Dawkins' 'Delusion' Should Be Free

Richard Dawkins is probably the world's most famous atheist evangelist. In his numerous books, the Oxford zoologist argues that modern science, and in particular the Darwinian theory of evolution, has disproved God. He is a gifted writer, and his recent volume, The God Delusion, has become a global bestseller. Some call him “the Harry Potter of non-fiction.”More recently Dr. Dawkins made the news in Turkey, too, yet not by his arguments. As the Turkish Daily News reported on Nov. 29, following a complaint by a Turkish reader that some passages in the The God Delusion were an assault on "sacred values," an Istanbul prosecutor has opened an official investigation on the book's Turkish version. Its publisher, Erol Karaaslan, is said be “questioned” soon.Probably nothing will come out from that, and Dawkins' book will continue to show up on Turkish bookshelves. And I think it should be so. And here is why.Sleights of HandFollowers of this column might have easily guessed that I would not be among the greatest fans of Dr. Dawkins. Yes, I am not. And the reason is not his atheism, but the way he uses sleights of hand while promoting his views.Just look at the back cover of his book, which mentions, “the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.” Ah, how impressive… Yet some other writer could also rant about, “the grievous harm atheism has inflicted on society, from Stalin to Pol Pot.” And that writer would be using the same trick with Dr. Dawkins: Cherry-picking the worst representatives of the worldview that you want to bash. It is a way of propaganda, not analysis.Further tricks are hidden in Dr. Dawkins' efforts to “disprove” the existence of God by referring to Darwin's theory of evolution. First of all, Darwinian theory has serious problems. Evolution, I think, is a solid fact, and Darwin has given us important insights on the mechanisms of this colossal process. But whether every step of this process can really be explained through random and purposeless mechanisms as Darwin had suggested is a hotly debated question. The scientists who defend the “Intelligent Design” (ID) theory, such as biochemist Michael Behe, point out to the extremely complex “machinery” that exists in the living cell, whose origins have not been adequately explained by the proponents of Darwinism.Most mainstream scientists disagree with ID and argue that naturalistic explanations for all natural phenomena will be found at some point. Fair enough. But that's a presumption, not a proven conclusion.Darwin ReconsideredYet let's go with mainstream science and accept that Darwinian theory is an adequate explanation of biological origins. But even then Dawkins' atheism is not vindicated. There are in fact many Darwinists who think that this theory is perfectly compatible with belief in God. Some of these scientists actually think that the whole drama of life points to a Creator, who gave nature built-in mechanisms (aka natural laws) that are designed to support the emergence of life. One of the world's prominent paleontologists (scientists who study fossils), Simon Conway Morris, is one such “theistic evolutionist.” I listened to several lectures of him where he teaches at, The University of Cambridge, and the philosophical conclusions he drew from evolution was just the opposite of Dawkins'.Another scientist who not only disagrees with Dawkins but also counters his arguments is Alister McGrath, both a theologian and a molecular biophysicist, who teaches at Oxford University. In The Dawkins Delusion?, the 2007 book he co-authored with his wife, Joanna Collicutt McGrath, he shows why Dawkins' inferences from science in favor of atheism are flawed. According to Publishers Weekly "The McGraths expeditiously plow into the flank of Dawkins's fundamentalist atheism... and run him from the battlefield.” The same comment adds, “The book works partly because they are so much more gracious to Dawkins than Dawkins is to believers.”A Great IdeaAnd I think that is the correct theistic attitude to take vis-à-vis Dawkins and other preachers of atheism. A faith's strength comes from not its fervor to silence critics, but its ability to refute them. If Muslim believers in Turkey are annoyed by Dawkins' book, then they should bring counter-arguments to his theses, instead of asking for censorship by prosecutors.It would be naïve for them to fear that theism would lose from such intellectual encounters with atheism – and especially of the kind promoted by Dr. Dawkins. That would be giving him too much credit.Ah, by the way, fellow TDN columnist Sylvia Tiryaki made a good suggestion on this topic in her piece last Monday. “What we should do at this stage,” she wrote, “is to invite Mr. Dawkins to Turkey to discuss his views here publicly.” Great idea. Let me know if you hear that he decides to come, and, perhaps, if he needs a challenger to debate with. It would be my pleasure to discuss with him who is really deluded about God — and who is not. Writer : Mustafa Akyol

A Farewell to Homo habilis, a Modern Icon

All of us moderns are familiar with the popular from-ape-to-man drawings, which show a series of bipeds starting with an ape and gradually turning into cavemen, and finally into a fine gentleman. You can see these graphs almost everywhere, and advertisers in particular love them. It has become cliché to put a satisfied customer of this or that product at the very end of the evolutionary line. Read the French daily Libération, for example, an ad implies, and become the most sophisticated chap in the from-ape-to-man saga.Of Apes and MenThe gradually evolving “hominids” in these series have names that scientists attributed to them. Usually, the short and hairy ape in the very beginning is Australopithecus, which was not much different from the common chimpanzee in many ways, but which is supposed to have the ability to walk more upright than its relatives. The second hero on the line is Homo habilis, or “handy man,” which is a larger ape, but which, according to some inferences, had the ability to use tools. The third guy is Homo erectus, “the erect man,” which is identical to us modern humans in terms of its body, but only has some unique (and “archaic”) features in its skull. After Homo erectus, generally comes Homo sapiens, in other words, us.These various categories of “human ancestors” look quite convincing and appealing when “reconstructed” and put into a gradual sequence, but when scientific details are examined, it is really not easy to explain how one evolved into the other. One big problem that some paleoanthropologists have noted is the big gap between Homo habilis, which is very much like a big ape, and Homo erectus, which can be considered as a unique, but yet still genuine, human.A 1999 paper published in the academic journal Science by two leaders in the field, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, actually argued, “Homo habilis should not even be considered a member of Homo, but is rather an australopithecine due to its ape-like skeletal structure.” On the other hand, a 2005 paper in the journal Nature by Robin Dennell and Wil Roebroeks, noted that Homo erectus marks “a radical departure from previous forms… such as Homo habilis.” Homo erectus, these experts said, seems to appear “without an ancestor, without a clear past.”Grandmom and Great-GrandmomNow, the reason why I am telling you all about this is an important discovery made two weeks ago in Kenya by Meave Leakey, the veteran paleontologist. The bones that Mrs. Leakey and her colleagues have found really shakes the standard evolution story, because they prove that Homo habilis and Homo erectus, which are supposed to be two different phases of human evolution, actually coexisted for at least half a million years.“It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter,” said paleontologist Fred Spoor, according to an Associated Press report. The AP news story added that this surprising finding “makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis.” Moreover, it “discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.”In the face of the fall of this “iconic illustration of human evolution,” it would only be fair to recall biologist Jonathan Wells, a critic of Darwinism, and his 2000 book, The Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong. In that much-debated work, Dr. Wells unveiled that most of the standard “evidence” for Darwinian evolution is in fact based on misinterpreted, misrepresented or even faked data. (If you think that Darwinism is demonstrated by the peppered moths of industrial Britain, for example, or that you had fish-like gill slits when you were an embryo, you should read Wells to see how wrong you are.)In his chapter “From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon,” Wells also criticized the from-ape-to-man drawings, and revealed that they had very little, if any, factual basis. The recent farewell to Homo habilis, which makes human origins even much more bleak from a Darwinian point of view, vindicates Wells' iconoclasm.Icons Down!Other scientists criticize Darwinism for its failure to explain the origin of the amazingly complex machinery of life. Biochemist Michael Behe's famous book, Darwin's Black Box, for example, tells about the remarkably sophisticated and information-rich structures in the living cell, and shows that the purposeless mechanisms of Darwinian evolution fails to explain their origin. It is like trying to explain the origin of a computer only by referring to the “forces of nature.”But what does that all mean? That there is no evolution? No, I think evolution is a solid fact, established by the fossil record. The nature of 500 million years ago is bewilderingly different from what we have today, and it is pretty clear that there has been an immense change over time. But the idea that this evolution happened only via Darwinian mechanisms – and, especially, in a completely random way – seems to be a philosophical presupposition, not an empirically established fact. There might well be more to the origin of life and man than our modern icons – and their committed preachers – tell us.Writer : Mustafa Akyol

Intelligent Design [and Me] in The Economist

Whatever the defeats they have suffered on home ground, American foes of Darwin seem to be gaining influence elsewhere. In February several luminaries of the anti-evolution movement in the United States went to Istanbul for a grand conference where Darwin's ideas were roundly denounced. The organiser of the gathering was a Turkish Muslim author and columnist, Mustafa Akyol, who forged strong American connections during a fellowship at the Discovery Institute.To the dismay of some Americans and the delight of others, Mr Akyol was invited to give evidence (against Darwin's ideas) at hearings held by the Kansas school board in 2005 on how science should be taught. Mr Akyol, an advocate of reconciliation between Muslims and the West who is much in demand at conferences on the future of Islam, is careful to distinguish his position from that of the extravagant publishing venture in his home city. “They make some valid criticisms of Darwinism, but I disagree with most of their other views,” insists the young author, whose other favourite cause is the compatibility between Islam and Western liberal ideals, including human rights and capitalism. But a multi-layered anti-Darwin movement has certainly brought about a climate in Turkey and other Muslim countries that makes sure challenges to evolution theory, be they sophisticated or crude, are often well received.

Turkey’s First ID Conference—Accomplished

The first conference bringing Intelligent Design to the attention of the Turkish public took place on Feb 24, 2007, in Istanbul’s second biggest hall, the Cemal Resit Rey Concert Hall. An audience of approximately 500 hundred people, which included many university students, scholars, scientists, and journalists, joined the event and listened to the four-hour long program on "The Origin of Life On Earth."First, Mustafa Akyol made an opening speech in which he criticized the mindset of Turkish intellectuals who equate science with materialism without question. In the speeches given by David Berlinski and Paul Nelson, a brief but comprehensive criticism of Darwinism and naturalism was introduced along with a summary of basic Intelligent Design arguments. John Lennox made a broader criticism of scientific materialism and reductionism. The last speaker, Alpaslan Açıkgenç, explained how Islam looks at science, nature and life. The presentations were followed by questions and answers.The speakers, their titles and abstracts are as follows:Mustafa Akyol, “Rethinking the Science-Religion Debate in Turkey”Since the end of the 19th century, Ottoman and Turkish intellectuals were increasingly influenced by “Western science.” And since this science included some materialist teachings which contradicted the traditional beliefs and values of Turkish society, a conflict developed over time between the “Westernized elite” and the “traditional believers.” However there was something that the “Westernized elite” were not aware of: Some of the views they have embraced as “science” were in fact nothing but philosophical beliefs. This became apparent with the decline of positivism. And moreover, the scientific fidings of the past decades have started to turn against those very philosophical beliefs that was once seen as “scientific.” There now is the time to reconsider the science-religion debate in Turkey.Dr. David Berlinski, “Where Darwin Went Wrong”Charles Darwin completed his masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, in 1859. At once, the theory that is introduced became popular. One hundred years later, it was widely celebrated as an outstanding success. Thereafter, the time of troubles began. For the past forty years, the great global vision that Darwin introduced into biology has been dying by degrees. Critics and skeptics have never been satisfied with Darwin’s theory. Mathematicians have been especially dubious. But now even the biologists have begun to read those alarming medical reports with a heightened sense of concern. At least five fatal maladies are converging on Darwin’s theory. In the first place, the theory makes no sense. Either it collapses into triviality or it invokes a force with no known cognate to the forces of physics. In the second place, the theory lacks for confirmation from the historical record. In the third place, it lacks for confirmation both from laboratory experiments and research into natural selection in the wild. In the fourth place, the theory cannot be simulated by means of computer algorithms. If the simulation honestly uses Darwinian principles, it does not work; and if it works, it does not use Darwinian principles. And in the fifth and final place, the theory has never been defended in terms that make mathematical sense.Dr. Paul Nelson, “Intelligent Design in Biology”Intelligent Design (ID), viewed broadly, is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. Within the sciences of biology, ID theorists see strong indicators (evidence) of intelligent causes, such as the information stored in DNA, the molecular machines of the cell, and the higher-level functional properties of organisms. Since Darwin’s time, however, most biologists have argued that organisms should be understood, not as designed, but as the products of randomly-arising variations and natural selection. However many at patterns of evidence from cellular machinery and genomics are best explained, not by any evolutionary theory, but by design. Thus ID holds great promise for the future of biological science.Dr. John Lennox, “Reductionism in Science and Ethics”The science-religion debate is about the status of the universe. The ethics debate is about the status of morality, the bioethics debate in particular being about the status of human life. Contemporary science in the West is dominated by a materialistic/naturalistic reductionism that is increasingly being used not only to undermine the traditional theistic base for ethics but to suggest that science can provide a replacement for it. This means that the science-religion debate has increasing relevance for the much broader ethics debate and therefore for society as a whole. The object of the lecture is therefore to discuss the intellectual validity of such reductionism within the wider context of the science and religion debate.Dr. Alpaslan Açıkgenç, “Science, Nature and Life According to Islam”Islam attaches importance to science. In the first century of Islam, while Muslims were not practicing any science at all, it is possible to see the existence of a developed and curious scientific mindset. Thanks to the penetration of this scientific mindset to society, Muslims were able to excel in all areas of science and surpass other societies in this regard. The words used in the Qur’an such as “earth,” “universe” or “world” can be seen as synonymous with “nature.” However this term, originating from Greek philosophy, refers to an active entity, whereas “nature” in the Islamic sense is more passive. In other words, it is something “created.” The Qur’an also tells that life itself is created. Hence it gives life a meaning and explains that it has a purpose.The conference was sponsored by the Cultural Affairs Bureau of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality , which is headed Kadir Topbaş, a member of the incumbent conservative AK Party. (Hence it can be said that the event had official support.) Moreover, about a dozen local mayors in different municipalities within the Istanbul region have sent telegraphs of congratulations to the conference. A few months ago, Turkey’s Minister of Education, Hüseyin Çelik, had argued for Intelligent Design on a popular TV program. The conference made its way to the Turkish media and mainstream newspapers such as Sabah and Radikal.Writer : Mustafa AkyolThis event will indeed be the first of a series of conferences focused on science, philosophy and religion. Theh next event, which is tentatively titled “Does Science Challenge Atheism?”, will be held in May this year.

Intelligent Design in Turkey: Up-and-coming

"Intelligent Design (ID), a more recent argument about life's origins that is championed by U.S. Christian groups, may also be making the leap across the Atlantic. ID says some organisms are too complex to have evolved without some superior cause, but avoids calling that cause God because that would ban it from U.S. science textbooks. [Mustafa] Akyol, a Muslim believer who says Darwinism is incompatible with his faith, has been waging an uphill struggle to popularize ID here. But most Turks show no interest because they see no need to avoid naming God. His lonely campaign got an unexpected boost last month when Education Minister Huseyin Celik hinted on television that he might want to see it added to Turkish textbooks."If it's wrong to say Darwin's theory should not be in the books because it is in line with atheist propaganda, we can't disregard intelligent design because it coincides with beliefs of monotheistic religions about creation," he told CNN Turk."Yes, ID is making progress in Turkey — and this is only the beginning!Posted by Mustafa Akyol at 5:22 PM Comments (0) Writer : Mustafa Akyol

Nature Probes 'Islam and Science'

Some Islamic thinkers are reaching out to the West in surprising ways. The prominent Turkish writer and columnist Mustafa Aykol has creationist views and publishes translations of US proponents of intelligent design. He has been building alliances with US faith-based groups such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington state. In an article for the US National Review last year he wrote: "Intelligent Design can be a bridge between these two civilizations. Muslims are discovering that they share a common cause with believers in the West."Well, my surname is "Akyol", not "Aykol," I am not a creationist (ID is not creationism), and I haven't published any translations so far, but that's all OK. It is good to see that Nature is taking a note of the universality of the argument from design (for God) and the cross-cultural implications of the modern theory of Intelligent Design.Nick Matzke, whom I recently debated, is also quoted in the news story. Mr. Matzke finds it "peculiar that Muslims are adopting a doctrine from US groups that regularly bash Islam in a fairly vicious way," by referring to the "American conservatives" who support ID. He actually said something very similar in our debate and this is how I responded to that:Of course believers in different traditions can find common grounds in theism and disagree in other things, especially on political issues. To deny that is like saying, "hey, some Christians who don't like Islam believe in God; so Muslims should not believe in God." Moreover, the parallelism that Mr. Matzke tries to create between "Islam bashers" and "Darwin bashers" is simply not true. First, the ID movement is not a "group of conservative evangelicals" (there are many Catholics there, such as Michael Behe, the number one theorist of ID.) Second, "conservative evangelicals" are not necessarily anti-Islamic. Actually anti-Islamic ideologues in the US are few in number and you can't put all of them into a single faith category. Third, "Bush administration's policies in the Middle East" is again a broad category, ranging from the Iraqi War to promoting democracy with peaceful means. We should also note that some of most die-hard hawks in Washington, such as the Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, are fierce opponents of Intelligent Design. There is no correlation between the attitude towards Islam and the attitude towards ID.Actually what I have personally observed is the exact opposite of what Mr. Maztke is trying to portray. The Christians and Jews in the ID movement are interested in and respectful to Islam, because they see that the real trouble in the modern world is materialism and Islam is on the same side with them in the stance against the arrogant proponents of this philosophy."Islam bashing" is definitely a grave problem in the West, which I am trying to do something about. Yet "conservative bashing" would be yet another mistake.Writer : Mustafa Akyol

Turkish Minister Supports Intelligent Design

In a recent TV debate on the Turkish educational system, the country's Minister of Education, Mr. Hüseyin Çelik**, argued in favor of intelligent design and for incorporating the theory into Turkish high school biology textbooks. The debate was aired on CNNTurk* on 17 October 2006, on the popular TV show Tarafsiz Bölge (Neutral Zone), which is hosted by the trendy Turkish journalist Ahmet Hakan Coskun. During the 2.5 hour-long program, the minister was challenged by another leading journalist, Ismet Berkan, who has previously argued for Darwinism and against ID in his columns. Berkan contended that the vague reference to "creation" in Turkish biology textbooks as an alternative to Darwinian evolution should be omitted, since it presents faith, not science. Minister Çelik responded by pointing that the idea of creation is not necessarily based on religious texts and that it can be based solely on objective evidence and the latter is what Turkish textbooks refer to. Moreover he gave a brief description of ID, by quoting an op-ed piece of mine — that was, interestingly enough, published in the newspaper that Mr. Berkan edits (Radikal) — and argued that it should be in Turkish textbooks as an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution. The 15-min discussion between Minister Çelik and Mr. Berkan is available here in audio, albeit only in Turkish. So, watch out. ID might become a part of science standards soon in unexpected places! Writer : Mustafa Akyol