Harun Yahya's Webpage

No, he doesn't. He just makes stuff up. For example

quote:

---

Science revealed the proof of something inside the human body but not belonging to it, something that perceived the entire physical world, but was not itself physical: the human soul.

---

He got to that conclusion from Einstein's Mass-energy equivalence! Talk about non-sequitur. He doesn't give any references for this scientific proof of the soul, he just says the soul must exist because mass and energy are related in a certain way. What are we to make of other animals which have abilities which differentiate them from other animals? Man his hardly unique in the light of all the other unique animals (and plants! And fungi! And bacteria!) out there. And Islam is propagated by dualists and religionists to spread evils in the world under the excuse that man was created by Allah and is meant to serve him and that those who do not serve Allah are oppressing Muslims and must be destroyed.According evolution as I know it, many species of animals have morality (vampire bats will share their food with the hungry, unless the hungry have previously refused to share their food for example). So it follows that humans too can have morals, and since the evidence indicates humans do have morals...the proposal that the theory of evolution justifies amoral degradation is simply absurd.However - there are some people that spread pseudoscience around pretending it is the theory of evolution in order to justify bad things.I imagine that you would also agree that there are some people that spread pseudoIslam around pretending it is really Islam in order to justify doing bad things. I do not consider beating disobedient women to be pure morality (4:34). And I don't consider the fact that Locusts swarm to be a miracle as is claimed by Adnan Oktar (aka harun yahya), once a holocaust denier now an evolution denier.

I recommend thinking slowly and carefully about the article. "Harun" would have us compare the statement: "God created stuff and made you its master. Day and night exists" with the works of Newton? It doesn't even make sense to make such a comparison - vegetables can discriminate between day and night, and Newton was able to deduce much more than that!He then claims that materialism insists on an infinite universe (it doesn't) and that general relativity and the big bang therefore falsifies the metaphysical position of materialism. This is nonsense. If it did - then there I know of very few people (probably zero) who would be regarded as materialists by his definition.As it stands, Harun's definition of materialism is a fake, a straw-man and basically gibberish. Harun deftly ignores the problems that the big bang provides for the supposed perfection of the Koran. The big bang has the universe as being billions of years old and is consistent with an old earth and humans being around much longer than before Adam.The problem lies here: Harun makes stuff up, doesn't provide any actual argument and asserts consistency with the Koran that doesn't really exist. However, people are often keen to overlook these kinds of holes if the conclusion is that they have been right all along.So here is the challenge - do what Harun couldn't and show that materialist metaphysics insists on an eternal universe and then show that evolution rests on the premise that the universe is eternal. I predict you won't be able to, and the reason you think it might is because you haven't really thought the issue through just yet. That's fine - I hope your stay at EvC will provide lots of opportunity to really explore these kinds of questions in depth, perhaps in some cases for the first time.