• published: 01 May 2011
• views: 123

Mr. Adnan Oktar's Dagbladet Information (Denmark) interview JOURNALIST: My first question is about US politics. I imagine you know about McCain's candidacy and about what he said about classes on Creation in schools, about the messages that need to be given about Creation in class. May I learn your thoughts on this? ADNAN OKTAR: McCain thinks quite correctly on this subject. Creationism and Darwinism should be taught in the same environment, but both should be given the same rights. Creationism should be described as much as Darwinism is. In other words, when talking about Creationism, the errors of Darwinism must also be set out. Darwinism should also be described unilaterally, but its scientific criticism must also definitely be made. For example, there are 100 million fossils, but Darwinism never mentions them; 100 million fossils that prove Creation. Darwinism lacks even a single transitional fossil to back up its own claims. This is never mentioned in scientific books, for instance, but it should be. For example, it is technically impossible for a protein to come into being by chance. Yet, Darwinism never mentions that. But it should be mentioned. Darwinism generally speaks of miracles; it says how this or that happened by miracle. These things need to be talked about. I mean, no scientific account is given, it just talks of miracles. Who creates the miracle? That is what Darwinism needs to say. JOURNALIST: Let us come to the main issue, if you will. What do these fossils teach us? What is the message these fossils give us? ADNAN OKTAR: Images of all life forms have remained underground, as you know, just like photographs, that is what I mean by fossils. An animal's petrified body. These are living things dating back 50, 100 or 200 million years. Crocodiles, rabbits, tigers, lions and pigs; when we look at the fossil records of all animal species we see the animal has never changed, that it was the same as it is today. But Darwinists never mention that, they keep this hidden. That should be mentioned. Since they have never changed, since they are the same as when they were first created, that means there is no evolution. I mean, it is clear this Creation did not come about through evolution. That is a scientific fact. But if they have alternative accounts to give, if they imagine that is possible as to their own thinking, then they can do that, but not using Darwin. When it comes to Darwinism, that is in a state of total collapse. Everyone in Europe has realized that. Darwinism is a deception. It is satan's way of mocking mankind, ridiculing. Chance can do nothing. You do not get a newspaper article or a magazine article when you throw a handful of sand on the ground. It just scatters at random. In fact, Allah creates that, too, but nothing comes of it. JOURNALIST: Let us say that Darwinism really is false and a theory that cannot be proved. How does that automatically prove the existence of God? ADNAN OKTAR: They may claim that aliens from space created. They may propose similar fantastical ideas, but everyone will see that, of course. It is clear that Allah created. In other words, the whole world agrees that if there is no Darwinism then Allah must have created. But they may perhaps launch various fantastical ideas. But when asked who created those space creatures, they will again have to say that Allah created them. At the end of the day, everything will revert to Allah. JOURNALIST: People are curious about this; the ideas you set out in your books, what you say about Darwinism represent a position in the face of science, and in one sense you set your own position out within another scientific framework. So are there two different types of science? ADNAN OKTAR: Darwinism is a position opposed to science, a view that sets out dishonesty and mendacity in the face of science. But in our creationist views that we elucidate, the scientific evidence is all set out, 100 million fossils for example. Fossil exhibitions are held and people touch fossils with their own hands. That is science. They see them with their own eyes, and that is science. For example, it has been proven with bio-mathematics that a protein cannot form by chance, and that is science. Darwinism is therefore a pagan religion based on utter nonsense, a dogma. It has nothing to do with science. But what I talk about is totally rooted in science, clear, explicit and definite accounts completely founded in scientific proofs. JOURNALIST: There is such a picture before us; that it is as if you knew the conclusion beforehand, and that you collected the data for this conclusion you say is scientific only subsequently, to prove a conclusion that already existed in your mind. What would you say to that?