What do you think?
Rate this book
هدم نظرية التطور في عشرين سؤالاً
لقد طُرحت نظرية التطور منذ نحو 150 سنة، وكان لها تأثير كبير على الطريقة التي ينظر بها الناس إلى العالم. إذ تقترح هذه النظرية كذبة تقوم على أن الناس قد ظهروا في هذا العالم نتيجة المصادفةوأنهم "نوع من الحيوانات". وفضلا عن ذلك، تعلِّم هذه النظرية الناس أن القانون الوحيد في الحياة هو الصراع الأناني من أجل البقاء على قيد الحياة. وتتضح آثار هذه الفكرة بشكل جلي في القرنين التاسع عشر والعشرين؛ وذلك من خلال تزايد أنانية الناس، والانحطاط الأخلاقي في المجتمع، وسرعة انتشار المصلحة الذاتية، والقسوة، والعنف، ونشوء أيديولوجيات شمولية ودموية مثل الفاشية والشيوعية، والأزمات الاجتماعية والفردية التي تظهر كلما ابتعد الناس عن أخلاقيات الدين، ...
وقد تم تناول النتائج الاجتماعية لنظرية التطور في كتب أخرى للمؤلف (انظر كتب هارون يحيى التي تحمل عناوين "المصائب التي جلبتها نظرية التطور للإنسانية"، "الشيوعية تترقب وتتهيأ"، "السحر المظلم للداروينية"، "الداروينية دين". وقد كشفت تلك الكتب أن هذه النظرية، التي تدعي أنها "علمية"، ليس لها أي أساس علمي على الإطلاق، وأنها عبارة عن سيناريو يدافع عنه مؤيدوه بتعنت على الرغم من كل الحقائق، وهو لا يعدو أن يكون مجرد خرافات.
ومن الضروري أن يطلع على هذه الكتب أولئك الذين يرغبون في معرفة الجوهر الحقيقي لنظرية التطور ووجهة النظر الداروينية "العالمية" التي جَرَّت العالم بشكل منظم نحو العنف، والوحشية، والقسوة، والصراع خلال السنوات المائة والخمسين الأخيرة.
وسيتناول هذا الكتاب بطلان نظرية التطور من منظور أعم. وسيتصدى الكتاب أيضا لادعاءات أنصار التطور حول موضوعات معينة من خلال أسئلة كثيرا ما تطرح دون أن تُفهم معانيها فهما كاملا. ويمكنك أن تجد الإجابات المقدمة في هذا الكتاب بقدر أكبر من التفصيل العلمي في كتب أخرى للمؤلف مثل "خديعة التطور"، و"دحض الداروينية".
وقد تم تناول النتائج الاجتماعية لنظرية التطور في كتب أخرى للمؤلف (انظر كتب هارون يحيى التي تحمل عناوين "المصائب التي جلبتها نظرية التطور للإنسانية"، "الشيوعية تترقب وتتهيأ"، "السحر المظلم للداروينية"، "الداروينية دين". وقد كشفت تلك الكتب أن هذه النظرية، التي تدعي أنها "علمية"، ليس لها أي أساس علمي على الإطلاق، وأنها عبارة عن سيناريو يدافع عنه مؤيدوه بتعنت على الرغم من كل الحقائق، وهو لا يعدو أن يكون مجرد خرافات.
ومن الضروري أن يطلع على هذه الكتب أولئك الذين يرغبون في معرفة الجوهر الحقيقي لنظرية التطور ووجهة النظر الداروينية "العالمية" التي جَرَّت العالم بشكل منظم نحو العنف، والوحشية، والقسوة، والصراع خلال السنوات المائة والخمسين الأخيرة.
وسيتناول هذا الكتاب بطلان نظرية التطور من منظور أعم. وسيتصدى الكتاب أيضا لادعاءات أنصار التطور حول موضوعات معينة من خلال أسئلة كثيرا ما تطرح دون أن تُفهم معانيها فهما كاملا. ويمكنك أن تجد الإجابات المقدمة في هذا الكتاب بقدر أكبر من التفصيل العلمي في كتب أخرى للمؤلف مثل "خديعة التطور"، و"دحض الداروينية".
- GenresSciencePhilosophy
152 pages
First published January 1, 2003
3 people are currently reading
235 people want to read
About the author
Harun Yahya
505 books320 followersAdnan Oktar (born Ankara, 1956), also known by his pen name Harun Yahya, is a prominent advocate of Islamic creationism in the creation-evolution debate. He is considered to be the leading Muslim advocate of creationism. He subscribes to Old Earth creationism. He is against Zionism and Freemasonry and sees them as very interrelated movements, though he denounces anti-Semitism and terrorism, which he says is a product of Darwinism, not religious fanaticism.
Adnan Oktar founded the Science Research Foundation (SRF, or BAV in Turkish), whose objective is "to [establish]...peace, tranquility and love..."
Adnan Oktar founded the Science Research Foundation (SRF, or BAV in Turkish), whose objective is "to [establish]...peace, tranquility and love..."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
August 19, 2014
لا يمكن مواجهة العلم إلا بالعلم، ومحتوى الكتاب بعيد عن العلم كل البعد، كيف يطلق الكاتب وهو خريج الفلسفة على التطور صفة: المعتقد العتيق البالي، وهو لم يأت بأي اقتباس من بعد سنة 2000 مثلا، بل إن معظم اقتباساته ومناقشته هي لدارون وعلماء وأبحاث ما قبل 1950
للأسف يمثل هارون يحيى واجهة الخلقيين المسلمين في العالم
وليست المشكلة فقط في محتوى الطرح العلمي، والذي وصل لدرجة مناقشة علماء التطور بأن الحياة لم تأت من الفضاء، (باخبارهم ان حرارة الغلاف الجوي عالية جدا.. وكأن المعلومة تنقصهم!).. بل أيضا فيما يحمله الكاتب للإسلام من عبئ دون أن يدري، فمعظم من يقرؤون هذه الكتب من التطوريين، ليس فقط لن يجدوا ما يقنعهم وسيجدون ما يضحكهم، بل إنهم سيقرؤون أفكارا وافتراضات يسردها الكاتب على أنها جزء من الإسلام، رغم ما تحتمله من خطأ، ورغم عدم وجودها في نصوص قرآن كريم أو سنة شريفة، وهي الإساءة الأكبر برأيي
للأسف يمثل هارون يحيى واجهة الخلقيين المسلمين في العالم
وليست المشكلة فقط في محتوى الطرح العلمي، والذي وصل لدرجة مناقشة علماء التطور بأن الحياة لم تأت من الفضاء، (باخبارهم ان حرارة الغلاف الجوي عالية جدا.. وكأن المعلومة تنقصهم!).. بل أيضا فيما يحمله الكاتب للإسلام من عبئ دون أن يدري، فمعظم من يقرؤون هذه الكتب من التطوريين، ليس فقط لن يجدوا ما يقنعهم وسيجدون ما يضحكهم، بل إنهم سيقرؤون أفكارا وافتراضات يسردها الكاتب على أنها جزء من الإسلام، رغم ما تحتمله من خطأ، ورغم عدم وجودها في نصوص قرآن كريم أو سنة شريفة، وهي الإساءة الأكبر برأيي
June 26, 2016
لا اعلم لماذا يصر البعض على اقتباس اقوال علماء واعتبارها دليلا على بطلان نظرية ؟ العلم يواجه بالعلم لا بهكذا محتوى
March 17, 2015
The first thing that Harun Yahya does is claim that evolution is completely incompatible with religion. The second thing that he claims is that evolution means all species came into being by random chance, and the third is that acceptance of evolution means the only law in life is to be extremely selfish.
Now that he's got those three things so spectacularly wrong, you might think that the book can only get better.
You would be wrong to think this.
//The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment.//
It is difficult to comprehend just how one person can be so staggeringly dishonest (I will give Harun Yahya the benefit of the doubt and not claim that he is dim-witted enough to take his own claim seriously). If you ignore the staggering genetic similarities between humans and chimps, including the irrefutable evidence of Human Chromosome 2, as well as disregarding the overwhelming genetic evidence that supports common descent, and the thousands, literally thousands, of transitional fossils, plus the evidence from morphology, molecular biology and every single field of the life sciences.
//Today, such branches of science as palaeontology, genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life to come about as a result of chance and emerge by itself from natural conditions.//
Fortunately for the theory of evolution, it makes absolutely no such claims.
Then he gets started on the cell.
//Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate passageways emerge in the same time and in full working order.//
Wrong again.
Mitochondria and chloroplasts are quite clearly the remnants of once free-living cells that got absorbed by our ancestors and were reduced to organelles, as evidenced by mitochondria having its own DNA, something which Yahya completely fails to mention.
Yahya repeatedly claims that evolution is only accepted because people do not wish to accept the existence of a god, conveniently ignoring the fact that most people that accept evolution are religious.
//It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance.//
Again, it is fortunate for the theory of evolution, it makes absolutely no such claims. Also, who proved this, and how?
//This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations,//
What experiments? Did people look through a microscope and not observe a modern cell spontaneously forming in front of their eyes and then decide it was therefore impossible? Yahya fails to acknowledge that lipid bilayers form automatically where fatty molecules and water mix.
//but also by mathematical calculations of probability//
Which would therefore make such a ridiculous claim highly improbable but not impossible.
//In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.//
Except that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Even if life had been created only a few thousand years ago there would still be nothing to prevent that life from evolving from that point onwards.
//for many years, Francis Crick, a Nobel-prize laureate, believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule [DNA] could not have emerged spontaneously by chance as the result of an evolutionary process:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."//
OK, so now he is dishonestly quote-mining Francis Crick. If we complete the quote, it looks likes this:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
//The fossil record represents another crushing defeat for the theory of evolution. Among all the fossils discovered over the years, there is not one trace of the intermediate forms that would be necessary if living things were to have evolved stage by stage from simple species to more complex ones, as the theory of evolution claims.//
I confess that I am startled to find Harun Yahya has correctly identified a claim of the theory of evolution. It's a shame that his own claim regarding the fossils is so completely and utterly wrong.
Just to pick the more well-known examples of transitional fossils, there is the Amphistium, a transitional fossil of sole fish or flounders, which swam along the ocean bed sideways and had one eye on the uppermost side of its head and the other eye on the top, rather than staring at the ocean bed.
Then there is the archaeopteryx, the famous transitional between dinosaurs and birds, and no, it is not a hoax. Archaeoraptor was a hoax, and was considered suspicious from the very beginning, and was found out quickly.
Australopithecus afarensis, the iconic fossil showing a primitive human, with features in between those of humans and chimpanzees, and was notably bipedal. Ironically, half the people who refuse to accept afarensis, or Lucy, as it is more commonly known, do so by claiming that she is purely human, while the other claim that she is purely chimp.
Tiktaalik, the famous example of the transition between fish and aquatic tetrapods.
And of course, Runcarium, the precursor to seed plants.
There are an awful lot more transitional fossils, I was simply listing the more well-known to illustrate how wrong Yahya is in his claims.
//Robert Caroll, an expert on vertebrate palaeontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:
"Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected."//
That is because geologic upheaval of tectonic plates is constantly destroying the fossils in the lower levels. Did you notice how Yahya took the comment that there weren't millions of fossils as Darwin expected and tried to spin it so it implied that there were no transitional fossils ever discovered? It's quite a stretch, but Yahya's noticeable lack of success in this tactic before has not put him off trying it again.
//animals have been very different and complex since they first emerged.//
Incorrect, as the numerous fossils and even living primitive creatures such as hagfish (jawless fish, about as simple a body plan as can be found in the animal kingdom) demonstrate all around the world, and have done for a very long time.
//Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in an article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."//
Actually the Cambrian Explosion lasted 20 to 25 million years, which even the most basic information-hunting will reveal.
Enough about that, though. Let's get on to the 20 questions.
1. Why is the theory of evolution not scientifically valid?
It is. It is well supported by evidence from a diverse array of scientific fields and has made a large amount of testable and falsifiable predictions which were borne out and which supported the theory. For example, analysing similar fossils before Tiktaalik was found led those searching for it to conclude that it would be found in certain strata in certain environments, in this case Ellesmere island. When they searched Ellesmere island, they found Tiktaalik.
2. How does the collapse of the theory of evolution demonstrate the truth of creation?
Well, if evolution ever were to be disproved, which is increasingly unlikely by this point, and by likely I mean you could expect a tornado to assemble a 747 in a scrapyard before the theory of evolution is disproved, then creation would appear to be the only viable alternative. It wouldn't be a scientific alternative, though. Wait a minute, let's see what the court ruled on this case.
//During legal battles in the creation-evolution controversy in the United States, the dichotomy between creationism and the theory of evolution has been noted as another instance of false dilemma and also termed a contrived dualism.See, for example, the 2005 opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where Judge John E. Jones III writes "ID (intelligent design) is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed "contrived dualism" in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support "creation science." The court in McLean noted the "fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach" and that "[i]n efforts to establish `evidence' in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science."//
Yes, that's right, the claim that if evolution is disproven then creationism is proven turns out to be just another false dichotomy.
3. How far back to traces of man go? Why do these not support evolution?
The first members of our Genus were Homo habilis, and they appeared ~2.3 million years ago, although before them were the Australopiths and Ardipiths and numerous others. Unsurprisingly, Yahya makes no mention of these. Anatomically modern humans appeared between 250,000 and 400,000 years ago. He then dishonestly claims that Turkana boy was proven to be a 12 year old modern African child. He completely fails to acknowledge that Turkana boy had features (such as a low sloping forehead, strong brow ridges, and the absence of a chin) not seen in H. sapiens. He then perpetuates the repeatedly-refuted and barely thought-out fallacy that because the theory of evolution changes to incorporate new data (as all good theories must) that it is therefore not very good science.
Needless to say, most of the fossil evidence isn't mentioned and it's almost as if the genetic evidence (which is even stronger) doesn't exist.
4. Why is the theory of evolution not "The basis of biology"?
The first thing he does in this chapter is to say that acceptance of Darwinism is similar to Stalin's communist regime, claiming that both are dogmatic. The theory of evolution is the basis of biology because there are a large number of traits which cannot be explained by perfect creation, such as the pathway of the laryngeal nerve. Evolution however, explains this perfectly.
5. Why is the existence of different races not evidence for evolution?
This chapter basically claims that variation exists but isn't proof of evolution because variation naturally occurs. Yes, it does naturally occur, and this variation is the starting point of evolution. He doesn't make any large claims in this chapter, so I'll just move on.
6. Why is the claim that human and ape genomes are 99% similar and that this proves evolution not true?
It is true. Human Chromosome 2 perfectly matches two ape chromosomes which, when lined up end to end, have an almost perfect match of gene sequences and an absolutely perfect match of banding patterns. Even if that were not enough, HC2 also possesses telomeres in the centre of the chromosome (telomeres are only found on the ends of all other chromosomes), as well as a second vestigial centromere (hint: most chromosomes only have one centromere).
HC2 isn't even mentioned though. Instead Yahya takes one particular form of analysis that shows a 5% difference between humans and chimps and ignores the various other analyses which average out to a 98.8% difference.
7. Why is the claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds an unscientific myth?
Some dinosaurs evolved into birds, others didn't. Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of a transition between the smaller dinosaurs and birds, as is Velociraptor mongoliensis, which was small and had feathers (unfortunately, the velociraptors presented in Jurassic Park are in fact Deinonychus). Yahya then flat out lies by saying that evolutionists believe dinosaurs grew wings by jumping and trying to catch flies. His only tactic in this book seems to be lying about everything that he can. He also incorrectly states that archaeopteryx must have been a modern bird because all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. It is actually impossible for a cold-blooded creature the size of a large dinosaur to exist, and this has been known for years.
8. What scientific forgery is the myth that "human embryo's have gill" based on?
The errors in Haeckels drawing were discovered decades ago, by evolutionists. Yahya cannot find any modern claims to disprove so he simply resorts to taking old ones and deceitfully saying that evolutionists still believe that the pharyngeal slits are gills.
9. Why is it deceptive to portray cloning as "evidence for evolution"?
Nobody has ever claimed that cloning something constitutes proof of evolution. I can't help but feel that Yahya was running out of questions and wanted to make a round 20, so he made this one up and threw it in.
10. Could life have come from outer space?
Whether life on Earth originated via abiogenesis, divine creation or panspermia is completely irrelevant to the fact that evolution occurs. Like question 9, this isn't even related to the theory of evolution. Harun Yahya, you will have to try harder than this.
11. Why does the fact that the Earth is four billion years old not support the theory of evolution?
Because it is also unrelated to the theory of evolution. If the Earth was only a few thousand years ago, it would disprove the THEORY of evolution and it's key component common descent, but would not alter the fact that evolution occurs today.
12. Why are wisdom teeth not evidence of evolution?
"Wisdom teeth have the same chewing function as other teeth." REALLY?!?! Because they have the same function, despite being superfluous and not found in many people (a number that is steadily increasing), and can be removed without the slightest impairment of chewing, means that they cannot possibly be vestigial? The logical holes in this argument are simply staggering.
13. How do the complex structures of the most ancient creatures demolish the theory of evolution?
They don't. The ancient creatures were considerably more primitive than modern ones, and just because some structures were so useful that they were conserved all the way to the present doesn't mean that those creatures were just as complex as modern animals. Apparently living fossils such as the shark disprove evolution, although Yahya notably fails to explain the lack of land mammals before the Cambrian explosion.
Also, the order of the fossil record from primitive to more complex is completely false and untrue, but somehow is also evidence for things having been created in the appropriate time and place for them. How this man does not see the contradiction in his arguments is beyond me.
14. Why is denying the theory of evolution portrayed as rejecting development and progress?
Because it is. If you deny the cornerstone of modern biology, the most strongly supported theory in the history of science, why should you accept any of the other sciences? More pertinently, why should anybody listen to you when you talk about them?
Yahya then lists a bunch of old scientists as creationists, quote-mining a large number of them, and somehow thinks that talking about da Vinci and Newton being creationists is at all relevant when they lived a long time b the theory of evolution first came out.
15. Why is it mistaken to think that God could have created things by evolution?
//While it has been scientifically proven that the magnificent design apparent in all living and non-living things in the universe could not have come about as a result of the blind forces of nature and chance, some people nevertheless claim that there is indeed a Creator, but that He created life through an evolutionary process.//
It has NOT been scientifically proven, intelligent design is NOT apparent and evolution is NOT just nature and blind chance. How many times must this be explained to this man? An infinite number of times would be my guess.
As I explained before, the origin of life is irrelevant to the fact that life evolves. He then claims that the Quran proves creation by claiming it, ignoring that many people do not find the Quran in conflict with evolution and brushes past any other objections to his claims.
16. Why is it wrong to think that evolution could be confirmed in the future?
Because it has already been confirmed a long time ago.
17. Why is metamorphosis not evidence of evolution?
//Those sources which cite metamorphosis as "an example of evolution" are superficial, narrow-minded works of propaganda which seek to mislead those who do not possess sufficient information in the subject, juvenile evolutionists, or a few ignorant Darwinist biology teachers.//
You can really feel the vitriolic bile that Yahya is compelled to spew at anyone who disagrees with him.
Just because the evolution of metamorphosis isn't perfectly explained doesn't mean that it is inexplicable. Oh wait, I'm making the mistake that he addresses in question 16, right? No. We already have plausible explanations for it, and not being able to give a precise explanation for one thing does not mean we cannot give any explanations for the rest of the theory. The fact that silkworms show rudimentary wings under their skin even in their larval form doesn't bother Yahya in the slightest (assuming, of course, that he is even aware of this). The same goes for the presence of imaginal discs, which cause the transformation.
He then has the gall to refer to Michael J Behe, who's work on Irreducible Complexity underwent no peer-review and was universally slammed by the scientific community for its poor logic and arguments, as well as claiming irreducible complexity for things such as the bacterial flagella,which had already been shown not to be irreducibly complex years previously.
18. Why is it impossible to account for DNA by "chance"?
Because it didn't arise by chance and no evolutionist have ever claimed that it has. The Miller-Urey experiment proved that in the right conditions biological molecules form extremely rapidly, sometimes in large numbers in less than a week. The chemical nature of DNA means that it MUST be arranged in a double-helix shape. This is how biochemistry works, and to claim that evolution requires DNA to arise by chance is possibly Yahya's biggest strawman yet (and that is saying an awful lot).
Now that he's got those three things so spectacularly wrong, you might think that the book can only get better.
You would be wrong to think this.
//The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment.//
It is difficult to comprehend just how one person can be so staggeringly dishonest (I will give Harun Yahya the benefit of the doubt and not claim that he is dim-witted enough to take his own claim seriously). If you ignore the staggering genetic similarities between humans and chimps, including the irrefutable evidence of Human Chromosome 2, as well as disregarding the overwhelming genetic evidence that supports common descent, and the thousands, literally thousands, of transitional fossils, plus the evidence from morphology, molecular biology and every single field of the life sciences.
//Today, such branches of science as palaeontology, genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life to come about as a result of chance and emerge by itself from natural conditions.//
Fortunately for the theory of evolution, it makes absolutely no such claims.
Then he gets started on the cell.
//Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate passageways emerge in the same time and in full working order.//
Wrong again.
Mitochondria and chloroplasts are quite clearly the remnants of once free-living cells that got absorbed by our ancestors and were reduced to organelles, as evidenced by mitochondria having its own DNA, something which Yahya completely fails to mention.
Yahya repeatedly claims that evolution is only accepted because people do not wish to accept the existence of a god, conveniently ignoring the fact that most people that accept evolution are religious.
//It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance.//
Again, it is fortunate for the theory of evolution, it makes absolutely no such claims. Also, who proved this, and how?
//This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations,//
What experiments? Did people look through a microscope and not observe a modern cell spontaneously forming in front of their eyes and then decide it was therefore impossible? Yahya fails to acknowledge that lipid bilayers form automatically where fatty molecules and water mix.
//but also by mathematical calculations of probability//
Which would therefore make such a ridiculous claim highly improbable but not impossible.
//In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.//
Except that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Even if life had been created only a few thousand years ago there would still be nothing to prevent that life from evolving from that point onwards.
//for many years, Francis Crick, a Nobel-prize laureate, believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule [DNA] could not have emerged spontaneously by chance as the result of an evolutionary process:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."//
OK, so now he is dishonestly quote-mining Francis Crick. If we complete the quote, it looks likes this:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
//The fossil record represents another crushing defeat for the theory of evolution. Among all the fossils discovered over the years, there is not one trace of the intermediate forms that would be necessary if living things were to have evolved stage by stage from simple species to more complex ones, as the theory of evolution claims.//
I confess that I am startled to find Harun Yahya has correctly identified a claim of the theory of evolution. It's a shame that his own claim regarding the fossils is so completely and utterly wrong.
Just to pick the more well-known examples of transitional fossils, there is the Amphistium, a transitional fossil of sole fish or flounders, which swam along the ocean bed sideways and had one eye on the uppermost side of its head and the other eye on the top, rather than staring at the ocean bed.
Then there is the archaeopteryx, the famous transitional between dinosaurs and birds, and no, it is not a hoax. Archaeoraptor was a hoax, and was considered suspicious from the very beginning, and was found out quickly.
Australopithecus afarensis, the iconic fossil showing a primitive human, with features in between those of humans and chimpanzees, and was notably bipedal. Ironically, half the people who refuse to accept afarensis, or Lucy, as it is more commonly known, do so by claiming that she is purely human, while the other claim that she is purely chimp.
Tiktaalik, the famous example of the transition between fish and aquatic tetrapods.
And of course, Runcarium, the precursor to seed plants.
There are an awful lot more transitional fossils, I was simply listing the more well-known to illustrate how wrong Yahya is in his claims.
//Robert Caroll, an expert on vertebrate palaeontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:
"Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected."//
That is because geologic upheaval of tectonic plates is constantly destroying the fossils in the lower levels. Did you notice how Yahya took the comment that there weren't millions of fossils as Darwin expected and tried to spin it so it implied that there were no transitional fossils ever discovered? It's quite a stretch, but Yahya's noticeable lack of success in this tactic before has not put him off trying it again.
//animals have been very different and complex since they first emerged.//
Incorrect, as the numerous fossils and even living primitive creatures such as hagfish (jawless fish, about as simple a body plan as can be found in the animal kingdom) demonstrate all around the world, and have done for a very long time.
//Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in an article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."//
Actually the Cambrian Explosion lasted 20 to 25 million years, which even the most basic information-hunting will reveal.
Enough about that, though. Let's get on to the 20 questions.
1. Why is the theory of evolution not scientifically valid?
It is. It is well supported by evidence from a diverse array of scientific fields and has made a large amount of testable and falsifiable predictions which were borne out and which supported the theory. For example, analysing similar fossils before Tiktaalik was found led those searching for it to conclude that it would be found in certain strata in certain environments, in this case Ellesmere island. When they searched Ellesmere island, they found Tiktaalik.
2. How does the collapse of the theory of evolution demonstrate the truth of creation?
Well, if evolution ever were to be disproved, which is increasingly unlikely by this point, and by likely I mean you could expect a tornado to assemble a 747 in a scrapyard before the theory of evolution is disproved, then creation would appear to be the only viable alternative. It wouldn't be a scientific alternative, though. Wait a minute, let's see what the court ruled on this case.
//During legal battles in the creation-evolution controversy in the United States, the dichotomy between creationism and the theory of evolution has been noted as another instance of false dilemma and also termed a contrived dualism.See, for example, the 2005 opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where Judge John E. Jones III writes "ID (intelligent design) is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed "contrived dualism" in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support "creation science." The court in McLean noted the "fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach" and that "[i]n efforts to establish `evidence' in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science."//
Yes, that's right, the claim that if evolution is disproven then creationism is proven turns out to be just another false dichotomy.
3. How far back to traces of man go? Why do these not support evolution?
The first members of our Genus were Homo habilis, and they appeared ~2.3 million years ago, although before them were the Australopiths and Ardipiths and numerous others. Unsurprisingly, Yahya makes no mention of these. Anatomically modern humans appeared between 250,000 and 400,000 years ago. He then dishonestly claims that Turkana boy was proven to be a 12 year old modern African child. He completely fails to acknowledge that Turkana boy had features (such as a low sloping forehead, strong brow ridges, and the absence of a chin) not seen in H. sapiens. He then perpetuates the repeatedly-refuted and barely thought-out fallacy that because the theory of evolution changes to incorporate new data (as all good theories must) that it is therefore not very good science.
Needless to say, most of the fossil evidence isn't mentioned and it's almost as if the genetic evidence (which is even stronger) doesn't exist.
4. Why is the theory of evolution not "The basis of biology"?
The first thing he does in this chapter is to say that acceptance of Darwinism is similar to Stalin's communist regime, claiming that both are dogmatic. The theory of evolution is the basis of biology because there are a large number of traits which cannot be explained by perfect creation, such as the pathway of the laryngeal nerve. Evolution however, explains this perfectly.
5. Why is the existence of different races not evidence for evolution?
This chapter basically claims that variation exists but isn't proof of evolution because variation naturally occurs. Yes, it does naturally occur, and this variation is the starting point of evolution. He doesn't make any large claims in this chapter, so I'll just move on.
6. Why is the claim that human and ape genomes are 99% similar and that this proves evolution not true?
It is true. Human Chromosome 2 perfectly matches two ape chromosomes which, when lined up end to end, have an almost perfect match of gene sequences and an absolutely perfect match of banding patterns. Even if that were not enough, HC2 also possesses telomeres in the centre of the chromosome (telomeres are only found on the ends of all other chromosomes), as well as a second vestigial centromere (hint: most chromosomes only have one centromere).
HC2 isn't even mentioned though. Instead Yahya takes one particular form of analysis that shows a 5% difference between humans and chimps and ignores the various other analyses which average out to a 98.8% difference.
7. Why is the claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds an unscientific myth?
Some dinosaurs evolved into birds, others didn't. Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of a transition between the smaller dinosaurs and birds, as is Velociraptor mongoliensis, which was small and had feathers (unfortunately, the velociraptors presented in Jurassic Park are in fact Deinonychus). Yahya then flat out lies by saying that evolutionists believe dinosaurs grew wings by jumping and trying to catch flies. His only tactic in this book seems to be lying about everything that he can. He also incorrectly states that archaeopteryx must have been a modern bird because all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. It is actually impossible for a cold-blooded creature the size of a large dinosaur to exist, and this has been known for years.
8. What scientific forgery is the myth that "human embryo's have gill" based on?
The errors in Haeckels drawing were discovered decades ago, by evolutionists. Yahya cannot find any modern claims to disprove so he simply resorts to taking old ones and deceitfully saying that evolutionists still believe that the pharyngeal slits are gills.
9. Why is it deceptive to portray cloning as "evidence for evolution"?
Nobody has ever claimed that cloning something constitutes proof of evolution. I can't help but feel that Yahya was running out of questions and wanted to make a round 20, so he made this one up and threw it in.
10. Could life have come from outer space?
Whether life on Earth originated via abiogenesis, divine creation or panspermia is completely irrelevant to the fact that evolution occurs. Like question 9, this isn't even related to the theory of evolution. Harun Yahya, you will have to try harder than this.
11. Why does the fact that the Earth is four billion years old not support the theory of evolution?
Because it is also unrelated to the theory of evolution. If the Earth was only a few thousand years ago, it would disprove the THEORY of evolution and it's key component common descent, but would not alter the fact that evolution occurs today.
12. Why are wisdom teeth not evidence of evolution?
"Wisdom teeth have the same chewing function as other teeth." REALLY?!?! Because they have the same function, despite being superfluous and not found in many people (a number that is steadily increasing), and can be removed without the slightest impairment of chewing, means that they cannot possibly be vestigial? The logical holes in this argument are simply staggering.
13. How do the complex structures of the most ancient creatures demolish the theory of evolution?
They don't. The ancient creatures were considerably more primitive than modern ones, and just because some structures were so useful that they were conserved all the way to the present doesn't mean that those creatures were just as complex as modern animals. Apparently living fossils such as the shark disprove evolution, although Yahya notably fails to explain the lack of land mammals before the Cambrian explosion.
Also, the order of the fossil record from primitive to more complex is completely false and untrue, but somehow is also evidence for things having been created in the appropriate time and place for them. How this man does not see the contradiction in his arguments is beyond me.
14. Why is denying the theory of evolution portrayed as rejecting development and progress?
Because it is. If you deny the cornerstone of modern biology, the most strongly supported theory in the history of science, why should you accept any of the other sciences? More pertinently, why should anybody listen to you when you talk about them?
Yahya then lists a bunch of old scientists as creationists, quote-mining a large number of them, and somehow thinks that talking about da Vinci and Newton being creationists is at all relevant when they lived a long time b the theory of evolution first came out.
15. Why is it mistaken to think that God could have created things by evolution?
//While it has been scientifically proven that the magnificent design apparent in all living and non-living things in the universe could not have come about as a result of the blind forces of nature and chance, some people nevertheless claim that there is indeed a Creator, but that He created life through an evolutionary process.//
It has NOT been scientifically proven, intelligent design is NOT apparent and evolution is NOT just nature and blind chance. How many times must this be explained to this man? An infinite number of times would be my guess.
As I explained before, the origin of life is irrelevant to the fact that life evolves. He then claims that the Quran proves creation by claiming it, ignoring that many people do not find the Quran in conflict with evolution and brushes past any other objections to his claims.
16. Why is it wrong to think that evolution could be confirmed in the future?
Because it has already been confirmed a long time ago.
17. Why is metamorphosis not evidence of evolution?
//Those sources which cite metamorphosis as "an example of evolution" are superficial, narrow-minded works of propaganda which seek to mislead those who do not possess sufficient information in the subject, juvenile evolutionists, or a few ignorant Darwinist biology teachers.//
You can really feel the vitriolic bile that Yahya is compelled to spew at anyone who disagrees with him.
Just because the evolution of metamorphosis isn't perfectly explained doesn't mean that it is inexplicable. Oh wait, I'm making the mistake that he addresses in question 16, right? No. We already have plausible explanations for it, and not being able to give a precise explanation for one thing does not mean we cannot give any explanations for the rest of the theory. The fact that silkworms show rudimentary wings under their skin even in their larval form doesn't bother Yahya in the slightest (assuming, of course, that he is even aware of this). The same goes for the presence of imaginal discs, which cause the transformation.
He then has the gall to refer to Michael J Behe, who's work on Irreducible Complexity underwent no peer-review and was universally slammed by the scientific community for its poor logic and arguments, as well as claiming irreducible complexity for things such as the bacterial flagella,which had already been shown not to be irreducibly complex years previously.
18. Why is it impossible to account for DNA by "chance"?
Because it didn't arise by chance and no evolutionist have ever claimed that it has. The Miller-Urey experiment proved that in the right conditions biological molecules form extremely rapidly, sometimes in large numbers in less than a week. The chemical nature of DNA means that it MUST be arranged in a double-helix shape. This is how biochemistry works, and to claim that evolution requires DNA to arise by chance is possibly Yahya's biggest strawman yet (and that is saying an awful lot).
June 3, 2015
شئ ما كان يدفعني دائماُ لتجنب كتب هارون يحيي..أتدرون ما هو؟؟أنه ذلك الختم الذي يمهر به أغلفة كتبه كلها..نعم الخاتم النبوي،وذلك لسببين:
1\لم يعد من حق أحد أن يتخذ من ذاك الختم شعاراُ له بعد وفاة صاحبه،فالنبي وحده من كان له الحق في أدعاء أنه يمثل الأسلام أما أي شخص أخر فهو مجرد مجتهد و من العيب أن يعرض أراءه بأعتبارها أراء الدين نفسه،نفس الكارثة نراها في أعلام داعش و القاعدة،و نراها في عناوين بعض الكتب ك"انت تسأل و الأسلام يجيب"-أو شئ من هذا القبيل-للشعراوي،بل نراه في أكثر صوره وقاحة في عنوان كتاب أبن القيم"أعلام الموقعين عن رب العالمين"!!!!
2\السبب الثاني يكمن في كون الكاتب يناقش قضايا علمية فأذ به يفضح نفسه بهذا الشعار معلناُ أياها صريحة"أنا دوجمائي أناقش القضايا العلمية من منظور ديني و بناءاُ على معتقد مسبق"،و بتصريحه ذاك يفقد كتابه كل قيمة علمية.
لكني تحاملت على نفسي و قلت أعطيه فرصة،تغاضيت عن السخافة التي يحملها العنوان ببعده الشنيع عن العلمية،و بدأت بالتعريف بالكاتب و المقدمة و ساعتها (بصمت بالعشرة كما يقولون لدينا في مصر) أن مقولة"الناقص يرى عيوبه في كل الناس" سليمة، فالكاتب يعامل العلماء التطورين من منطلق أنهم دوجمائيين مثله و يتهجم عليهم على هذا الأساس في صورة فجة زادت من أحباطي و طوت ما تبقى لدي من أمل في وجود أي مادة علمية حقيقية في الكتاب لكني أصريت على المتابعة لأصل بالشوط لأخره.....ولكني فشلت!!ففي أجابته على السؤالين الأولين أتضح لدي مدى الجهل المخزي الذي يتردى في ظلماته ذلك الدجال فيما يخص التطور،و أليكم غيض من فيض(نظرية التطور تقول أن الأنسان أصله قرد-تلك الخرافة السمجة القديمة الملتصقة بالنظرية ألتصاق العلقة بجسد الفيل-،العلماء فشلوا في صناعة خلية حية-حدث هذا فعلا في 2010) حينها فقدت كل صبر لدي و ألقيت بذلك الكتاب التافه على مدى يدي ليستقر في مكانه المناسب-فوق حافظة الأحذية-!!
*ملحوظة:النقطة الأخيرة تخيلية لأني كنت أقرأ الكتاب في صيغة الPDF و لكني تمنيت لو كان لدي فعلا لأفعل به ذلك علي أخفف من حنقي و لو قليلاث*
1\لم يعد من حق أحد أن يتخذ من ذاك الختم شعاراُ له بعد وفاة صاحبه،فالنبي وحده من كان له الحق في أدعاء أنه يمثل الأسلام أما أي شخص أخر فهو مجرد مجتهد و من العيب أن يعرض أراءه بأعتبارها أراء الدين نفسه،نفس الكارثة نراها في أعلام داعش و القاعدة،و نراها في عناوين بعض الكتب ك"انت تسأل و الأسلام يجيب"-أو شئ من هذا القبيل-للشعراوي،بل نراه في أكثر صوره وقاحة في عنوان كتاب أبن القيم"أعلام الموقعين عن رب العالمين"!!!!
2\السبب الثاني يكمن في كون الكاتب يناقش قضايا علمية فأذ به يفضح نفسه بهذا الشعار معلناُ أياها صريحة"أنا دوجمائي أناقش القضايا العلمية من منظور ديني و بناءاُ على معتقد مسبق"،و بتصريحه ذاك يفقد كتابه كل قيمة علمية.
لكني تحاملت على نفسي و قلت أعطيه فرصة،تغاضيت عن السخافة التي يحملها العنوان ببعده الشنيع عن العلمية،و بدأت بالتعريف بالكاتب و المقدمة و ساعتها (بصمت بالعشرة كما يقولون لدينا في مصر) أن مقولة"الناقص يرى عيوبه في كل الناس" سليمة، فالكاتب يعامل العلماء التطورين من منطلق أنهم دوجمائيين مثله و يتهجم عليهم على هذا الأساس في صورة فجة زادت من أحباطي و طوت ما تبقى لدي من أمل في وجود أي مادة علمية حقيقية في الكتاب لكني أصريت على المتابعة لأصل بالشوط لأخره.....ولكني فشلت!!ففي أجابته على السؤالين الأولين أتضح لدي مدى الجهل المخزي الذي يتردى في ظلماته ذلك الدجال فيما يخص التطور،و أليكم غيض من فيض(نظرية التطور تقول أن الأنسان أصله قرد-تلك الخرافة السمجة القديمة الملتصقة بالنظرية ألتصاق العلقة بجسد الفيل-،العلماء فشلوا في صناعة خلية حية-حدث هذا فعلا في 2010) حينها فقدت كل صبر لدي و ألقيت بذلك الكتاب التافه على مدى يدي ليستقر في مكانه المناسب-فوق حافظة الأحذية-!!
*ملحوظة:النقطة الأخيرة تخيلية لأني كنت أقرأ الكتاب في صيغة الPDF و لكني تمنيت لو كان لدي فعلا لأفعل به ذلك علي أخفف من حنقي و لو قليلاث*
February 15, 2016
لم أفهم بالضبط لماذا يلاقي عنوان كهذا كل تلك النقمة و ذاك العداء الدفاعي الذي يبرز حتى قبل الإطلاع على محتويات الكتاب، نظرية التطور، تلك الديانة الأثيرة لمن لا دين له... ما يفاجئني أكثر استنفار جماهير عريضة للدفاع عنها حتى دون الإحاطة بخلفية علمية مناسبة، ربما لأن الإيمان بها يوحي نوعا ما بركوب موجة التحضر، بالتحرر و رقي الأفكار... انه كالموضة.
لكن الأولى بمتابع الموضة أن يمتلك في البداية ما يلبسه و كذلك معتنقوا التطور: يفضل أن يعرفوا عما يتحدثون.
العلم ليس بذلك التعقيد ، إنه حقائق تنكشف ببطء لإدراكنا و هو مختلف عن الخيال العلمي، لقد درست في الجامعة تخصص الكائنات الدقيقة و أظن أنها النموذج الوحيد الذي يحيي آمال التطوريين حيث أنها كائنات تكتسب بسهولة صفات و قدرات معينة عن طريق تبادل المادة الوراثية فيما بينها، مع ذلك لم يحدث أن تحولت بكتيريا معينة منها إلى أخرى مختلفة، إنها تبقى مهما تغيرت ضمن نوعها، أما الإنسان فالطفرة الصغيرة ما لم تكن صامتة تجر عليه أضرار بالغة.
الكتاب جيد بنظري و مدعم بمراجع حرص الكاتب على تقديم قائمة بها، صحيح أن أسلوبه التقريري قد أزعجني بعض الشيء... لقد وددت لو أنه قام بالعكس بحيث يقدم القضية بشكل محايد ثم يعرض تفسيراته فيقود القارئ بسلاسة أو يدع له شرف الوصول إلى استنتاج و استنباط خلاصة... إنها جزئية تحفظ لي بعض الحرية في التفكير و تبقيني على صلح مع ذكائي المتواضع الذي أعتقد بوجوده.
بغض النظر عن كل ما قيل و كل الاتهامات المتبادلة بين الطرفين... عندما نفكر بمنطقية فقط : أظن أنها إهانة أوجهها إلى نفسي عندما أقر أنني إنسانة عاقلة و أومن بالتطور في الوقت ذاته.
لكن الأولى بمتابع الموضة أن يمتلك في البداية ما يلبسه و كذلك معتنقوا التطور: يفضل أن يعرفوا عما يتحدثون.
العلم ليس بذلك التعقيد ، إنه حقائق تنكشف ببطء لإدراكنا و هو مختلف عن الخيال العلمي، لقد درست في الجامعة تخصص الكائنات الدقيقة و أظن أنها النموذج الوحيد الذي يحيي آمال التطوريين حيث أنها كائنات تكتسب بسهولة صفات و قدرات معينة عن طريق تبادل المادة الوراثية فيما بينها، مع ذلك لم يحدث أن تحولت بكتيريا معينة منها إلى أخرى مختلفة، إنها تبقى مهما تغيرت ضمن نوعها، أما الإنسان فالطفرة الصغيرة ما لم تكن صامتة تجر عليه أضرار بالغة.
الكتاب جيد بنظري و مدعم بمراجع حرص الكاتب على تقديم قائمة بها، صحيح أن أسلوبه التقريري قد أزعجني بعض الشيء... لقد وددت لو أنه قام بالعكس بحيث يقدم القضية بشكل محايد ثم يعرض تفسيراته فيقود القارئ بسلاسة أو يدع له شرف الوصول إلى استنتاج و استنباط خلاصة... إنها جزئية تحفظ لي بعض الحرية في التفكير و تبقيني على صلح مع ذكائي المتواضع الذي أعتقد بوجوده.
بغض النظر عن كل ما قيل و كل الاتهامات المتبادلة بين الطرفين... عندما نفكر بمنطقية فقط : أظن أنها إهانة أوجهها إلى نفسي عندما أقر أنني إنسانة عاقلة و أومن بالتطور في الوقت ذاته.
November 6, 2013
احدث نتاج التكنولوجيا التي هي نتاج لجهد ومعرفة بشرية تراكمية على مدار القرون لا تمتلك حتى الطاقة التخزينية لخلية واحدة جين مايرز قال فيما يتعلق بنتيجة المشروع اعلانا عن المعرفة والتصميم العظيمين في جزيء الDNA "ما أذهلني حقا هو أسلوب بناء الحياة فنظامها معقد للغاية وكأنه مصمم اذ يوجد به قدر هائل من الذكاء " وكلمة مصمم اي أنه مخلوق وهذا دليل على بطلان ادعاءات التطور ...........
كل الكائنات الحية في العالم تعيش وتتكاثر وفق معلومات خلقها عقل منفرد وهذا الاستنتاج يجرد نظرية التطور من كل مغزى ذلك أن أساس النظرية هو المصادفة ولكن المصادفة لا تستطيع أن تخلق معلومات ......
قال ألبرت اينشتاين :"لا استطيع ان أتصور عالما حقيقيا دون ذلك الايمان العميق ويمكن التعبير عن هذا الوضع من خلال الصورة التالية : (العلم بدون دين أعرج) "........
قال الألماني ماكس بلانك مؤسس الفيزياء الحديثة "يدرك اي شخص منخرط انخراطا جادا في أي نوع من أنواع العمل العلمي أن مدخل بوابات معبد العلم مكتوب عليها الكلمات التالية : ان تتحلى بالايمان انها صفة لا يستطيع العالم الاستغناء عنها ...
كل الكائنات الحية في العالم تعيش وتتكاثر وفق معلومات خلقها عقل منفرد وهذا الاستنتاج يجرد نظرية التطور من كل مغزى ذلك أن أساس النظرية هو المصادفة ولكن المصادفة لا تستطيع أن تخلق معلومات ......
قال ألبرت اينشتاين :"لا استطيع ان أتصور عالما حقيقيا دون ذلك الايمان العميق ويمكن التعبير عن هذا الوضع من خلال الصورة التالية : (العلم بدون دين أعرج) "........
قال الألماني ماكس بلانك مؤسس الفيزياء الحديثة "يدرك اي شخص منخرط انخراطا جادا في أي نوع من أنواع العمل العلمي أن مدخل بوابات معبد العلم مكتوب عليها الكلمات التالية : ان تتحلى بالايمان انها صفة لا يستطيع العالم الاستغناء عنها ...
April 9, 2012
كتاب لا بأس به
يحاول الكاتب :هارون يحيى في كل كتبه التصدي لنظرية الداروينية وبيان زيفها وحقيقة خداعها
في هذا الكتاب تناول20سؤال لدحض نظرية دارون
المستغرب في الأمر أنه توجد شريحة كبيرة من الناس يؤمنون ويتمسكون بهذه النظرية
لعل كتب الأستاذ:هارون يحيى تحدث فرقاً
يحاول الكاتب :هارون يحيى في كل كتبه التصدي لنظرية الداروينية وبيان زيفها وحقيقة خداعها
في هذا الكتاب تناول20سؤال لدحض نظرية دارون
المستغرب في الأمر أنه توجد شريحة كبيرة من الناس يؤمنون ويتمسكون بهذه النظرية
لعل كتب الأستاذ:هارون يحيى تحدث فرقاً
February 13, 2018
كتاب اكثر من رائع .. يتبع المنهج العلمي بشكل رائع
تقييمي للكتاب بخمس نجوم مش تقييم حقيقي لان الكتاب كان ممكن اديله 4 نجوم لكن النجمة الخامسة علشان واضح انه حارق دم ناس كتير ونظرا لنجاحه في هذا فهو يستحق النجمة الخامسة وليمت من شاء غيظا .
تقييمي للكتاب بخمس نجوم مش تقييم حقيقي لان الكتاب كان ممكن اديله 4 نجوم لكن النجمة الخامسة علشان واضح انه حارق دم ناس كتير ونظرا لنجاحه في هذا فهو يستحق النجمة الخامسة وليمت من شاء غيظا .
Read
January 24, 2017إلى كل من يقرأ هذا التعليق، لا تضيع وقتك مع هذا الكتاب
November 5, 2015
The first thing that Harun Yahya does is claim that evolution is completely incompatible with religion. The second thing that he claims is that evolution means all species came into being by random chance, and the third is that acceptance of evolution means the only law in life is to be extremely selfish.
Now that he's got those three things so spectacularly wrong, you might think that the book can only get better.
You would be wrong to think this.
//The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment.//
It is difficult to comprehend just how one person can be so staggeringly dishonest (I will give Harun Yahya the benefit of the doubt and not claim that he is dim-witted enough to take his own claim seriously). If you ignore the staggering genetic similarities between humans and chimps, including the irrefutable evidence of Human Chromosome 2, as well as disregarding the overwhelming genetic evidence that supports common descent, and the thousands, literally thousands, of transitional fossils, plus the evidence from morphology, molecular biology and every single field of the life sciences.
//Today, such branches of science as palaeontology, genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life to come about as a result of chance and emerge by itself from natural conditions.//
Fortunately for the theory of evolution, it makes absolutely no such claims.
Then he gets started on the cell.
//Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate passageways emerge in the same time and in full working order.//
Wrong again.
Mitochondria and chloroplasts are quite clearly the remnants of once free-living cells that got absorbed by our ancestors and were reduced to organelles, as evidenced by mitochondria having its own DNA, something which Yahya completely fails to mention.
Yahya repeatedly claims that evolution is only accepted because people do not wish to accept the existence of a god, conveniently ignoring the fact that most people that accept evolution are religious.
//It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance.//
Again, it is fortunate for the theory of evolution, it makes absolutely no such claims. Also, who proved this, and how?
//This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations,//
What experiments? Did people look through a microscope and not observe a modern cell spontaneously forming in front of their eyes and then decide it was therefore impossible? Yahya fails to acknowledge that lipid bilayers form automatically where fatty molecules and water mix.
//but also by mathematical calculations of probability//
Which would therefore make such a ridiculous claim highly improbable but not impossible.
//In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.//
Except that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Even if life had been created only a few thousand years ago there would still be nothing to prevent that life from evolving from that point onwards.
//for many years, Francis Crick, a Nobel-prize laureate, believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule [DNA] could not have emerged spontaneously by chance as the result of an evolutionary process:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."//
OK, so now he is dishonestly quote-mining Francis Crick. If we complete the quote, it looks likes this:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
//The fossil record represents another crushing defeat for the theory of evolution. Among all the fossils discovered over the years, there is not one trace of the intermediate forms that would be necessary if living things were to have evolved stage by stage from simple species to more complex ones, as the theory of evolution claims.//
I confess that I am startled to find Harun Yahya has correctly identified a claim of the theory of evolution. It's a shame that his own claim regarding the fossils is so completely and utterly wrong.
Just to pick the more well-known examples of transitional fossils, there is the Amphistium, a transitional fossil of sole fish or flounders, which swam along the ocean bed sideways and had one eye on the uppermost side of its head and the other eye on the top, rather than staring at the ocean bed.
Then there is the archaeopteryx, the famous transitional between dinosaurs and birds, and no, it is not a hoax. Archaeoraptor was a hoax, and was considered suspicious from the very beginning, and was found out quickly.
Australopithecus afarensis, the iconic fossil showing a primitive human, with features in between those of humans and chimpanzees, and was notably bipedal. Ironically, half the people who refuse to accept afarensis, or Lucy, as it is more commonly known, do so by claiming that she is purely human, while the other claim that she is purely chimp.
Tiktaalik, the famous example of the transition between fish and aquatic tetrapods.
And of course, Runcarium, the precursor to seed plants.
There are an awful lot more transitional fossils, I was simply listing the more well-known to illustrate how wrong Yahya is in his claims.
//Robert Caroll, an expert on vertebrate palaeontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:
"Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected."//
That is because geologic upheaval of tectonic plates is constantly destroying the fossils in the lower levels. Did you notice how Yahya took the comment that there weren't millions of fossils as Darwin expected and tried to spin it so it implied that there were no transitional fossils ever discovered? It's quite a stretch, but Yahya's noticeable lack of success in this tactic before has not put him off trying it again.
//animals have been very different and complex since they first emerged.//
Incorrect, as the numerous fossils and even living primitive creatures such as hagfish (jawless fish, about as simple a body plan as can be found in the animal kingdom) demonstrate all around the world, and have done for a very long time.
//Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in an article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."//
Actually the Cambrian Explosion lasted 20 to 25 million years, and was followed by a period of rapid evolutionary radiation over the next 70-80 million years, which even the most basic information-hunting will reveal.
Enough about that, though. Let's get on to the 20 questions.
1. Why is the theory of evolution not scientifically valid?
It is. It is well supported by evidence from a diverse array of scientific fields and has made a large amount of testable and falsifiable predictions which were borne out and which supported the theory. For example, analysing similar fossils before Tiktaalik was found led those searching for it to conclude that it would be found in certain strata in certain environments, in this case Ellesmere island. When they searched Ellesmere island, they found Tiktaalik.
2. How does the collapse of the theory of evolution demonstrate the truth of creation?
Well, if evolution ever were to be disproved, which is increasingly unlikely by this point, and by likely I mean you could expect a tornado to assemble a 747 in a scrapyard before the theory of evolution is disproved, then creation would appear to be the only viable alternative. It wouldn't be a scientific alternative, though. Wait a minute, let's see what the court ruled on this case.
//During legal battles in the creation-evolution controversy in the United States, the dichotomy between creationism and the theory of evolution has been noted as another instance of false dilemma and also termed a contrived dualism.See, for example, the 2005 opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where Judge John E. Jones III writes "ID (intelligent design) is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed "contrived dualism" in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support "creation science." The court in McLean noted the "fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach" and that "[i]n efforts to establish `evidence' in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science."//
Yes, that's right, the claim that if evolution is disproven then creationism is proven turns out to be just another false dichotomy.
3. How far back to traces of man go? Why do these not support evolution?
The first members of our Genus were Homo habilis, and they appeared ~2.3 million years ago, although before them were the Australopiths and Ardipiths and numerous others. Unsurprisingly, Yahya makes no mention of these. Anatomically modern humans appeared between 250,000 and 400,000 years ago. He then dishonestly claims that Turkana boy was proven to be a 12 year old modern African child. He completely fails to acknowledge that Turkana boy had features (such as a low sloping forehead, strong brow ridges, and the absence of a chin) not seen in H. sapiens. He then perpetuates the repeatedly-refuted and barely thought-out fallacy that because the theory of evolution changes to incorporate new data (as all good theories must) that it is therefore not very good science.
Needless to say, most of the fossil evidence isn't mentioned and it's almost as if the genetic evidence (which is even stronger) doesn't exist.
4. Why is the theory of evolution not "The basis of biology"?
The first thing he does in this chapter is to say that acceptance of Darwinism is similar to Stalin's communist regime, claiming that both are dogmatic. The theory of evolution is the basis of biology because there are a large number of traits which cannot be explained by perfect creation, such as the pathway of the laryngeal nerve. Evolution however, explains this perfectly.
5. Why is the existence of different races not evidence for evolution?
This chapter basically claims that variation exists but isn't proof of evolution because variation naturally occurs. Yes, it does naturally occur, and this variation is the starting point of evolution. He doesn't make any large claims in this chapter, so I'll just move on.
6. Why is the claim that human and ape genomes are 99% similar and that this proves evolution not true?
It is true. Human Chromosome 2 perfectly matches two ape chromosomes which, when lined up end to end, have an almost perfect match of gene sequences and an absolutely perfect match of banding patterns. Even if that were not enough, HC2 also possesses telomeres in the centre of the chromosome (telomeres are only found on the ends of all other chromosomes), as well as a second vestigial centromere (hint: most chromosomes only have one centromere).
HC2 isn't even mentioned though. Instead Yahya takes one particular form of analysis that shows a 5% difference between humans and chimps and ignores the various other analyses which average out to a 98.8% difference.
7. Why is the claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds an unscientific myth?
Some dinosaurs evolved into birds, others didn't. Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of a transition between the smaller dinosaurs and birds, as is Velociraptor mongoliensis, which was small and had feathers (unfortunately, the velociraptors presented in Jurassic Park are in fact Deinonychus). Yahya then flat out lies by saying that evolutionists believe dinosaurs grew wings by jumping and trying to catch flies. His only tactic in this book seems to be lying about everything that he can. He also incorrectly states that archaeopteryx must have been a modern bird because all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. It is actually impossible for a cold-blooded creature the size of a large dinosaur to exist, and this has been known for years.
8. What scientific forgery is the myth that "human embryo's have gill" based on?
The errors in Haeckels drawing were discovered decades ago, by evolutionists. Yahya cannot find any modern claims to disprove so he simply resorts to taking old ones and deceitfully saying that evolutionists still believe that the pharyngeal slits are gills.
9. Why is it deceptive to portray cloning as "evidence for evolution"?
Nobody has ever claimed that cloning something constitutes proof of evolution. I can't help but feel that Yahya was running out of questions and wanted to make a round 20, so he made this one up and threw it in.
10. Could life have come from outer space?
Whether life on Earth originated via abiogenesis, divine creation or panspermia is completely irrelevant to the fact that evolution occurs. Like question 9, this isn't even related to the theory of evolution. Harun Yahya, you will have to try harder than this.
11. Why does the fact that the Earth is four billion years old not support the theory of evolution?
Because it is also unrelated to the theory of evolution. If the Earth was only a few thousand years ago, it would disprove the THEORY of evolution and it's key component common descent, but would not alter the fact that evolution occurs today.
12. Why are wisdom teeth not evidence of evolution?
"Wisdom teeth have the same chewing function as other teeth." REALLY?!?! Because they have the same function, despite being superfluous and not found in many people (a number that is steadily increasing), and can be removed without the slightest impairment of chewing, means that they cannot possibly be vestigial? The logical holes in this argument are simply staggering.
13. How do the complex structures of the most ancient creatures demolish the theory of evolution?
They don't. The ancient creatures were considerably more primitive than modern ones, and just because some structures were so useful that they were conserved all the way to the present doesn't mean that those creatures were just as complex as modern animals. Apparently living fossils such as the shark disprove evolution, although Yahya notably fails to explain the lack of land mammals before the Cambrian explosion.
Also, the order of the fossil record from primitive to more complex is completely false and untrue, but somehow is also evidence for things having been created in the appropriate time and place for them. How this man does not see the contradiction in his arguments is beyond me.
14. Why is denying the theory of evolution portrayed as rejecting development and progress?
Because it is. If you deny the cornerstone of modern biology, the most strongly supported theory in the history of science, why should you accept any of the other sciences? More pertinently, why should anybody listen to you when you talk about them?
Yahya then lists a bunch of old scientists as creationists, quote-mining a large number of them, and somehow thinks that talking about da Vinci and Newton being creationists is at all relevant when they lived a long time b the theory of evolution first came out.
15. Why is it mistaken to think that God could have created things by evolution?
//While it has been scientifically proven that the magnificent design apparent in all living and non-living things in the universe could not have come about as a result of the blind forces of nature and chance, some people nevertheless claim that there is indeed a Creator, but that He created life through an evolutionary process.//
It has NOT been scientifically proven, intelligent design is NOT apparent and evolution is NOT just nature and blind chance. How many times must this be explained to this man? An infinite number of times would be my guess.
As I explained before, the origin of life is irrelevant to the fact that life evolves. He then claims that the Quran proves creation by claiming it, ignoring that many people do not find the Quran in conflict with evolution and brushes past any other objections to his claims.
16. Why is it wrong to think that evolution could be confirmed in the future?
Because it has already been confirmed a long time ago.
17. Why is metamorphosis not evidence of evolution?
//Those sources which cite metamorphosis as "an example of evolution" are superficial, narrow-minded works of propaganda which seek to mislead those who do not possess sufficient information in the subject, juvenile evolutionists, or a few ignorant Darwinist biology teachers.//
You can really feel the vitriolic bile that Yahya is compelled to spew at anyone who disagrees with him.
Just because the evolution of metamorphosis isn't perfectly explained doesn't mean that it is inexplicable. Oh wait, I'm making the mistake that he addresses in question 16, right? No. We already have plausible explanations for it, and not being able to give a precise explanation for one thing does not mean we cannot give any explanations for the rest of the theory. The fact that silkworms show rudimentary wings under their skin even in their larval form doesn't bother Yahya in the slightest (assuming, of course, that he is even aware of this). The same goes for the presence of imaginal discs, which cause the transformation.
He then has the gall to refer to Michael J Behe, who's work on Irreducible Complexity underwent no peer-review and was universally slammed by the scientific community for its poor logic and arguments, as well as claiming irreducible complexity for things such as the bacterial flagella,which had already been shown not to be irreducibly complex years previously.
18. Why is it impossible to account for DNA by "chance"?
Because it didn't arise by chance and no evolutionist have ever claimed that it has. The Miller-Urey experiment proved that in the right conditions biological molecules form extremely rapidly, sometimes in large numbers in less than a week. The chemical nature of DNA means that it MUST be arranged in a double-helix shape. This is how biochemistry works, and to claim that evolution requires DNA to arise by chance is possibly Yahya's biggest strawman yet (and that is saying an awful lot).
19. Why
Now that he's got those three things so spectacularly wrong, you might think that the book can only get better.
You would be wrong to think this.
//The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment.//
It is difficult to comprehend just how one person can be so staggeringly dishonest (I will give Harun Yahya the benefit of the doubt and not claim that he is dim-witted enough to take his own claim seriously). If you ignore the staggering genetic similarities between humans and chimps, including the irrefutable evidence of Human Chromosome 2, as well as disregarding the overwhelming genetic evidence that supports common descent, and the thousands, literally thousands, of transitional fossils, plus the evidence from morphology, molecular biology and every single field of the life sciences.
//Today, such branches of science as palaeontology, genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life to come about as a result of chance and emerge by itself from natural conditions.//
Fortunately for the theory of evolution, it makes absolutely no such claims.
Then he gets started on the cell.
//Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate passageways emerge in the same time and in full working order.//
Wrong again.
Mitochondria and chloroplasts are quite clearly the remnants of once free-living cells that got absorbed by our ancestors and were reduced to organelles, as evidenced by mitochondria having its own DNA, something which Yahya completely fails to mention.
Yahya repeatedly claims that evolution is only accepted because people do not wish to accept the existence of a god, conveniently ignoring the fact that most people that accept evolution are religious.
//It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance.//
Again, it is fortunate for the theory of evolution, it makes absolutely no such claims. Also, who proved this, and how?
//This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations,//
What experiments? Did people look through a microscope and not observe a modern cell spontaneously forming in front of their eyes and then decide it was therefore impossible? Yahya fails to acknowledge that lipid bilayers form automatically where fatty molecules and water mix.
//but also by mathematical calculations of probability//
Which would therefore make such a ridiculous claim highly improbable but not impossible.
//In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.//
Except that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Even if life had been created only a few thousand years ago there would still be nothing to prevent that life from evolving from that point onwards.
//for many years, Francis Crick, a Nobel-prize laureate, believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule [DNA] could not have emerged spontaneously by chance as the result of an evolutionary process:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."//
OK, so now he is dishonestly quote-mining Francis Crick. If we complete the quote, it looks likes this:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
//The fossil record represents another crushing defeat for the theory of evolution. Among all the fossils discovered over the years, there is not one trace of the intermediate forms that would be necessary if living things were to have evolved stage by stage from simple species to more complex ones, as the theory of evolution claims.//
I confess that I am startled to find Harun Yahya has correctly identified a claim of the theory of evolution. It's a shame that his own claim regarding the fossils is so completely and utterly wrong.
Just to pick the more well-known examples of transitional fossils, there is the Amphistium, a transitional fossil of sole fish or flounders, which swam along the ocean bed sideways and had one eye on the uppermost side of its head and the other eye on the top, rather than staring at the ocean bed.
Then there is the archaeopteryx, the famous transitional between dinosaurs and birds, and no, it is not a hoax. Archaeoraptor was a hoax, and was considered suspicious from the very beginning, and was found out quickly.
Australopithecus afarensis, the iconic fossil showing a primitive human, with features in between those of humans and chimpanzees, and was notably bipedal. Ironically, half the people who refuse to accept afarensis, or Lucy, as it is more commonly known, do so by claiming that she is purely human, while the other claim that she is purely chimp.
Tiktaalik, the famous example of the transition between fish and aquatic tetrapods.
And of course, Runcarium, the precursor to seed plants.
There are an awful lot more transitional fossils, I was simply listing the more well-known to illustrate how wrong Yahya is in his claims.
//Robert Caroll, an expert on vertebrate palaeontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:
"Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected."//
That is because geologic upheaval of tectonic plates is constantly destroying the fossils in the lower levels. Did you notice how Yahya took the comment that there weren't millions of fossils as Darwin expected and tried to spin it so it implied that there were no transitional fossils ever discovered? It's quite a stretch, but Yahya's noticeable lack of success in this tactic before has not put him off trying it again.
//animals have been very different and complex since they first emerged.//
Incorrect, as the numerous fossils and even living primitive creatures such as hagfish (jawless fish, about as simple a body plan as can be found in the animal kingdom) demonstrate all around the world, and have done for a very long time.
//Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in an article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."//
Actually the Cambrian Explosion lasted 20 to 25 million years, and was followed by a period of rapid evolutionary radiation over the next 70-80 million years, which even the most basic information-hunting will reveal.
Enough about that, though. Let's get on to the 20 questions.
1. Why is the theory of evolution not scientifically valid?
It is. It is well supported by evidence from a diverse array of scientific fields and has made a large amount of testable and falsifiable predictions which were borne out and which supported the theory. For example, analysing similar fossils before Tiktaalik was found led those searching for it to conclude that it would be found in certain strata in certain environments, in this case Ellesmere island. When they searched Ellesmere island, they found Tiktaalik.
2. How does the collapse of the theory of evolution demonstrate the truth of creation?
Well, if evolution ever were to be disproved, which is increasingly unlikely by this point, and by likely I mean you could expect a tornado to assemble a 747 in a scrapyard before the theory of evolution is disproved, then creation would appear to be the only viable alternative. It wouldn't be a scientific alternative, though. Wait a minute, let's see what the court ruled on this case.
//During legal battles in the creation-evolution controversy in the United States, the dichotomy between creationism and the theory of evolution has been noted as another instance of false dilemma and also termed a contrived dualism.See, for example, the 2005 opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where Judge John E. Jones III writes "ID (intelligent design) is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed "contrived dualism" in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support "creation science." The court in McLean noted the "fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach" and that "[i]n efforts to establish `evidence' in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science."//
Yes, that's right, the claim that if evolution is disproven then creationism is proven turns out to be just another false dichotomy.
3. How far back to traces of man go? Why do these not support evolution?
The first members of our Genus were Homo habilis, and they appeared ~2.3 million years ago, although before them were the Australopiths and Ardipiths and numerous others. Unsurprisingly, Yahya makes no mention of these. Anatomically modern humans appeared between 250,000 and 400,000 years ago. He then dishonestly claims that Turkana boy was proven to be a 12 year old modern African child. He completely fails to acknowledge that Turkana boy had features (such as a low sloping forehead, strong brow ridges, and the absence of a chin) not seen in H. sapiens. He then perpetuates the repeatedly-refuted and barely thought-out fallacy that because the theory of evolution changes to incorporate new data (as all good theories must) that it is therefore not very good science.
Needless to say, most of the fossil evidence isn't mentioned and it's almost as if the genetic evidence (which is even stronger) doesn't exist.
4. Why is the theory of evolution not "The basis of biology"?
The first thing he does in this chapter is to say that acceptance of Darwinism is similar to Stalin's communist regime, claiming that both are dogmatic. The theory of evolution is the basis of biology because there are a large number of traits which cannot be explained by perfect creation, such as the pathway of the laryngeal nerve. Evolution however, explains this perfectly.
5. Why is the existence of different races not evidence for evolution?
This chapter basically claims that variation exists but isn't proof of evolution because variation naturally occurs. Yes, it does naturally occur, and this variation is the starting point of evolution. He doesn't make any large claims in this chapter, so I'll just move on.
6. Why is the claim that human and ape genomes are 99% similar and that this proves evolution not true?
It is true. Human Chromosome 2 perfectly matches two ape chromosomes which, when lined up end to end, have an almost perfect match of gene sequences and an absolutely perfect match of banding patterns. Even if that were not enough, HC2 also possesses telomeres in the centre of the chromosome (telomeres are only found on the ends of all other chromosomes), as well as a second vestigial centromere (hint: most chromosomes only have one centromere).
HC2 isn't even mentioned though. Instead Yahya takes one particular form of analysis that shows a 5% difference between humans and chimps and ignores the various other analyses which average out to a 98.8% difference.
7. Why is the claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds an unscientific myth?
Some dinosaurs evolved into birds, others didn't. Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of a transition between the smaller dinosaurs and birds, as is Velociraptor mongoliensis, which was small and had feathers (unfortunately, the velociraptors presented in Jurassic Park are in fact Deinonychus). Yahya then flat out lies by saying that evolutionists believe dinosaurs grew wings by jumping and trying to catch flies. His only tactic in this book seems to be lying about everything that he can. He also incorrectly states that archaeopteryx must have been a modern bird because all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. It is actually impossible for a cold-blooded creature the size of a large dinosaur to exist, and this has been known for years.
8. What scientific forgery is the myth that "human embryo's have gill" based on?
The errors in Haeckels drawing were discovered decades ago, by evolutionists. Yahya cannot find any modern claims to disprove so he simply resorts to taking old ones and deceitfully saying that evolutionists still believe that the pharyngeal slits are gills.
9. Why is it deceptive to portray cloning as "evidence for evolution"?
Nobody has ever claimed that cloning something constitutes proof of evolution. I can't help but feel that Yahya was running out of questions and wanted to make a round 20, so he made this one up and threw it in.
10. Could life have come from outer space?
Whether life on Earth originated via abiogenesis, divine creation or panspermia is completely irrelevant to the fact that evolution occurs. Like question 9, this isn't even related to the theory of evolution. Harun Yahya, you will have to try harder than this.
11. Why does the fact that the Earth is four billion years old not support the theory of evolution?
Because it is also unrelated to the theory of evolution. If the Earth was only a few thousand years ago, it would disprove the THEORY of evolution and it's key component common descent, but would not alter the fact that evolution occurs today.
12. Why are wisdom teeth not evidence of evolution?
"Wisdom teeth have the same chewing function as other teeth." REALLY?!?! Because they have the same function, despite being superfluous and not found in many people (a number that is steadily increasing), and can be removed without the slightest impairment of chewing, means that they cannot possibly be vestigial? The logical holes in this argument are simply staggering.
13. How do the complex structures of the most ancient creatures demolish the theory of evolution?
They don't. The ancient creatures were considerably more primitive than modern ones, and just because some structures were so useful that they were conserved all the way to the present doesn't mean that those creatures were just as complex as modern animals. Apparently living fossils such as the shark disprove evolution, although Yahya notably fails to explain the lack of land mammals before the Cambrian explosion.
Also, the order of the fossil record from primitive to more complex is completely false and untrue, but somehow is also evidence for things having been created in the appropriate time and place for them. How this man does not see the contradiction in his arguments is beyond me.
14. Why is denying the theory of evolution portrayed as rejecting development and progress?
Because it is. If you deny the cornerstone of modern biology, the most strongly supported theory in the history of science, why should you accept any of the other sciences? More pertinently, why should anybody listen to you when you talk about them?
Yahya then lists a bunch of old scientists as creationists, quote-mining a large number of them, and somehow thinks that talking about da Vinci and Newton being creationists is at all relevant when they lived a long time b the theory of evolution first came out.
15. Why is it mistaken to think that God could have created things by evolution?
//While it has been scientifically proven that the magnificent design apparent in all living and non-living things in the universe could not have come about as a result of the blind forces of nature and chance, some people nevertheless claim that there is indeed a Creator, but that He created life through an evolutionary process.//
It has NOT been scientifically proven, intelligent design is NOT apparent and evolution is NOT just nature and blind chance. How many times must this be explained to this man? An infinite number of times would be my guess.
As I explained before, the origin of life is irrelevant to the fact that life evolves. He then claims that the Quran proves creation by claiming it, ignoring that many people do not find the Quran in conflict with evolution and brushes past any other objections to his claims.
16. Why is it wrong to think that evolution could be confirmed in the future?
Because it has already been confirmed a long time ago.
17. Why is metamorphosis not evidence of evolution?
//Those sources which cite metamorphosis as "an example of evolution" are superficial, narrow-minded works of propaganda which seek to mislead those who do not possess sufficient information in the subject, juvenile evolutionists, or a few ignorant Darwinist biology teachers.//
You can really feel the vitriolic bile that Yahya is compelled to spew at anyone who disagrees with him.
Just because the evolution of metamorphosis isn't perfectly explained doesn't mean that it is inexplicable. Oh wait, I'm making the mistake that he addresses in question 16, right? No. We already have plausible explanations for it, and not being able to give a precise explanation for one thing does not mean we cannot give any explanations for the rest of the theory. The fact that silkworms show rudimentary wings under their skin even in their larval form doesn't bother Yahya in the slightest (assuming, of course, that he is even aware of this). The same goes for the presence of imaginal discs, which cause the transformation.
He then has the gall to refer to Michael J Behe, who's work on Irreducible Complexity underwent no peer-review and was universally slammed by the scientific community for its poor logic and arguments, as well as claiming irreducible complexity for things such as the bacterial flagella,which had already been shown not to be irreducibly complex years previously.
18. Why is it impossible to account for DNA by "chance"?
Because it didn't arise by chance and no evolutionist have ever claimed that it has. The Miller-Urey experiment proved that in the right conditions biological molecules form extremely rapidly, sometimes in large numbers in less than a week. The chemical nature of DNA means that it MUST be arranged in a double-helix shape. This is how biochemistry works, and to claim that evolution requires DNA to arise by chance is possibly Yahya's biggest strawman yet (and that is saying an awful lot).
19. Why
February 12, 2025
رائع و قوي جدأ من الكتب التي توضح بطلان النظرية و تفاهة الأدلة التي يستدل بها الدارونين و أن غايتها مجرد تبريرات الحادية للوصول إلى أنماط حياة تافهة "مريحة" خالية من المعنى و التكليف و الضمير و معرفة الصواب و الخطأ و تحديدهما و متكاسلة عن عبادة الله و لإستمرار ضياع العباد من غير المسلمين و عدم تحقيق السعادة الحقيقية بالحصول على الثمرة التي خلقنا لأجلها الله و حرمان الناس من لذتها
كل هذا بلبوس العلم حتى لا يسمع أحد بالدين إلا و هو يشعر بندور واهي أن الأديان تناقض العلم و الحق
لكن من يؤمنون بهذه النظرية هم أكثر من يعرف بطلانها و عدم صحتها و مع ذلك يسعون لنشرها والحمدلله أدركوا فشلهم و بأن في الأوساط العلمية فضلا عن المدينة فالله رحيم بعباده
لقد حاول أنصار التطور جاهدين أن يجدوا أدلة تدعم نظريتهم المزعومة، ولكنهم في الواقع أثبتوا بأيديهم استحالة حدوث أي عملية تطورية. وختاما، يكشف العلم الحديث عن الحقيقة التالية غير القابلة للجدل: لم تنشأ الكائنات الحية نتيجة مصادفة عمياء، بل خلقها الله جل جلاله.
تتطور الكائنات الحية بل خُلقت. ونتيجة لذلك، بينما كان أنصار التطور يحاولون إثبات نظريتهم غير الواقعية، قدموا بأيديهم الدليل على الخلق.
كل هذا بلبوس العلم حتى لا يسمع أحد بالدين إلا و هو يشعر بندور واهي أن الأديان تناقض العلم و الحق
لكن من يؤمنون بهذه النظرية هم أكثر من يعرف بطلانها و عدم صحتها و مع ذلك يسعون لنشرها والحمدلله أدركوا فشلهم و بأن في الأوساط العلمية فضلا عن المدينة فالله رحيم بعباده
لقد حاول أنصار التطور جاهدين أن يجدوا أدلة تدعم نظريتهم المزعومة، ولكنهم في الواقع أثبتوا بأيديهم استحالة حدوث أي عملية تطورية. وختاما، يكشف العلم الحديث عن الحقيقة التالية غير القابلة للجدل: لم تنشأ الكائنات الحية نتيجة مصادفة عمياء، بل خلقها الله جل جلاله.
تتطور الكائنات الحية بل خُلقت. ونتيجة لذلك، بينما كان أنصار التطور يحاولون إثبات نظريتهم غير الواقعية، قدموا بأيديهم الدليل على الخلق.
June 9, 2021
I wasn't waiting for a big study or a scientific book to be honest. The content is quite good, as a new person in this topic i found it good. However, my reason for reading it was to read his argument about the 3rd molar and evolutionary theory, I wanted to read more and find more answers but that chapter was so disappointing, few words and no good arguments actually.
November 21, 2016
...
وباختصار، يبين سجل الحفريات أن أنواع الأحياء ظهرت فجأة وبكامل تكوينها، ولم تتطور من أشكال بدائية إلى أشكال متقدمة كما تدعي نظرية التطور.
لقد حاول أنصار التطور جاهدين أن يجدوا أدلة تدعم نظريتهم المزعومة، ولكنهم في الواقع أثبتوا بأيديهم استحالة حدوث أي عملية تطورية. وختاما، يكشف العلم الحديث عن الحقيقة التالية غير القابلة للجدل: لم تنشأ الكائنات الحية نتيجة مصادفة عمياء، بل خلقها الله جل جلاله.
تتطور الكائنات الحية بل خُلقت. ونتيجة لذلك، بينما كان أنصار التطور يحاولون إثبات نظريتهم غير الواقعية، قدموا بأيديهم الدليل على الخلق.
وكان لفك الإنسان العصري البالغ من العمر 2.3 مليون سنة، الذي عثر عليه في منطقة هدار Hadar بإثيوبيا، أهمية كبيرة لأنه بيّن أن الإنسان العصري وُجد على الأرض قبل فترة أطول مما توقعه أنصار التطور
وكما رأينا، يثمر العدد المتزايد من الاكتشافات عن نتائج مخالفة لنظرية التطور، وليست في صالحها. ولو كانت هذه العملية التطورية قد حدثت في الماضي، فمن المفترض أن نجد لها آثارا كثيرة، كما يفترض أن يقدم كل اكتشاف جديد مزيدا من الدعم للنظرية. وفي الواقع، ادعى داروين في كتاب أصل الأنواع Origin of Species أن العلم سوف يتطور في هذا الاتجاه بالذات. وفي رأيه أن المشكلة الوحيدة التي تواجه نظريته في سجل الحفريات هي نقص الاكتشافات الحفرية. وظل يأمل في أن تكشف البحوث المستقبلية عن حفريات لا حصر لها تدعم نظريته. ومع ذلك، أثبتت الاكتشافات العلمية اللاحقة فعليا أن أحلام داروين ليس لها أي أساس.
احدث نتاج التكنولوجيا التي هي نتاج لجهد ومعرفة بشرية تراكمية على مدار القرون لا تمتلك حتى الطاقة التخزينية لخلية واحدة جين مايرز قال فيما يتعلق بنتيجة المشروع اعلانا عن المعرفة والتصميم العظيمين في جزيء الDNA "ما أذهلني حقا هو أسلوب بناء الحياة فنظامها معقد للغاية وكأنه مصمم اذ يوجد به قدر هائل من الذكاء " وكلمة مصمم اي أنه مخلوق وهذا دليل على بطلان ادعاءات التطور ...........
كل الكائنات الحية في العالم تعيش وتتكاثر وفق معلومات خلقها عقل منفرد وهذا الاستنتاج يجرد نظرية التطور من كل مغزى ذلك أن أساس النظرية هو المصادفة ولكن المصادفة لا تستطيع أن تخلق معلومات ......
قال ألبرت اينشتاين :"لا استطيع ان أتصور عالما حقيقيا دون ذلك الايمان العميق ويمكن التعبير عن هذا الوضع من خلال الصورة التالية : (العلم بدون دين أعرج) "........
قال الألماني ماكس بلانك مؤسس الفيزياء الحديثة "يدرك اي شخص منخرط انخراطا جادا في أي نوع من أنواع العمل العلمي أن مدخل بوابات معبد العلم مكتوب عليها الكلمات التالية : ان تتحلى بالايمان انها صفة لا يستطيع العالم الاستغناء عنها ..
August 23, 2013
هارون يحيى هو الاسم المستعار للكاتب التركي عدنان اوكتار المتخصص في دحض نظرية التطور الداروينية وبيان زيفها من خلال مؤلفاته المكتوبة بشكل علمي يناسب الطبيعة المادية والالحادية للمعتقدين بهذه النظرية. وتعتمد نظرية التطور بشكل أساسي على ان هذه الحياة بكل مافيها ومن عليها إنما هو وليد الصدفة وأنه ليس هناك خالق لهذا الكون العظيم!! كما تعتمد على أساس أن الكائنات تطورت من كائنات بسيطة الى كائنات معقدة كما هي الحال في تطور القرد الى إنسان. لاقت هذه النظرية رواجا كبيرا في القرن التاسع عشر الى القرن العشرين اي خلال ال١٥٠ سنة الماضية لكن مع التقدم العلمي والاكتشافات الحديثة انكشف زيف هذه النظرية حيث ان داروين كان يذكر انه في حاجةإلى دليل عن طريق الاحافير لاثبات نظريته ولكن هذه الأحافير التي اكتشفت بعده أبطلت نظريته على عكس ما كان يظن. مثلا كان يقول انه لو وجدت احفورة لانسان من آلاف السنين فسيكون شكل هذا الانسان مختلف عما هو عليه الآن فعثر علماء الاحافير في تنزانيا على احفورة انسان تبين ان عمرها يعود الى آلاف السنين ولم تكن مختلفة عن شكل الانسان الحالي.
يجيب الكاتب بدلائل علمية عن ٢٠ سؤال لمبادئ يتمسك بها ادعياء التطور، الكتاب بشكل عام مفيد ويحمل دلائل علمية تزيد المؤمن روسوخا في إيمانه وتهدي الضال الباحث عن الله عز وجل. الكتاب مناسب جدا للمختصين في علم الأحياء لذا وجدت بعض النقاط غير مفهومة تماما لأنه يتحدث بشكل علمي بحت.
اللهم زدنا ايمانا ويقينا بك وثبتنا بالقول الثابت في الحياة الدنيا وفي الآخرة.
يجيب الكاتب بدلائل علمية عن ٢٠ سؤال لمبادئ يتمسك بها ادعياء التطور، الكتاب بشكل عام مفيد ويحمل دلائل علمية تزيد المؤمن روسوخا في إيمانه وتهدي الضال الباحث عن الله عز وجل. الكتاب مناسب جدا للمختصين في علم الأحياء لذا وجدت بعض النقاط غير مفهومة تماما لأنه يتحدث بشكل علمي بحت.
اللهم زدنا ايمانا ويقينا بك وثبتنا بالقول الثابت في الحياة الدنيا وفي الآخرة.
January 28, 2008
Harun Yahya.. cendikiawan muslim yg melihat bhwsanya teori evolusi yg dimana telah mengakar dan meracuni pemikiran manusia, berhubung termaktub dlm buku pegangan ilmu pengetahuan formal yg wajib di plajari para plajar mrupakan titik ideologi kehancuran, rasisme dan pembodohan massal scr universal.. meskipun bukan hanya beliaw yg beranggapan demikyan krn msh bnyk ilmuwan2 non-muslim yg menyatakan bhwasanya teori "kera" nya charles darwin sbg nenek moyang manusia mrupakan lelucon yg irrasional, namun di buku ini dibahas scr (cukup)singkat dan padat.. hanya dgn 20 prtnyaan .. dpt menghancurkan teori pembodohan tsb scr gamblang.. dgn sumber kutipan yg terpercaya
dan riset ilmiah para ilmuwan kelas dunia...
dan riset ilmiah para ilmuwan kelas dunia...
September 12, 2011
For a free ebook, this read well. The writing was very direct, which kept the 20 chapters (questions)succinct. There is much in the argumentation that is familiar from other rebuttals of evolution that stem from a religious source. This one was different in that it presented an islamic viewpoint. The style is somewhat reminiscent of sections of the Koran and some spirited debates I had with some Muslims at University, with little room for consideration of 'intermediate' views. Evolution, for example, is categorised as part of a materialist agenda that won its standing through deceit. Interestingly, there is no apparent issue with an old Earth - new species appeared when the conditions were right over billions of years - whether this is a widespread view within Islam I'm not sure.
December 15, 2015
يحكى "أن إنسانا اغتسل بالحليب فأصبح قردا....." وفي رواية أخرى " يحكى أن الإنسان كان قردا في قديم الزمان ...... " كنا نروي هذه الأساطير في الصغر (في عمر الخامسة على ما أتدكر)
وكجميع الأساطير تبددت هده الحكايات أمام حقيقة الخلق.... ربما لأنني مسلمة و قارئة لكتاب لله..... لأكتشف في كبري أن هذه الأسطورة هي أساس نظرية التطور؟ لكن وكما تحدث هذا الكتاب فعلميا وإن فكرنا فيما جاء لكنا استنتجنا أنه من المستحيل تطور الكائنات من بعضها البعض بل من غير المعقول أن تبدأ الحياة من لا شيء.
لكن فرضا و إن صدقنا هده النظرية فإن لدي سؤال: لماذا لم ينقرض القرد بعد تطوره إلى إنسان (مثل الدينصورات) و تانيا : لماذا لم يتطور الإنسان أكثر ؟؟
فيما يخص الكتاب لم يعجبني الأسلوب لست أدري إن كان هو نفسه أسلوب الكاتب أم أن المترجم غير فبه، وجدته بسيط جدا إلى درجة التفاهة وكأنه كتاب للأطفال.
وكجميع الأساطير تبددت هده الحكايات أمام حقيقة الخلق.... ربما لأنني مسلمة و قارئة لكتاب لله..... لأكتشف في كبري أن هذه الأسطورة هي أساس نظرية التطور؟ لكن وكما تحدث هذا الكتاب فعلميا وإن فكرنا فيما جاء لكنا استنتجنا أنه من المستحيل تطور الكائنات من بعضها البعض بل من غير المعقول أن تبدأ الحياة من لا شيء.
لكن فرضا و إن صدقنا هده النظرية فإن لدي سؤال: لماذا لم ينقرض القرد بعد تطوره إلى إنسان (مثل الدينصورات) و تانيا : لماذا لم يتطور الإنسان أكثر ؟؟
فيما يخص الكتاب لم يعجبني الأسلوب لست أدري إن كان هو نفسه أسلوب الكاتب أم أن المترجم غير فبه، وجدته بسيط جدا إلى درجة التفاهة وكأنه كتاب للأطفال.
April 28, 2011
must read book
March 1, 2016
الحقيقه بقالي فتره كبيره مشوفتش حاجه اتفه من كده
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews