in his terms, he is correct. But he’s defeating the strawiest straw-fossil ever imagined.

    He’s saying that a transitional individual would have, for example, two left arms. One would be the old form of arm, and the other would be the new form. Picture a chimpanzee with a human arm budding from its shoulder. Same goes for legs, skulls, spines, etcetera.

    Oktar is profoundly deluded.

  9. Elmar_M

    Kemal Atterturk (also called Kemal Pasha), introduced the strict separation of state and religion in Turkey almost 100 years ago. He banned the wearing of the head scarf and other muslim symbols in public offices, etc.
    This is part of the turkish constitution. However in recent years religious fundamentalism has been increasing in Turkey. The current prime minister Erdogan is a religious fundamentalist and a very dangerous man. His goals are the destruction of the separation of religion and state.
    He also dreams of turks taking over Europe. During the foundation laying for a new mosque in cologne (Germany), he said in front of 20.000 turkish (male only)listeners: “in 20 years this place will belong to us!”… in turkish of course.
    He the same speech he asked the turks in Germany to only teach their children german as a second language and turkish as their first language.
    Anyway, they are taking over. In the big german cities, even smaller ones you can see many, many women wearing headscarfs and often also the black veil that covers the entire face. At (again this is Germany, not Turkey) universities they recently introduced the friday prayers for muslims. Turkish guys are standing arround making sure the turkish girls dont wear western clothing and murders for “honor reasons” are happening more often (e.g. girls get killed by their parents because they want to be like German girls, or because they love german boys, or dont want to agree to forced marriages).
    I have heard that it is even worse in some part of France, but I cant say that for sure…
    Anyway, in the light of all this, I am not surprised about creationism taking over.

  10. GK4


    You said “I don’t know what are those percentages in other countries”, but now you can see what they are, at least for Europe, the U.S., and Japan.

    Look for the link from the phrase “countries surveyed”. The chart shows public acceptance of evolution in 34 countries, as of 2005. The United States ranked near the bottom, “beaten” only by Turkey.

    I’d be interested to see where individual U.S. states fall in that breakdown.

  11. Jarrad T

    Down here in Australia it doesn’t appear to be an issue, to my knowledge anyway. There may be teachers who express their opinions but I dont think it spills out much more than that. I remember in the Lutheran high school I atteneded it was compulsory to attend a class called ‘religion studies’, however, my experience of that class (may just have been my particular teacher), but the class revolved around the discussion of religion. My teacher was Christian, but I actually received the highest marks in the class because I challenged the notion of religion and he admired that immensely.

  12. IVAN3MAN

    Phil Plait, what has happened to the web-site? I have been trying for the past fortnight or so to access it, but to no avail.

  13. Winter Solstice Man

    The Muslim world used to have some of the highest culture and brightest scientists in the world.

    Then the fundamentalist factions of Islam took over and what we have left of that culture is not much better than the Dark Ages.

    Is the lobotomization of Western society next?

  14. Oded

    Larian LeQuella Says
    Oded, it sounds like you are part of the liberal population.

    Larian, I dare say that the liberal population is the vast majority in Israel, and the Orthodox Jews make up a very commonly disliked minority here. Many Israelis consider their “invasion from within” a worse threat than our neighboring Muslims…
    I also dare say that my portrayal of Israel is probably more accurate than yours, which is skewed by only the bits of input you happen to see from Israel, and not Israel as a whole.

    Larian LeQuella Says
    I was SAD to hear there is no mandatory science education in Israel. I guess the orthodox folks got their way…

    Please remember Hanlon’s Razor!! Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. The education system in Israel is all-around bad, this has nothing to do with religion, just government incompetence.

  15. Oded


    “When the movie Jurassic Park was shown in Israel, it was condemned by some Orthodox rabbis because it accepted evolution and because it taught that dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago–when, as is plainly stated at every Rosh Hashonhan and every Jewish wedding ceremony, the Universe is less than 6,000 years old. [Carl Sagan, _The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark_, p. 325]”

    Huh and Huh??

    I’ve never heard of any Jurassic Park controversy.. Though I was pretty young (umm, 8 :) when it came out, I certainly saw it when I was a kid, in Israel (It is actually one of the very few movies ever to have given me nightmares…), so if there really was any controversy, it probably wasn’t a very big one…
    And, Huh on the Rosh Hashona and Wedding thing?? Genesis is never mentioned in those events, at least not at all in the ones I have been (or it was so subtle I have just missed it all this time). So, if anything, if these issues really do exist, I can at least say that you take it far more seriously than I do…

  16. Considering around a quarter to a third of UK schools are run by either the Church of England, or the Roman Catholic Church I don’t find this very surprising.

    What I do find surprising is how little impact they have on the rest of society.

  17. Glad to hear it Oded, and thanks for setting me straight. Sadly, my only excursion into your country was surrounded by the Orthodox groups guiding us foreigners, so what I got to see was severely limited.

    What happens to Hanlon’s Razoe when the people you’re dealing with are stupid AND malicious? 😛

  18. Cengiz Eminov

    People who believes in evolution I have two words for you.

    10 years…..

    you can accepted or denied but the theory is dead.Im sorry but why you people are so scared by the thought that there is a god?
    It’s on you.. like I said.. in 10 years you can see darwin only in e musea



  19. Robbie

    Phil Plait: “That’s one reason I remain vocal in my own United States about religious control of politicians, no matter what that religion may be. For a society to remain free, it must remain secular.”

    I would say this instead: “For a society to remain free, the government must remain secular.”

  20. Oded

    I don’t know Larian :)
    However, I have on occasion pondered that I would prefer for example a malicious president over a stupid one (or at least, a smart, self-serving self-interested cynical president over an ignorant one). The rational is that, in a democracy, even a cynical president, to benefit himself, has to, at least sometimes, benefit the country as well – democracy should be set up as such. An ignorant/stupid president on the other hand, is not working on the benefit of anyone, and as such can only wreak havoc on himself and the country.

    Just a little thought experiment for me, can’t really back this up with any evidence… :)

  21. John

    Well, technically, it’s not 13.7 billion years old, seeing as the proton and electron in that hydrogen certainly weren’t together since the formation of the CMB. Must have been a few ionizations/recombinations along the way. Yes, I’m a smart-ass.

  22. On Friday, October 12, 2007, The Council of Europe Parliamentary assembly (CoE) urged its member states to only teach creationism as nothing more than belief. The CoE stressed the potential threat to human rights that may result from creationist doctrines.

    The adopted resolution targeting creationism is a reaction to growing fear in the CoE member states that progressive scientific thought is threatened by the advancement of fundamentalism and its perceived dangers. The British government marginalized intelligent design into ‘religious’ belief even before the adoption of the CoE resolution:

    Resolution 1580 (2007)*

    The dangers of creationism in education

    1. The aim of this resolution is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

    2. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

    3. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today, creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

    4. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are of the Christian or Muslim faith, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabuses. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

    5. Creationists question the scientific character of certain areas of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, creationists defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

    6. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

    7. There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.

    8. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.

    9. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a rather significant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation, but is built on facts.

    10. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In reality the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and spread doubt and confusion in their minds.

    11. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research, aiming at combating infectious diseases such as Aids, are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

    12. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human and civic rights.

    13. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

    14. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

    15. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason, it must occupy a central position in the curriculums, and especially in the science syllabuses, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical over-prescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

    16. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

    17. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.

    18. Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council of Europe’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

    19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to:

    19.1. defend and promote scientific knowledge;

    19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

    19.3. make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

    19.4. firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;

    19.5. promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculums.

    20. The Assembly welcomes the fact that 27 academies of science of Council of Europe member states signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.

    *Re-posted from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly web-site (click on my name for the link).

  23. IVAN3MAN, the problems with talkorigins have been mentioned on the Topix evolution forum, I heard rumours of a creo hacker attack, but I think someone mentioned it was down for server maintenance.

    As for the survey, I think the numbers a rather inflated by virtue of a small survey sampling, if one looks at these links:

    Not that there’s not a problem, according to Channel 4’s Dispatches programme on Creationism there are about 50 creationist schools in the UK. Ones to watch out for are the Vardy-ran The Emmanuel Schools up in the North-East. While the UK is fairly secular and teaches good science, schools (of whichever faith) require at least one act of daily worship which is mandatory, and that doesn’t help in my opinion. The British Centre For Science Education is our eyes and ears on the creationist front in the UK. Since I’ve probably used my limit of links in this post, click my name for teh linky.

  24. Darth Robo, thanks for the information.

  25. MrMarkAZ

    FTA: “His book, weighing the same as a three-year-old child …”

    and written with about the same level of insight and sophistication …

  26. Greg in Austin

    Cengiz Eminov Says:

    “People who believes in evolution I have two words for you.

    10 years…..

    you can accepted or denied but the theory is dead.Im sorry but why you people are so scared by the thought that there is a god?
    It’s on you.. like I said.. in 10 years you can see darwin only in e musea”

    I’m curious… What happens in 10 years? And you have that backward. Those that believe in god, at least the Christian god, are the ones who are usually afraid. Hence the phrase, “Fear of God.”


  27. Although I have several themes in my blog, I started my blog mainly for this reason – to denounce creationism. Even though my blog is but a drop of water in the Internet ocean, those drops of water add up so it’s important that as many voices speak up as possible on the side of sanity and reason.

    I write my stuff from the viewpoint of a Christian, which I think is important because there’s little that ticks a fundie off worse than a science-accepting Christian :)

    @ Darth Robo – ain’t Topix grand? lol. It’s like a Guatemalan insane asylum there. Luckily I also can see many knowledgeable people posting there, so I’ve learned a lot in the 20 months I’ve been voluntarily incarcerated there.

  28. People who believes in evolution I have two words for you.

    10 years…..

    you can accepted or denied but the theory is dead.Im sorry but why you people are so scared by the thought that there is a god?
    It’s on you.. like I said.. in 10 years you can see darwin only in e musea



    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Uneducated people have been predicting the imminent demise of evolutionary theory since Darwin first published it almost 150 years ago.

    Hyperreligious types also have been saying “The end times are here” for thousands of years.

    EPIC FAIL on both counts.

    Why don’t you people ever understand that you are REALLY bad at predicting things?

  29. Creationism/ID is indeed being promoted in the UK. There’s a creationist website called “Truth in Science” that appears to be devoted to finding so-called flaws in evolutionary theory, and talking up the so-called controversy. And they sent out free information packs (leaflets and DVDs) to schools all over Britain.

    Nowhere on the site (as far as my admittedly less than exhaustive search revealed) is there any alternative scientific theory proposed. I’m not qualified to pronounce on the validity of their claims about evolutionary theory (though I have my suspicions), but I would have expected a site with the name “Truth in Science” to be promoting something scientific. It isn’t.

  30. SLC

    Re Cengiz Eminov

    Mr. Eminovs’ prediction will come true about the time he sees the back of his own ear (old Arab saying).

  31. Gary Ansorge

    Gumby: WHile I most sincerely share your desire to grab Cengiz by the ears(oh, you didn’t say that,,,ok) and drag him/her/it thru a paleontological garden of delight, I expect that posting is from a very dumb troll(ie,”dumb” in the unable to communicate sense).
    Such “things” give thoughtful, religiously inclined folk a bad rep. I think starving trolls is the better (non) response,,,

    Religiously motivated recidivism is equivalent to Luddism,ie,the outraged cry of “The real world is too complicated. I want the good old days, when god, santa claus and the tooth fairy were real and I didn’t have to THINK,,,

    I think it’s time for a double shot of Tequila and a big bowl. Maybe with luck I can forget for a moment I’m still stuck living with a species just entering its puberty.
    ,,,,good grief, we still have those dratted teenage years,,,


    GAry 7

  32. LL

    I thought they censored Richard Dawkins in Turkey? Now what is a creationist scammer doing there?

  33. Nathan Briggs

    I’m probably going to get hammered here, but I think Creationism should be taught in UK classrooms. In Religious Education lessons (required for all pupils up to at least to age 14).

    RE covers *all* major religions and their creation myths. RE lessons do not prostlytize (even faith school are required to teach at least some comparative religion, even if most of their time is slanted to their particular fantasy).

    As for teaching it in science? Pish-tosh. A counter-view to this rubbish can easily be put in Geography lessons.

  34. Gary Ansorge – yeah, you’re probably right, he’s probably just a troll. It’s the Poe effect – sometimes it’s just so hard to tell. I HAVE seen comments like that in discussion forums, and they irritate me no end because they have such confidence in their predictions, even though they have never predicted anything right… ever. I am aware though, that either way it’s nonsense and I probably shouldn’t even feed’em, because troll or creo, rationality is beyond them.

  35. Ruprecht

    There has been some controversy in Germany regarding this subject. The “Programme for International Student Assessment” asked students the following question:

    Which one of the following statements best applies to the scientific theory of
    A The theory of evolution is possible for animals but cannot be applied to humans.
    B Evolution is a theory that has been proven by scientific research.
    C Evolution is a scientific theory based upon numerous observations.

    According to the makers of the test the correct answer should be “C”. Students who had chosen “B” gained no points — which caused an outrage among German scientists. Indoktrinierend! Frech! When Manfred Prenzel of the PISA-team was asked why they had decided to disqualify “B”, being the “wrong” answer, he hid behind Karl Popper: “It ‘s impossible to prove a scientific theory to be correct. One can only prove it wrong (if it is wrong). Therefore all scientific theories are preliminary.”

    And no, Phil, creationism isn’t exclusively an American aberration. At school here in the Netherlands I had to learn by heart the 7 (!) proves why evolution is a fallacy. I’m afraid I can’t remember any of them.

  36. Cengiz Eminov

    We can argue this for days..month.. years.. the mankind always argued this. But now it’s different.. you lost accept it.. I’m sure you all know Harun Yahya. You also read his books? Or are you just know him by evolutionist and atheist people. Come on man.. you only have to think serious for hmm 10 seconds.. You can’t base specified complexity in a living system on coincidences.. What’s coincidence? What can coincidence do? Let me answer it NOTHING…
    I’m predicting nothing. It’s a fact.. in 10 years you can find Darwin only in a museum..
    So you guys think in a quagmire somehow proteins are beginning to appear(which is impossible) From these protein cells are made (which is beyond of imagination). From these cells there are some entities something that has an existence) appearing. These entities have eyes ears, etc. later they build big cities like Paris and London. In these cities they build a laboratory. And these entities created out of nothing (read people)are beginning to make research of themselves in a laboratory under a microscope that they also created self. And then they come together and say let’s see how it is possible that we have come so far. Let’s examine how it was possible to evolve from a atom in a quagmire to a living being like us. Let’s see how it was possible that we have gained information from this quagmire to make / protein / cells / chromosomes / DNA / RNA. ???????????HOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU GUYS THINK IN A SUCH PEGAN BELIEVE???????
    All evolutionist people say everything was a miracle. Ok I accept that. But Who let this miracle happen? Coincidence they say. What is a coincidence! Come on!!! Be reasonable
    How can atoms who can’t think make such complex and self-conscious LIVING BEINGS (read MEN)

  37. Cengiz Eminov

    So one day atoms says against each other, who do not see, not hear, not feel, not smell and who are not able to think, let’s come together and make a protein, it is very complicated and very difficult but let’s do it. And let us then make from a protein a cell. Let’s make bones and flesh around this cell and a let’s appear very wonderful system in this cell. Let’s put things as mitochondrion (energy plant of the cell) and vacuolar (protects, cleans the cell). Let’s put the chromosomes in the right place. Let’s then code millions of information in these chromosomes of this entity that we simply are creating.

    A man has millions of cells and each cell has millions of separate information. How can this be created! Where this atoms get this information from! How do they know to code this information? again they say coincidence!!. ??????AGAIN HOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU GUYS BELIEVE IN A PEGAN BELIEVE LIKE EVOLUTION?????

  38. Cengiz Eminov

    Good luck in finding god..

    You only have to look around:)


  39. David W

    “70% of science teachers think creationism should not be taught”

    As a science teacher in the UK myself, I find that slightly shocking.

  40. Ruprecht

    @Cengiz Eminov
    If you really want to disprove the theory of evolution all you have to do is go out and find some petrified rabbits in a pre-cambrium layer. It’s that simple.

    Good luck in finding rabbit..

    You only have to look around:)

  41. Elmar_M, there is a brilliant German/Turkish movie that ever so slightly touches on the intimidation of Turkish women living in Germany by Turkish men. The Edge of Heaven.
    Excellent movie.

  42. inertially guided


    Oh, I don’t know, Cengiz…guess I’ve spent too much time actually STUDYING the evidence and theories of evolution, and find that they work a lot better than myths, superstitions and magic. Otherwise, you are absolutely right…

    Keep working on the reality thing. I know it’s tricky, but you’ll get it eventually!

  43. The earth was once flat, you know. It is interesting that, you can still say that, and no one tries to kill you. But when you said the other way around in public, in the past, you wouldn’t live much longer.

    Religion seems fun with all that manipulating and killing. May be we should all go bad and accept it :)

  44. Radwaste

    Cengiz, you crafty old babbler, you. Here you go:

    “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are…” – The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19

    Yep. Saint Augustine had your number — sixteen hundred years ago.

  45. Phil, one quick correction. Adnan Oktar is not offering trillions of dollars, although it’s understandable why one outside of Turkey would think so. You see, Turkey has ommitted 6 zeros from the Lira a few years back. So Oktar’s original prize for 10 trillion Liras is now equivalent to 10 million New Liras, which in turn is equivalent to something like 6 million dollars. That figure is still a lot, but at least it’s intelligible, which should count as an improvement for his deranged cause. Here’s the link for the discussion thread in Dawkins’ site, Dawkins himsely comments on this a few posts down:

  46. StevoR

    Well I gotta say perhaps we should teach Creationism in science class – now before folks scream out in horror let me state HOW we should teach it :

    1. Creo-ID should be mentioned briefly in a one or two lesson topic of what is & isn’t science & how the scientific method works alongside the phlogiston “theory” of fire and “spontaneous generation” of life – as a falsified ‘theory’ that is NOT science along with how to think logically and tell science from non-science. (Or even nonsense!)

    2. Creo-ID should be discussed – briefly – in comparison with evolution – and using the criteria of what is supported by the evidence and logic.

    (Eg. fallacies for C-ID eg. begging question – who created the “designer”?, lack of real “theory”, argumentum ad ignorantum (“Argument from ignorance” & of course, Sagan’s ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    Arm the kids with critical knoweldge and let them see what Creationism-Intelligellent Design actually is – & why its so wrong. I’d much rather this than have the kids told outside of school by its proponents or sympathiesers : “oh there’s this powerful stuff you’re NOT being told by your stuffy athiest teachers” (as they’d no doubt put it.) Don’t nderestimate children – they’ll be smart enough to see ceationism as the humbug it is. Okay its a bit of time wasted – but they’ll be prepared.

    3. As well, ID/Creationism should be allowed in as part of a package deal – teach Cr-ID at school & its only fair that every religious preacher’s lesson on ‘Genesis’ should be accompained by “teaching the (artifical & politically-reliogously motivated) controversy” there too – by having a
    science lecturer explain the alternative view of evolution in Church! Hey good for the goose, good for the gander! 😉

    I think the fans of Creationism & Creationism rebadged need to *really* worry about getting what they wish for! 😉

    Because unless its slammed into brains deprived of the ability to think critically and question fairly ID /Creationism just falls over under the weight of its own stupidity.

    I’d also really love to see critical thinking and logic / philosophy perahsp taught at schools – teaching more people how to think rationally would really improve our culture / society / planet! IMHON.

    Perhaps some of the third favouring teaching cr-ID in the survey are thinking along similar lines to the above? We can hope so anyway … 😉


    In My humble Opinion Naturally.

  47. To be honest, it probably would be a good idea to talk about the “controversy” regarding evolution in the classroom. I had a biology teacher who basically said that the controversy is only in political and social circles and NOT scientific ones. He also told the class that evolution ACTUALLY HAPPENED regardless of anyone’s personal beliefs were and that anyone answering questions based on personal belief as opposed to what was in the text or lecture would be marked wrong.

    If science teachers don’t discuss, and debunk, intelligent design, most of the students will likely not find anyone else to. Of course, they do still have worry about running afoul of the first amendment (at least in public schools).

  48. Harry of Oztrailya

    “1) A survey in the UK shows that about 1/3 of the teachers in England and Wales think creationism should be taught in science”

    heh, i read that and thought: “wow, 2/3 of England and Wales’ teachers are science teachers – cool”

    sadly, i kept reading :(

  49. Phil, if you’re reading this, here’s a great one anytime Creationists misquote the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

    Ask them how many laws of thermodynamics there are. Technically there are four: Laws Zero through Three.

    I got this one from Dan Barker’s new book Godless, and he says it works wonders since a lot fo creationists simply rehash what they’re reading since they do not know science. He says the first time he used it the poor guy he was publicly (and formally) debating didn’t know how many there were!

  50. mete

    Your article made me curious about the lies that you claim Harun Yahya did. so I read what says Harun Yahya in his books about evolution. I wanted to find out the lies at one of his books (Evolution Deceit):

    But I can not find any lies. Would you please give me some of these chock full lies. I can not see any.

  51. Sciencebee

    No one believes in evolution any more. Darwinism has been collapsed all over the world. 2009 WILL BE CELEBRATED AS THE DEATH OF DARWINISM. Even a 7 year old kid is capable of showing the diffuculties of the theory by just looking at fossil records.
    There are no fossil remains belonging to the imaginary intermediate forms. Evolutionists are aware of this difficult situation and they are looking for a way to avoid their own destruction.
    Nevertheless, it is too late now. The whole world knows that evolution is a tale. There are even many cartoons joking about the unscientific approaches suggested by the evolutionists.

  52. Leander

    I wholeheartedly agree with your attitude on creationism. I’m from Europe myself and I hope that plague will never reach US proportions over here.

    “…has a big article in it about convicted criminal…”

    As much as I like your blog and attitude on many things (or especially because of that circumstance) it pains me to see such a blatant case of poisoning the well, regardless of my attitude on creationism. Remarks like that really have the potential to ruin the good stuff you write.

  53. Ali Gurcay

    A question to Stevor,
    Dear friend you wrote something and you laught. I have a question to you. You know that DNA has more than 1000 books of encyclopaedia knowledge inside of only one chain. And all this cumulative knowledge exist in each cell of living organisms. The question is this:
    If you donot put some knowledge inside your computer, is it possible to ask to answer any question which is not in its hard disk? ıf this knowledge doesnot exist in any networks and internet (for example can you ask to a computer when USA send gift to Iran which is planned in Pentagon) do you think you can learn it form your coputer? Mankind likes a computer, it has veryy big encyclopedic knowledge to continue its life in this earth and complex space, which is exist since its creation (it should, if you said not how it can be organise the O2 level and lungs activities when he faced with. It looks like design a car without any engine and wait an engine to evoluate itself according to the enviromental conditions). It is craziness. All the DNA’s of living organism should have complete knowledge when they seems on the earth. If not it’s impossible to live in. Some one in TV show asked to Prof Richard Dawkins that “Is there any mutation which add a gene or improvement on DNA of any living organisms?” What is your respond this question boy? Prof. Dawkins couldnot have given any a sample to tihs question in 30 sec on MPEG video . He watcehd air and look at the God and bag him to create one sample to reply this question but no help comes from Him.
    Yes You are right. Every European, liked old ones went to CORDOBA, Islamic sicence center in Spain, will learn every details from Turkish Muslim guys who are the believers of Allah, (in Arabic El/the ILAH/God =Allah) who is The God of Moses, Abraham, Christ and Mohammed who have been the prophets of HIM, to explain His wihes, shows how mankind be happy in the world and invite them to truth for their destiny and after world life. Like Turkish Guy Adnan Oktar. I wish you to listen him and think the way he shows you for your life.

  54. rauf genc

    I am a molecular biology teacher in the University. Do you know anything about DNA or the cell structure? They are amazing.
    DNA is a fantastic data bank, and I don’t think evolution is an explain for this order.
    And the cell structure is really so much complex. Also, the theory does not have any explanation to the questions like: how does the first cell emerged?

    I have friends here, and we do believe in Creation. And it is not limiting our consciousness or works. I suppose, you are getting angry out there.. But come’on we are not obsessive monsters, but we are scientists who have faith in God.
    I hope someday you will pass over your prejudice.

  55. Bud

    Cengiz Eminov Says:
    “What’s coincidence? What can coincidence do? Let me answer it NOTHING…”

    Let’s take this as an example. The chances of winning the powerball lottery here in the USA is about one in 147 million. If you told me that you had the winning ticket, I would certainly be sceptical. But there is (usually) at least one person who wins it every time. The holder of the winning ticket would indeed disagree with your claim that coincidence can do nothing. It made him/her a millionaire!

  56. Michel

    Everyone here who thinks there are lots of fossils proving evolution, please take it to Adnan Oktar as he wishes so, if there is such a fossil, a single one, than I promise I’ll believe in evolution.

  57. Bud

    Arik Rice Says:
    “If science teachers don’t discuss, and debunk, intelligent design, most of the students will likely not find anyone else to. Of course, they do still have worry about running afoul of the first amendment (at least in public schools).”

    I saw a curriculum for a class in evolution at my local college the other day, and it did include a “discussion” on challenges to evolution, such as ID. So, I think what you suggest is indeed being done, at least at the college level. As long as the discussion is used to point out what makes, or does not make, a scientific theory, it could indeed be a useful teaching aid. But the danger is always that the ID crowd will pick up on this and claim, “Look, they are discussing it in science classrooms, so it must be science!”, and claim victory of some sort.

  58. Cheyenne

    “So what can be done about all this? Fight.”

    Wow that is so tough. And has been really effective in the US (where a very clear majority believe in creationism- and this seems to be growing).

    How about instead of “fight” we “discuss” and “engage”? Instead of “fighting” we use good, solid, teaching that explains the science behind evolution. If I was a biology teacher I would teach evolution, and would require my students to pass some pretty stringent tests that would insure that they understood the concepts of it (even if they happened to not believe in it for some reason- they would be graded on it and required to know it).

    Then, again, since the majority of people in this nation believe in creationism over evolution- I would set aside a very small amount of time to have a (hopefully lively) discussion of why some people believe in creationism and what it stands for. What they challenge evolution on (and then I could hopefully describe things like how lobster eyes formed or whatever else it is that creationists bring up).

    I don’t get why people that believe in evolution are so freaking scared of creationism. And I don’t get the flip side of that either. A little comity people. All I’m saying.

  59. Cheyenne

    “Point them to the Creationism FAQ at And wherever you are, do what you can to defend reality”

    So, um, you think that it should be discussed? But then you say…

    But just not to students, because “In my opinion that’s a mistake, as most science teachers are probably not prepared to deal with the issue very well. It’s not simple to go over the many failings of creationism versus science, and it’s made far more treacherous in the classroom because you’re dealing with the beliefs of children.”

    I personally side with the 3/4’s that think it should be discussed. I have pretty good faith in teachers (although they definitely do need more money and training on the whole). Debate is good for everybody. Shying away from something because you don’t think the teachers will do a good job is lame. Sorry, totally lame.

    Besides, let’s just admit where we’re at here in the US. Depending on what survey you look at something like 65%-70% of the population believes in creationism. So it’s evolution fail at this point the way we’re going (which is especially galling since it’s so easy to teach and comprehend).

  60. Julian

    “I don’t get why people that believe in evolution are so freaking scared of creationism. And I don’t get the flip side of that either. A little comity people. All I’m saying.”

    Um… nevermind.

    I’ve been blessed. Not with good teachers but with an incredible disdain for religion that picked up around the time I got into politics. I’d always tried to rationlize the stories. Find some way to make them plausible. But once I got wind of the religious right, sweet bahjesus did I get past that phase quick.

    Personally I’d like to see the growing Hispanic population (of which I am a member) targeted. Not only are we largely illiterte (not just in science) but we’re really into home remedies and will take just about any drug given o them even if the one doing the giving isn’t qualified to prescribe it.

    Not to mention that while every parent wants to see their kid go to College, not one of them wants to have him turn around and tell them “I’m an atheist.” Hell my mother’s convinced I work for Satan and won’t even tell anyone about me now.

    I think this may make a good case study for effective tactics (that the word I’m looking for?) for similar groups like the Muslims in Europe (hope you guys don’t get car bombed :D), the growing Indian (As in from India) population here in New York and maybe even the Black community. (which I’m told isn’t much better then the Hispanic)

  61. Cheyenne

    Julian- Nothing like some good broad stereo-typing of racial groups. Good on ya.

  62. Julian

    “Julian- Nothing like some good broad stereo-typing of racial groups. Good on ya.”


  63. novaterata

    there is nothing more scientific than stereotypes applied TO a broad group. Its called statistics. You can’t go long without relying on them. I work at a coffee shop and If someone with a “Southern” or “Ghetto” accent comes in and asks for a French Vanilla Cappuccino I always explain to them that Cappuccino is not sweet and that the ones they sell at the QuickTrip are a different thing made from a powder and that they would prefer a White Mocha instead. (this is not based on color or income but if they say “French” with a drawl) I have NEVER had someone be upset by this as they are happy to get a White Mocha instead of a Cappuccino. If it was up to me I would explain that they like that White Mocha because of a cultural curse to move toward the light of Type II Diabetes and that they’d be better off with straight espresso, but then they would say “eck that tastes like castor oil” or some other anachronism.

  64. kuhnigget

    @ Cheyenne

    “I don’t get why people that believe in evolution are so freaking scared of creationism. And I don’t get the flip side of that either. A little comity people. All I’m saying.”

    I think one only has to look at the last 8 years in the U.S. to see why people are “freaking scared.” The mentality of person who fervently “believes” in creationism is the same type of person who “believes” in non-existent weapons of mass destruction – despite no evidence for them and plenty of evidence against their existence (see Scott Ritter)…and is willing to launch a trillion dollar, 100k + lives lost war in the name of those beliefs.

    Freaking scared? You should be! Once “belief” trumps evidence and rational thought, we’re hosed.

  65. Cheyenne

    So now having a rational, scientifically based discussion of evolution and creationism (a very brief one at that), taught by a qualified biology teacher – is juxtaposed with the Iraq War? That’s the card you’re going to play?

    Keep in mind- I believe in evolution and think it has to be taught- obviously. Part of the reason that I believe in evolution so much is that I had a great teacher who taught us it. And I didn’t have the “what about creationism?” thoughts in the back of my head because we talked about it head on. It was ignored, pushed out of the curriculum, and left to the parents and churches to talk about behind people’s backs (which is what happens today).

    So, we all (well, most of us) agree evolution is correct, sound science, and should be taught. Now we’re faced with the fact that the majority of people in the US don’t believe in it. What’s the best way to solve that problem? Can we have a discussion on the merits of achieving that goal without bringing up ancillary topics that have nothing to do with teaching evolution? Well, except for the White Mocha vs. French Vanilla vs…..what on earth?

  66. Cheyenne

    Oops- meant to say “it IS ignored….blah blah blah” in today’s teaching for the most part.

  67. Radwaste

    “There are no fossil remains belonging to the imaginary intermediate forms.”

    I call, “Poe.”

    And – this site clearly shows your statement is false. So, you’re wrong. You should fix that. Learning is indicated.

  68. Julian

    “Oops- meant to say “it IS ignored….blah blah blah” in today’s teaching for the most part.

    I think you meant ‘it wasn’t ignored’ but I see your point and it’s a totally valid one. Generally I agree. Unfortunately when atheism is evil and evolution leading to atheism being so wildly accepted you can’t expect willing listeners among Creationists.

  69. Julian

    wait never mind. made an ass of myself. Thought you were referencing evolution (which is ignored largely in Biology class now)

  70. Cengiz Eminov

    Bud Says:
    Let’s take this as an example. The chances of winning the powerball lottery here in the USA is about one in 147 million. If you told me that you had the winning ticket, I would certainly be sceptical. But there is (usually) at least one person who wins it every time. The holder of the winning ticket would indeed disagree with your claim that coincidence can do nothing. It made him/her a millionaire!

    Are you serious with this?? what are you comparing?? melons with bananas..
    let me tell you something about the chance that a protein can exist from nothing. I’m only talking about ONE protein. not about more proteins or a cell wich is much more complicated.

    There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:

    First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence

    Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed

    Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called “peptide bond”.

    In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously. The probability of the formation of a protein by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realization of each of these conditions.

    For instance, for an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids:

    1. The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:
    There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:

    – The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types = 1/20
    – The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being chosen correctly = 1/20500 = 1/10650
    = 1 chance in 10650

    2. The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:
    – The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed = 1/2
    – The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time = 1/2500
    = 1/10150
    = 1 chance in 10150

    3. The probability of the amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”:
    Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a “peptide bond”. It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:

    – The probability of two amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond” = 1/2
    – The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2499 = 1/10150
    = 1 chance in 10150

    TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/10650 x 1/10150x 1/10150 = 1/10950
    = 1 chance in 10950

    The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only lefthanded and being combined with only peptide bonds is “1” over 10950. We can write this number which is formed by putting
    950 zeros next to 1 as follows:


    That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is “1” in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again
    in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and be arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should
    then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also
    imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the
    beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where

    only “the correct selection of the amino acids” is left to chance. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an
    event is quite unscientific. Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as “amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins”. However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in an inanimate structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of design and engineering, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions. Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously “by accident”. Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids,or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.

    Bron: Harun Yahya, Evolution Deceit, pag. 128-131


  71. Julian

    I guess Cengiz has never been to Good Math, Bad Math.

  72. kuhnigget

    @ cheyenne:

    Sorry, I guess I wasn’t being clear.

    Creationism does not equal Iraq war, but the mindset that allows one to ignore reams of evidence, years of study, countless validations, repeated refinements, and instead promote soemthing with no evidence, no serious scientific study and zero validation in the real world…based solely on your beliefs is exactly what led to the Iraq war.

  73. kuhnigget

    Sorry, should have added “based solely on your beliefs and your agenda….which, when considering the mindset of the fundies, is even scarier still.

  74. @Cengiz Eminov: Your “mathematics” hurt in my brain. Please don’t pick random numbers and combine them in a random manner to support your belief again, thanks.

    And if you have to continue discussing this, please read some of the material provided to you first. Your claims are very much based on misconceptions and fallacies; you must correct at least some of these for fruitful discussion to be possible.

  75. Made up numbers make my head hurt Cengiz. But I see your really really low chance of something happening with the the 100% proof that something did – we’re here.

  76. RE: UK science teachers

    The survey does not tell us WHY teachers want to teach creationism. If we are teaching–let’s say–safety in the home, it might be useful to discuss some of the more common unsafe practices people have been known to engage in. It could benefit children to learn that some people stack months worth of old newspapers on the back stairs, or overload their electrical circuits, or stick their fingers in light sockets. That’s not the same as teaching them to DO these things.

  77. Radwaste

    Cengiz – here’s how little you understand about “odds”: you don’t notice that the State can sell a billion non-winning tickets. Legally.

    Here’s something that should really bake your noodle: the Universe isn’t “random”.

    If you flip a coin, you only have three possibilities of result: heads, tails, edge. In the lottery example, you only have the ~147 million possibilities with six different numbers. But “unpredictable” does not mean “random”. The lottery solution is always just six numbers.

    Well, dang. What about the Universe? We’ve noticed that four fundamental forces work on all matter and energy, at all times. These are the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, magnetism and gravity. There may be more, but these are a lock. They produce what we call “the laws of physics”.

    Be my guest to cite a violation of those laws – or simply a situation in which they do not apply (be sure to use the scientific definition of each, subtly different from the layman’s).

    Well, guess what? There are two observations that lead directly from this. One: A universe with a law of physics cannot be truly random. Two: The behavior of elements of the universe can be predicted subject to the complexity of the event examined.

    Chemical reactions aren’t random. “Natural selection” isn’t random. You, yourself, got here as the inevitable result of boy-meets-girl chemistry.

    Welcome! Now, start thinking!

  78. Steve

    Dogmatic evolutionists are such cry babies. Let the debates roll. Step right up, folks, and see the facts! Watch the frightened Darwinacs run for cover more and more. They think they are scientists, but they do not know true knowledge from a clever fairy tale when it comes to origins. Ooooo. The big bang! They say: “We have proof of the big bang since our tiny little building shaped like a shoe horn in New Jersey picked up a hissing noise, that is after we made sure to clean off the bird poo. We are so astute and clever. Let’s brain wash the masses. Let’s get rid of God in origins, or let’s at least make God seem soooo impersonal and impotent God becomes a corner figure.” And they want to make sure to keep away volumes of information that debunks Darwinism. They are on the run, and it gets better every week. Keep it up you who love and know the truth!

  79. Cengiz Eminov

    Lars and shane you both know what I mean with those numbers. Unfortunately I can’t use smaller numbers

    : TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/10650 x 1/10150x 1/10150 = 1/10950
    = 1 chance in 10950

    so: 650, 150, 150 and 950 are the smaller ones.. I hope you both are smart enough to catch it now. Besides it was only ONE example that a protein can not excise from NOTHING (or like you evulution people say “from coincidence”).

    I see that our friend Ruprecht want’s me to find a rabbit in a precambrium layer to disprove theory of evolution. Now I have good news for him..

    Rabbit skull
    Age: 33 million years
    Period: Oligocene
    Location: White River Formation, Converse County, Wyoming, USA

    Now the precabrium is between 4560 and 542 million years. This rabbit fossil did not change in 33 million years. So can one of you guys tell me when the macro evolution of this rabbit will begin???
    Harun Yahya
    The Atlas of creation –Volume 3-
    Pag. 44-45


  80. IVAN3MAN

    @ Steve,

    You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and [yet] you say that WE are the ones that need help? — Mark Twain

  81. IVAN3MAN

    The Church worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch — the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. — Mark Twain

  82. IVAN3MAN

    Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion: several of them. — Mark Twain

  83. Mark Hansen

    Cengiz, I will charitably assume you misunderstood Ruprecht’s comment. What Ruprecht is asking is for a fossil of an advanced life form (eg. a rabbit) in a primitive (eg. Pre-Cambrian) sequence of rocks. Another example would be dinosaurs and people found in the same stratum.

  84. Kirkburn

    Where are all these creationists in the comments coming from?

    “Watch the frightened Darwinacs run for cover more and more. They think they are scientists, but they do not know true knowledge from a clever fairy tale when it comes to origins.”

    You have got to be kidding… Steve: links please.

  85. The funny thing here is that all the people arguing against evolution are doing so based on theology, not from science. And they don’t even understand what it is they are putting forward. Even better, they don’t seem to get that many religious people accept evolution, and the ONLY reason to reject it is some kind of literal interpretation of ancient superstitious texts. But they prefer to place limits on the Almighty rather than admit the possibility that a “God” could well have used evolution to bring us here. While many here have put forward far-fetched numbers pulled from Harun Yahya’s bottom (who by the way is NOT a qualified biologist, but a fundamentalist nut) they don’t seem to understand that “improbable” does NOT mean “impossible”. Not only that, but they keep conflating abiogenesis with evolution, which again is a logical fallacy since evolution is not dependant on abiogenesis. Also, they keep mis-characterizing evolution as being totally random, which is not the case.

    Abiogenesis: Not an evolutionary process until replication occurs
    (Billions of complex organic molecules/cubic meter)
    *(Billions of cubic meters)
    *(Billions of different environments)
    *(Billions of Joules of energy)
    *(Billions of different energy forms (wavelengths, heat, discharges, etc))
    *(Billions of years)
    *(Billions of semi terrestrial planets in the universe)->
    One molecule sort of self replicates, evolution is off and running.
    Any improbable event becomes a certainty when number of opportunities approaches the quantified improbability. The first self replicator would be nothing like a cell – just one or a small number of fairly simple molecules. Once something starts to iteratively replicate, the evolutionary algorithm leads inevitably to complexity.

    (hat-tip to chipfle)

    Unfortunately for them, they do not even realise that their “arguments” (such as they are) are more than 40 years old, and have been debunked ever since they were first used. So in the mean time, I would like to ask, do they have a better alternative to offer that explains the evidence better than evolution does? And as usual, I see a lot of talk about “specified complexity”. Can someone please (for once) tell me what exactly “specified complexity” actually IS, and more important, how to quantify it?

    And plus, do they have any peer-reviewed scientific work to back themselves up? Thank you very much.

  86. And cengiz, there was a fossil rabbit called Palaeolagus from around 37m years ago which is SIMILAR to modern day hares and rabbits, which fits in perfectly well for evolution. Which is why we asked for a fossil rabbit from the Pre-Cambrian (not the “precambrium” layer whatever that is) so I’m afraid that you’re still off by approximately 4463,000,000 years.

    Let us know when you find it…

  87. Radwaste

    Good luck getting an educated response. I know he just skipped over my explanation. Saint Augustine was clearly talking about people like Cengiz.

  88. Patrick Henry

    “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who–in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’– cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
    – Albert Einstein

    “Science without religion is lame”
    – Albert Einstein

    “The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
    – Albert Einstein

  89. Cengiz Eminov

    ok guys good luck with your evolution… You dont want to see the truth.. but like I said before evolution is collapsed.. 10 years you find it in a museum…


  90. kuhnigget

    Hey hey! Typical FAIL behavior from a chowderhead! Post tons of crap copied from some idiotic website or book, ignore all the real evidence others point to as counter arguments, post the same crap over and over again…then run away when you realize nobody is buying your b.s.

    Way to go, Cengiz! You’ve officially joined the ranks of the nutters!

  91. Mark Hansen

    And just as one leaves, another steps into the breach. Patrick, is there a point to your post or do you just like to C&P quotes? If the latter, perhaps you’d like the entire “Science without religion…” quote:
    “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
    And in the hope of providing better eyesight, may I suggest you read the entire speech? The quote comes from a section where Einstein could not conceive of a scientist that wasn’t religious. An inability to conceive of one doesn’t mean one cannot exist.

  92. So, Patrick Henry: Could you please tell us what point you were making, and what atheism has to do with anything? And why do Einstein’s opinions of atheism matter in particular?

    Cengiz Eminov, can you please tell us, what is “truth”? “Truth” is subjective. Do you have anything objective? People have been saying evolution “is collapsed” for 150 years. Do you have anything to show that THIS time, you’re actually right? And if so, I ask again, what scientific alternative to evolution do you have to offer instead?

    And why won’t anyone tell me what “specified complexity” is (last time I heard was an ID concept – something which Harun Yahya does not hold to) and how to quantify it?

    Or the heck with it! ONE “precambrium” rabbit! Just ONE! That can’t be too hard to find can it? CAN IT?!?
    There’s nothing we can’t face… …except for bunnies.

  93. Patrick Henry

    Try to focus on this quote, and in particular the use of the word “intelligence.”

    “The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
    – Albert Einstein

  94. Radwaste

    You know, you’d think Cengiz et al would recognize that the fans of a PhD in Astronomy would have a fair bit of education themselves. But it seems to be a surprise.

    Patrick, your quotations are a fallacy called “appeal to authority”. Try again.
    Here’s the Fallacy Tutorial. It’ll help you realize when you get near a fact.

  95. davidlpf

    I am in complete awe that the oxygen in finger that I am typing this started in a star billions of years ago. In complete awe that the snow under my feet has hydrogen that began in the Big Bang. I am amazed that everything in the universe is so connected. If there is a God it is not a white man in a robe, it is, it has to be, it will always be, the universe.

  96. Mark Hansen

    Patrick, if all you can do is parrot quotes, and incomplete quotes at that, then you’re really not saying anything.

  97. kuhnigget

    Quote mining is fun! Here’s another from Dr. Einstein, from the same essay Mr. Henry seems to like:

    It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man… I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence — as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.”

    Italics added.

  98. IVAN3MAN

    Albert Einstein’s letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman (ISBN 0691023689):

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

  99. Bein'Silly

    @Darth Robo

    “There’s nothing we can’t face… …except for bunnies.”

    Great Buffy ref! 😀

    ‘Cept of course its just Anya / Anyanka who has this thing against rabbits! 😉

    “So, Patrick Henry: Could you please tell us what point you were making, and what atheism has to do with anything? And why do Einstein’s opinions of atheism matter in particular?”

    Ergh. Seriously : This will hurt my brain & prob’ly yours too but their thinking goes something like this :


    (Yeah, they think in all caps too! :-( (Ever noticed how so many preachers have to shout their sermons …?)

    Our point would be – Aha! So ID etc .. is *really* just Religion & not Science which it tries lamely to pretend to be.

  100. The Astronauts Believed!

    Here’s what original Mercury Seven astronaut, first American in orbit and later shuttle astronaut and oldest astronaut John Glenn said about the existence of God – bear in mind that he passed all the rigorous and gruelling tests of physical and mental fitness and was selected as the
    best of the best to become the first American to orbit Earth! :

    “How can anybody prove there’s a God? I said. “I can’t. There’s no mathematical formula or chemical composition that adds up to God, just like there’s no formula for love or hope or honesty. I don’t believe that God is dead. I can’t look around this world and believe that it came out of chance encounters of cosmic debris. But you know God doesn’t have to be believed in to exist.”

    – Page 491, ‘John Glenn : A Memoir’, by John Glenn with Nick Taylor in 1999.

    & on P.447-8 of the same memoir when Glenn & Soviet cosmonaut gherkin Titov faced each other at the third International Space Symposium :

    “[Titov ] … also professed the official Soviet policy of atheism, as I learned when we fielded questions at the ends of our presentations. Someone asked’ “In communism you don’t believe there is a God. Did your spaceflight alter that?”

    “Not at all,” the cosmonaut said. “Only now there is proof for the Communist position. I went into space and didn’t see God, so that must mean God does not exist.”
    “Did you see God in space Colonel Glenn?” the questioner asked.
    “I didn’t expect to,” I said “The God I believe in isn’t so small that I thought I would run into Him just a little bit above the atmosphere.”


    Also note that the Moonwalkers – the Apollo astronauts who were again tested and proven to be the very best of the best in health, mind and spirit plus patriotic Americans loved God and were all
    Christian NOT atheist.

    (Again, I sense this rebellious hatred in atheists /liberals & evolutionists of anything patriotically American. Are they not fooled into this by the Great Deceiver?)

    Two of them – Jim Irwin from Apollo 15 & Charles Duke from Apollo 16
    were so devout and so moved by God and his Christ that left space exploration and founded Christian Ministries:

    (If your wondering NO astronaut ever came back & spouted


    From ‘Moondust : In search of the Men who fell to Earth’ by Andrew Smith in

    Page 12 : “Even more dramatically, Jim Irwin [sic] purported to have heard God whispering to him at the feet of the majestic, gold coloured [Lunar] Apennine Mountains, leaving NASA for the Church upon his return.” (Brackets added for clarity.)

    P. 483 – 500 Charles & Dotty Duke interview

    Charles Duke became a completely different – & much better – person after converting to Christianity – prior to that he’d had a bad temper, been
    a bad father and husband – post conversion he became a more relaxed, faithful, patient man & Duke stated he’d choose his faith over the Moon landing.

    P.493 : Smith – “We so badly want to believe that we’re not alone, don’t we? With a pang of envy, the thought occurs to me [Smith – the author who
    interviewed the surviving Moonwalkers.] that the Dukes are lucky because they don’t think they are.”


    Actually us Christians *Know* we are NOT alone and that Christ the Risen Lord is with us – and against atheism (‘godlessness’) and evolutionism.

    NB. Duke wrote a Book & made a video ‘Walk on the Moon. Walk with the Son.’ on his experiences.

    Sadly, I know all too many of you will probably shrug this off as “quote mining” or “fallacy of authority” (& why do so many atheists hate authority so much? Could it be because of their own spirit’s lawless rebellion against the Ultimate Authority?) or whatever other excuses enables
    you to remain such “mockers” and “scoffers”.. Who of course the Bible predicted!

  101. kuhnigget

    Heh heh…. the “fallacy of authority”…

    I can see how the failings of that sort of argument would not be apparent to someone whose only support is a collection of bronze age Levantine folklore, kluged together over the course of many generations into a composite book that isn’t even internally consistent.

    But you know what, TAB? It doesn’t matter. You can believe all you want. Your beliefs don’t harm me in any way and I couldn’t care less what it takes to bang your bell. Unless you start trying to pass those beliefs off as science, and force teachers in public schools to teach them as such.

    And you know, I’m willing to bet that Col. Glenn, et al, put just a little bit of their faith in the rocket scientists who built the spacecraft that blasted them into orbit. D’ya think?

  102. IVAN3MAN

    RE: The Astronauts Believed!

    On February 5, 2007, astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak (née Caputo) gained international attention when she was arrested in Orlando, Florida, and subsequently charged with the attempted kidnapping of U.S. Air Force Captain Colleen Shipman (the girlfriend and love rival of astronaut William Oefelein) after driving 950-miles — a 12-hour journey from Texas to Orlando by car — while wearing an adult diaper, to avoid having to stop the car along the way to answer the call of nature, because she was anxious to get to Orlando before Ms Shipman’s scheduled flight arrived.

    In 2004, astronaut Edgar Dean Mitchell told the St. Petersburg Times that a “cabal of insiders” inside the US Government were studying recovered alien bodies, and that this group had stopped briefing US Presidents after John F. Kennedy. He has stated: “We all know that UFOs are real, now the question is, where they come from.”

    On July 23, 2003, in an interview on Kerrang Radio, Edgar Mitchell claimed the Roswell crash was real and that aliens have contacted humans several times, but that governments have hidden the truth for 60 years stating: “I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we’ve been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomenon is real.”

    More recently, Edgar Mitchell revealed that he had been cured of a bout of kidney cancer by a man called Adam Dreamhealer who, though based in Canada, did all his healing from a distance and managed to effect a complete recovery through the power of consciousness.

    So, does it not make you wonder about NASA’s astronaut selection process, when you “bear in mind that” those astron(a)uts “who were again tested and proven to be the very best of the best in health, mind and spirit plus patriotic Americans”?

  103. IVAN3MAN

    ERRATUM: At the third paragraph above, the date should be: July 23, 2008, not 2003.

  104. Darth Robo

    “The Astronauts Believed!”

    >>>”Sadly, I know all too many of you will probably shrug this off as “quote mining” or “fallacy of authority” (& why do so many atheists hate authority so much? Could it be because of their own spirit’s lawless rebellion against the Ultimate Authority?) ”

    Perhaps it is because you have little understanding of the concept? I for one, although I don’t consider myself an atheist (nor do I have a particular interest in promoting it) feel rather comforted by the fact that atheists don’t feel the need to refer to an “ultimate authority” (beyond the laws of man) to live their lives by. That MAY suggest that the laws of man aren’t good enough. And further, that MAY suggest that men can then flagrantly denounce any laws they like and use the EXCUSE an “ultimate authority” to be able to whatever they like. In fact I feel VERY comforted that atheists don’t refer to this “ultimate authority” as a guidance of how to live their lives, for in the end, it is only the word of MEN, born of this planet Earth, who we have to tell us what this “ultimate authority” actually IS.

    And may I ask, that if atheists don’t believe in this “ultimate authority” in the first place, can you perhaps tell us what it is exactly they are “rebelling” against?

    >>>”or whatever other excuses enables
    you to remain such “mockers” and “scoffers”..Who of course the Bible predicted!”

    AMAZING! The people who wrote the Bible PREDICTED that there would be people in the world who would DISAGREE with them! (Especially when Christianity itself first started out). That’s incredible!!! Because after all, ALL religions in the world are in total agreement, right? Oh, wait. They’re not? Oh, in that case then, it must be YOUR religion which is the “correct” one, since all those others disagree.

    Perhaps you could enlighten us, why did you bring up ‘atheism’ in the first place? What is wrong with atheism? And further, what does it have to do with the original post which was about Creationism in Europe? Fighting against the teaching of Biblical Creationism is not an unreasonable thing, especially in this day & age. But what does that have to do with atheism? As I pointed out before, many religious people believe in (a) God but still accept everything that modern science has to offer. There is no reason in particular to reject scientific knowledge, unless one happens to be the type of person who subscribe to a literal interpretation of ancient superstitious texts. In fact, the first person to even mention the word “atheist” was someone who disagrees with modern science on religious grounds, not scientific.

    So what are we talking about here, people? Religion or science? If it’s religion, then I think it’s on the wrong forum.

  105. Patrick Henry

    “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
    – Albert Einstein

  106. Patrick Henry

    “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”
    – Albert Einstein

  107. kuhnigget

    So, um, Patrick…can I ask you a couple of questions? (I mean, apart from how many Einstein quotes you can dig up.)

    What is your point? Do you have one? How does it relate to Dr. BA’s original post? How does it make a point apropos creationism in Europe?

    Do you even have a point? Would you like one? Do you think posting more quotes from Einstein will substitute for having one? Do you understand the value of having points to make when posting comments to blogs?

    Enquiring minds would like to know.

  108. kuhnigget

    ‘Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
    – Albert Einstein

  109. Cengiz Eminov

    hey you evolution people think your smart. you always think you have scientific arguments. But if I look at your arguments are always full of everything accept science..

    Ok if you guys are smart tell me somthing about

    – The secret beyond Matter (it worth to watch)

    – Quantumphyscis

    – The Golden ratio (we can find it in everything on earth)

    I can show you 100, 1000 fossils which are 100,200,300,400 million years old. If you can tell me why they diden’t change in al those years I would be very pleased.

    I don’t know what else I can say to you. Like I said before I hope for you guys that you can see the truth, I hope you can see that nothing is based on coincidence before its late. You all know… we all will die one day…

  110. IVAN3MAN

    @ Cengiz Eminov,

    Let me explain to you the Ten Commandments of the Scientific Method:

    1. Thou shalt base thy conclusion on evidence.

    2. Thou shalt measure objectively, not guess subjectively.

    3. Thou shalt back up thy statements with evidence — claiming something is a fact does not make it so.

    4. Thou shalt use large sample numbers, not large opinion numbers.

    5. Thy tests shalt be blind.

    6. Thy tests shalt have controls.

    7. Thou shalt cite thy sources of information for full scrutiny.

    8. Thy sources of information must be reliable, verifiable, and backed up by evidence.

    9. Opinion(s) is NOT fact.

    10. Thou shalt not bear false witness — don’t be a J.A.M.F.

    I will also refer you to the cartoon I have posted above.

  111. Cengiz Eminov

    Before you say things watch the movies. so you can answer my quetions..

  112. Mark Hansen

    Cengiz, before you ask for an answer, show those fossils.

  113. kuhnigget

    “If you can tell me why they diden’t change in al those years I would be very pleased.”

    If you do manage to show those fossils, what would that prove? If an animal is successful in its particular niche, it experiences no evolutionary pressure and will not change, even over a gazillion years. Sharks are an excellent example. They’ve been around for hundreds of millions of years and are pretty much the same now as they were back then.

    Yet again, you’ve proven you don’t understand a very basic principle. I would suggest you go to a library, check out an introductory level biology textbook, read it, understand it, and only then come back to the discussion.

    Have a nice day.

  114. IVAN3MAN

    Cengiz Eminov, I have watched the “movies” that you have provided links to and I have drawn the following conclusions:

    The first video deals with the subject of Phenomenology and the concept of existence (I’ll deal with this later).

    The second series(!) of videos is, like Christian rock music ( 😛 ), a poor imitation of the original Cosmos series by the now late Prof. Carl Sagan, and vainly endeavours to sound the same with its Vangelis type background music.

    The third video is simply a rehash of that favourite old chestnut of creationists: “The Watchmaker” argument. 😛

    What all this boils down to is the “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?” argument. The evolutionists assert that the ‘egg’ must have come first from the simplest ‘egg’ possible — the single celled organism. Whereas the creationists insist that the ‘chicken’ must have come first to create the ‘egg’.

    “So, then, who created the chicken?”, the evolutionists ask.

    “Oh, it’s a magic chicken — it has always existed!”, reply the creationists. :roll:

    As for phenomenology, trying to confuse somebody with epistemology and ontology can have unexpected consequences, as this video shows:

  115. Darth Robo

    Uh, so, Patrick Henry: Could you please tell us what point you were making, and what atheism has to do with anything? And why do Einstein’s opinions of atheism matter in particular? Yes, we are aware of Einstein’s philosophical beliefs, probably more than you are. You do know that he was not a particular believer of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God, (whichever you prefer) yes?

    Cengiz Eminov,

    >>>”hey you evolution people think your smart. you always think you have scientific arguments. But if I look at your arguments are always full of everything accept science..”

    Whoa, there’s irony for ya. Can you please tell us, what is “truth”? “Truth” is subjective. Do you have anything objective? People have been saying evolution “is collapsed” for 150 years. Do you have anything to show that THIS time, you’re actually right? And if so, I ask again, what scientific alternative to evolution do you have to offer instead? Plus, why are you demanding answers from others, when

    1: You keep on ignoring everyone else’s posts, and

    2: If you were really interested in learning about evolution, you could do it yourself from your own keyboard. There’s a wealth of information at your fingertips.

    Here’s some more, about your friend Harun Yahya:

    And perhaps you could tell us what you mean by this:

    >>>”Like I said before I hope for you guys that you can see the truth, I hope you can see that nothing is based on coincidence before its late. You all know… we all will die one day…”

    Too late for what, may I ask? What does learning about the world we live in have to do with the fact that yes, we all die one day? What are we talking about here? Religion or science? If it’s religion, then I think it’s on the wrong forum…

  116. kuhnigget

    “Too late for what, may I ask? What does learning about the world we live in have to do with the fact that yes, we all die one day?”
    Darth, Darth, Darth…

    If you die believing in evolution, you go to Hell. You must have missed that Sunday school lesson.

  117. Darth Robo

    Yeah, I was hoping he’d say that part so he can show the world how sane he is by claiming to speak with the authority of “God”.

    ‘Cos they never seem to get that the only people who can tell us what God supposedly “wants” are uh, well, other people.


  118. IVAN3MAN

    Methinks that Cengiz Eminov is a sophist.

  119. kuhnigget

    Ivan, I think that would be giving him way too much credit.

    Like other lazy cranks, Cengiz likes to pretend he is much smarter than he is by grabbing snippets of other people’s arguments — despite the fact he doesn’t understand them — and presenting these snippets willy-nilly in the hopes they will bluff others into believing in his fantasy.

    In the words of John Cleese, “It don’t work!”

  120. IVAN3MAN

    @ kuhnigget,

    According to Wikipedia ,Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone. In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric.

    In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are derogatory terms, due to the influence of many philosophers in the past (sophism and Platonism were enemy schools).

    A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience’s prejudices and emotions rather than logic, i.e., raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques. An argument Ad Hominem is an example of Sophistry.

    A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual.

    Sophistry means making heavy use of sophisms. The word may be applied to a particular text or speech riddled with sophisms.

    So, I think that is in agreement with your assessment of Cengiz, is it not?

  121. kuhnigget

    Ivan, I bow to your superior wikipedia skills. I am hopelessly rooted in the 4th century BCE.

    Next time I’ll just call a nutter a nutter and be done with it.

  122. @ kuhnigget

    Arise, kuhnigget! Together, we got rid of Cengiz and all his ilk… for now!

  123. Silvanus

    Christians did not read their Bible the Right Way until today!
    Please read

    The answer to this question has caused a seismic divide between Christians and the modern scientific community. Both sides think that there is no possible way of reconciling their respective differences on this question. Many Christians, thinking that the Bible teaches that the earth and all life on it can be no more than 6,000 years old, answer this question in the affirmative. The scientific community, seeing physical evidence which indicates that the earth and physical Universe is much older than 6,000 years, answers this question in the negative. Additionally, scientists have heard so many Christians assert that the Bible teaches the earth is only 6,000 years old that they reject the Bible as unscientific because of that Christian assertion. Who is right? The answer may surprise you. I believe that each side has a lot of truth on its side, but they have been in disagreement because of a misunderstanding about what the Bible actually says on this subject.

    Rather than hold back my personal views on the subject until the end of this research report, I will give you my conclusions at its beginning and then substantiate them with biblical and secular evidence. First I shall state categorically that I am a Christian and a biblical literalist who believes that a Creator Being authored the Bible and that it is infallible in its original, inspired texts. I also believe that the book of Genesis teaches that mankind and the species now living on the surface of the earth cannot be older than approximately 6,000 years, and I also believe that God created mankind and all such current species in a literal six-day week of 24-hour days and that he “rested” on the seventh day. These statements should place me in the mainstream of those Christian denominations which affirm a literalist understanding of the Bible. Now I have a surprise affirmation for the scientific community.

    To the scientific community I state that I agree with you that the physical evidence indicates that the Universe and the earth are far older than 6,000 years. However, I state to the scientific community that you have misjudged the Bible. You have rejected the Bible as “unscientific” because of an oft-stated Christian assertion that the Bible teaches that the earth itself is 6,000 years old. The Bible makes no such statement. When we combine all the biblical statements about creation and take them literally, the Bible actually agrees with scientists that the earth itself is far older than 6,000 years.

    To my fellow Christians, I state that this research report will show that a literal application of the scriptures will show that while mankind and the species on earth are no more than 6,000 years old, the earth on which mankind and other modern species now live is far older than 6,000 years. This research report will reconcile the seemingly unbridgeable gap between the biblical assertions of a 7-day week of creation circa 6,000 years ago and the scientific assertions that the earth is millions or billions of years old. It will do so by showing that the Bible is in agreement with the scientific community about the ancient age of the earth and Universe, an age of dinosaurs long before mankind, etc. However, this research report will also give the “coup de grace” to the theory of evolution. I believe many scientists have rejected Creationism because they can see the earth has to be older than 6,000 years so they reject the Bible as unscientific because they think it asserts the earth is no more than 6,000 years old. They have embraced evolution as the only possible alternative. This research report will show biblical creationism is actually the only scientific option. I invite all readers to consider the evidence in this research report and come to your own conclusion on the matter.

  124. IVAN3MAN


    I invite all readers to consider the evidence in this research report and come to your own conclusion on the matter.

    I have “consider[ed] the evidence in [that] research report” and I have reached this conclusion:

    😆 ROFLMAO! 😆

  125. Abu AFak

    Cengiz Eminov is obviously one of Adnan Oktar’s cultist lackeys. He is most likely either Jamshed Kunnoth AKA Jamshed Moidu or Joe Morreale AKA FrederikK. They often appear where their extremely dense leader is written about, to spam the site with their baseless assertions as to the TRUTH, as seen by their witless master.
    They want to cut and paste christian creationist articles and stolen pictures and scientific articles from reputable sources to prove their stupid model of the universe is real.
    Unfortunately they have to quote mine and fake ALL the “evidence” against evolution.
    Most of the time they just post their silly links to their leaders guff, and ignore anyone trying to debate with them. Repeating stuff like “Evolution has been demolished” regardless of whatever evidence you post to show them the error of their ways.
    They’d be better off getting some degrees in real science. Molecular biology would be a good one for these guys as they know nothing about it at all. But then again they know nothing about science or reality, full stop.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


See More

Collapse bottom bar