Page 231 - If Darwin Had Known about DNA

Adnan Oktar

229

The better to see how ridiculous this assumption is, recall what
genes actually are: parts of DNA added on to one another and com-
pressed by means of folding and packaging. As you read

in detail in preceding chapters, the giant DNA mol-
ecule consists of elements added to one another ac-
cording to a specific code. It's of course impossible
for a molecule consisting of blind, and uncon-
scious atoms to be selfish, or to have any other con-
scious objective such as to multiply itself by way of
sexual reproduction.
No atom possesses consciousness or intelli-
gence, and certainly not selfishness. For that rea-
son, Dawkins' thesis is unscientific, an irrational
fairy tale.
The Australian scientist Lucy G. Sullivan
has criticized Dawkins for "a proliferation of
pseudo-theories, whose claim on our atten-

tion lies more in the realm of literature
than of science." 170 The Harvard
University evolutionary geneticist
Richard Lewontin includes Dawkins
among those authors who make uncon-
firmed claims, or claims that conflict with the facts
in the tales they advocate:
As to assertions without adequate evidence, the
literature of science is filled with them,
especially the literature of popu-