Page 87 - The Dark Spell of Darwinism

Harun Yahya - Adnan Oktar

advocating the truth? Did the Inquisition invalidate his claims? The support of
the respected and widespread members of society does not convey authentic-
ity, nor does it directly ensure that a belief is scientific. 44
Denkel says that, even though Turkish evolutionists resort to such
methods of suggestion, they can produce no definite scientific proof in sup-
port of Darwinism. He says further that Turkey's most influential critic of
Darwinism, the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (Science Research Foundation), has
the most concrete scientific proof against it:
Evolutionist scientists, while stressing the type of "excuses" I criticized above,
say, "Besides, many scientists and institutions have published thousands of ar-
ticles and books refuting Creationists' myths." Can one expect a serious result
from words that are uttered thoughtlessly? Here, in my opinion, is where the
heart of the matter lies... A truly scientific attitude would reveal what these
"thousands of articles and books" assert. It should display or outline to the
reader, at least a few of their data and arguments. With this group of scientists,
however, such is not the case. On the contrary, handouts circulated by the
Science Research Foundation (SRF), continually put forward critical justifica-
tions written from their own stance. I have no idea what denial I could offer if
anyone were to say that the members of the group had fallen behind the SRF
in terms of being scientific by publishing a manifesto... Unless some scientists
with a good grasp of this issue provide scientific refutations for the justifica-
tions put forward by the SRF, appealing to authorities or hoping patriotic lit-
erature to get results will be only a daydream. 45
Denkel is a scientist who supports the theory of evolution, but he is
also prepared to admit that Darwinists have no scientific resources to rebut
evidence that invalidates their theory and rely only on the effectiveness of
baseless propaganda. Evolutionists' major refuge is in the hackneyed sug-
gestion that Darwinism is accepted by the whole world.
Today, however, it is evident that this isn't so. Those who care to look

at science objectively must take into account the great number of scientists
who have abandoned the theory over the past 20 to 30 years. To avoid doing
this is departing from objectivity. Today, as in the past, many scientists

85