In the Wall Street Journal, Andrew Higgins profiles Adnan Oktar, an Islamic creationist from Turkey, and reports on both his fans and critics:
Islam, like Christianity, holds that God created the world and its creatures. But the Quran leaves more room for acceptance of evolution than does the Old Testament, which states that the world was created in six days. Creationism, says Prof. Kence, was originally a “Christian import,” but has gained traction among Muslims, thanks in part to Mr. Oktar.
Mr. Oktar’s message has won support in some unlikely quarters, most notably among educated, wealthy Turks from secular families. Emre Calikoglu, a businessman in the construction industry, says he was “not interested in religious things before” he met Mr. Oktar but is now a devoted believer.
[…]
Over the years, Mr. Oktar has also gathered many foes.
“He’s a megalomaniac. He worships the mirror,” says Edip Yuksel, a Turkish writer who got to know Mr. Oktar in the 1980s when he first began developing his idiosyncratic take on Islam. Now a bitter critic, Mr. Yuksel has written a Turkish-language book on Mr. Oktar—“The Cult of the Antichrist”—but says he hasn’t found a publisher willing to brave Mr. Oktar’s lawyers. His Web site is banned in Turkey.
Read the full article here, and read “Harun Yahya’s Dark Arts” by Nathan Schneider, who had the opportunity to interview Oktar in Turkey, here.
There is no scientific basis for the theory of evolution that was proposed by an uneducated, amateur called Darwin. Why would the entire scientific world be conditioned to think like he does? I personally see no evidence for any step by step, random process that would result in any organ system in the entire living world. No random mutation would cause the genetic makeup in any reproductive cell to change. I resent, as well as my colleagues, this imaginary idea of evolution.
I personally thank Mr. Adnan Oktar for opening a world of enlightenment out of dark ages of Darwinist thinking.
Regards.
After reading Andrew Higgins’ profile of Adnan Oktar, I must admit that I fully respect the idea of challenging an authority in which people blindly believe. Science sometimes takes on the unquestioned, faith-based authority that is often associated with religion. Science teachers and professors often preach facts and theories that students may not understand and simply accept on faith. I, for one, blindly “believed” in evolution for years before anyone ever provided me with hard evidence and allowed me to make up my mind for myself.
Despite this scientific elitism, part of what most draws me to the discipline is the method by which theories and ideas are constantly developing. Science (at least in its idealized form) welcomes change, challenges, and, dare I say, evolution. Scientists continuously question their colleagues’ hypotheses as the body of knowledge around the mechanisms of the natural world grows. While empirical findings may represent facts, the implications of these findings can be, and often are, hotly debated. But such debate is not, as creationist critics may claim, a fatal Achilles Hell, a glaring chink in the evolutionary armor. As paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould eloquently described it, “Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.”
To challenge the mechanisms of evolution (and the validity of the evidence supporting them) is not inherently a bad thing. However, I find Oktar’s methods and approach seriously suspect. Many have explored the weaknesses of the science in Oktar’s Atlas of Creation, which shows photographs of modern animals next to fossils from millions of years ago in an attempt to support the claim that all creatures were created at the same time. The specifics of the biological fallibility of this book are not my primary concern here, but the fact that he is a charlatan should be clear. In addition to identification errors (such as using a photo of snake next to a fossil of an eel or showing a fishing lure as the “modern animal” corresponding with a fossilized caddis fly), the book also neglects to contend with facts such as the dearth of any primate fossils more than 60 million years old. That being said, I do, in theory, find it admirable that Oktar was trying to use a more scientific method to support his religious claims about a scientific theory. At least Oktar avoids a situation where his primary argument is simply faith in God’s word without even attempting to provide empirical proof, an all-too-common tack that has been well parodied by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, this claim of a scientific argument is where my primary criticism of Oktar comes to bear.
While there is a certain level of faith many people place in science, this is largely because there is empirical evidence from reproducible experiments supporting scientific claims. This makes science a unique type of authority, distinct from those that are grounded in faith. We have a tradition of trusting in the scientific because of this. So when Adnan Oktar says his work comes from the “Science Research Foundation” and calls The Atlas “science,” he invokes a certain set of expectations that go along with the prestige of scientific authority, and rest his arguments upon this trust. In reality, however, he is using science as a guise for something quite different. First of all, he intertwines his “scientific” views with emotionally charged cultural values. In Nathan Schneider’s report of his interview with Oktar he explains “The Atlas goes on to blame Darwinist theories for a whole roster of worldly ills, including fascism, terrorism, and even the Columbine shooting… Oktar speaks from a country torn by political upheaval and from a Muslim world struggling to regain its religion and culture after colonial domination.” Using the weight and power of a cultural memory and history, Oktar attaches his views to something greater. “Science” is not only being used to support non-scientific claims about religion and creationism, but Oktar is also tapping into ideas people feel passionate about (such as religion, tradition, national identity, etc) to gain support for his “science.”
Additionally, Oktar uses his power and wealth to get the government to ban websites that oppose his views and challenge The Atlas. This creates a tightly regulated and limited discourse with an additional political authority on the debate. Religion and politics are subjective and selectively authoritative in discourse, yet by calling his work “science” Oktar gives the feel of something objective. Even the form of his argument—the large, glossy, beautiful coffee table books—influences the way the information is consumed, as people are more willing to trust in something that seems so official and non-threatening. In this way, the authority of wealth is also being engaged.
The Atlas of Creation is not a scientific authority, nor is it drawing on scientific ideas. Oktar’s methods of disseminating his ideas and opinions are deceitful and manipulative. As a double major in Religion Studies and Human Biology, I am fascinated by the exploration of the intersection of science and religion. The two disciplines have tremendous potential to inform each other in a productive way. However, there must be transparency of which authorities are being utilized and a clear recognition of the implications of their invocation.