Al-Jazeera publishes rejection of evolution

34

This is barely worth a mention except that it was published by Al-Jazeera, a Qatari news channel and website.  That organization has been recognized as one of the more liberal Arab media outlets, and in fact has been praised for the quality of its journalism.

As Wikipedia notes:

In the 2000s, the network was praised by the Index on Censorship for circumventing censorship and contributing to the free exchange of information in the Arab world, and by the Webby Awards, who nominated it as one of the five best news web sites, along with BBC News, National Geographic and The Smoking Gun. It was also voted by Brandchannel readers as the fifth most influential global brand behind Apple, Google, Ikea and Starbucks. In 2011, Salon.com said Al Jazeera’s coverage of the 2011 Egyptian protests was superior to that of the American news media.

This makes it all the more distressing that the organization’s website has published an article by  Fida’ Yasir Al-Jindi (an engineer, of course) that is naked, undiluted creationism: “Darwin’s theory: Why do they hold on to it although it has been proven wrong?” by  (original article in Arabic here). The article was translated into English by Faisal Saeed Al-Mutar, founder of the Global Secular Humanist Movement, Secular Post and the Public Relations director for Global Secular Organizing and Strategy.

Without that translation, we wouldn’t know that such pap was being promulgated by Al-Jazeera.  I needn’t give long excerpts: this one will suffice, for it’s the straight Argument from Design, filtered through the eyes of a religious engineer. (At the end there’s a paragraph of praise for the wisdom of Allah).

Written By: Jerry Coyne
continue to source article at whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com

34 COMMENTS

  1. Perhaps this ‘knowledgeable engineer’ can explain the blueprint of the ostrich, emu, kiwi, dodo etc and explain their perfect design for flight. Actually, it would be advisable that these birds should undergo a thorough flight check before attempting takeoff!

  2. All the known creation myths are easily refuted by modern science. None of them make sense. Ken Ham in his recent debate with Bill Nye repeatedly said “I have a book”. He also said we were not there so could not prove it.

    Darwin’s evolution is supported by all the sciences combined. It can even predict future evolution up to a point. Something creationism cannot do.

    It is a shame the once fairly respectable Al-Jazeera has stooped so low.

  3. Ridiculous, uneducated, brainwashed buffoon…

    And how can a falcon require ‘no maintenance’?

    Does it not need to sleep? Eat? Fight off diseases?

    Seriously, I always imagine humans couldn’t get any more stupid – but then, by Allah, they go and prove me wrong…

  4. I really enjoyed this comment from the article, by someone named Marcel Volker:
    >
    Every time a bird craps on you, just be thankful that Allah shelved the flying horse design after the first prototype went out of control and flew into heaven.

  5. “We have never heard of a falcon spending the morning in its nest going through hundreds of clauses that ensure the safety of its flight…”

    No, they choose to spend 3-4 hours every day just preening because it feels s-o-o-o-o-o-o nice!

  6. That Al Jazeera have published this nonsense only on their Arabic site indicates that they may have done so more for reasons of prudence than of candidness. At least, I hope so, because I have long enjoyed the service they provide on their English site.

  7. From the main Al Jazeera Wikipedia article: “Following the Arab spring revolutions, Al Jazeera have been accused of supporting the Muslim brotherhood and dissimulating realities about their violence and assaults.” Well, f*ck yeah, they’ve been rightly accused.

    Check who finances them. No wonder many of their journalists left the fold after denouncing the bias. Here’s the link to the Al Jazeera controversies and criticism article on Wikipedia

  8. http://www.meforum.org/3147/al-jazeera

    Virtually all of the channel’s journalists, he found, were either leftist, pan-Arab nationalists, or Islamists. “Although Al Jazeera has sometimes been hailed in the West for being an autonomous, Arabic news outlet, it would be a mistake to call it a fair or responsible one,” he wrote. “Day in and day out, Al Jazeera deliberately fans the flames of Muslim outrage.”[7]

    TV Taqiyya, folks- Islam at its most transparent

    • In reply to #10 by Fritz:

      http://www.meforum.org/3147/al-jazeera

      Virtually all of the channel’s journalists, he found, were either leftist, pan-Arab nationalists, or Islamists. “Although Al Jazeera has sometimes been hailed in the West for being an autonomous, Arabic news outlet, it would be a mistake to call it a fair or responsible one,” he wrote. “Day in and day out, Al Jazeera deliberately fans the flames of Muslim outrage.”[7]

      TV Taqiyya, folks- Islam at its most transparent

      Thanks for that link to Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum – “Promoting American Interests” – website, Fritz.

      • In reply to #15 by Katy Cordeth:

        Thanks for that link to Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum

        You’re most welcome, Katy. I learned something here- didn’t know DP was the Pres of that site.
        Yep, I’m a fan- also Spencer, Gellar, Wafa Sultan et al. Not so much Shoebat. Anyone with the
        balls to tell the truth about Islam and its weak-kneed apologists and political sympathisers

        But you know this, right?

        • In reply to #25 by Fritz:

          In reply to #15 by Katy Cordeth:

          Thanks for that link to Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum

          You’re most welcome, Katy. I learned something here- didn’t know DP was the Pres of that site. Yep, I’m a fan- also Spencer, Gellar, Wafa Sultan et al. Not so much Shoebat. Anyone with the balls to tell the truth about Islam and its weak-kneed apologists and political sympathisers

          But you know this, right?

          Did I know you were a fan of those lunatics, Fritz? No, how could I?

  9. When Al Jazeera publishes an opinion piece it reflects the view of the author, not of Al Jazeera. It would be wrong, even malicious, to question Al Jazeera’s reputation as a news source because of this amusing article.

    • In reply to #12 by aldous:

      When Al Jazeera publishes an opinion piece it reflects the view of the author, not of Al Jazeera. It would be wrong, even malicious, to question Al Jazeera’s reputation as a news source because of this amusing article.

      Yet if the BBC or such were to publish this, EVERYONE here would question the BBCs wisdom in doing so. Why does Al Jazeera as a publisher get a free pass?

      • In reply to #24 by veggiemanuk:

        Yet if the BBC or such were to publish this, EVERYON…

        Are you claiming to monitor the BBC Arabic service? Certainly, creationists express their point of view on the BBC. They’re also to be heard on American media. Ken Ham of the Creation Museum was on CNN Piers Morgan show the other day. That’s freedom of speech. Don’t you approve of it?

        • In reply to #27 by aldous:

          In reply to #24 by veggiemanuk:

          Yet if the BBC or such were to publish this, EVERYON…

          Are you claiming to monitor the BBC Arabic service? Certainly, creationists express their point of view on the BBC. They’re also to be heard on American media. Ken Ham of the Creation Museum was on CNN Piers M…

          Sorry, but a TV show is in slightly different context here, It’s not as if the show was promoting Kens Worldview now is it?

          • In reply to #29 by veggiemanuk:
            Sorry, but a TV show is in slightly different context here, It’s not as if the show was promoting Kens Worldview now is it?

            The media regularly, and as an obligation to free speech, give exposure to views that you and I may disagree with and which have no factual support. Are you claiming that the BBC’s Arabic, Mandarin, or other foreign language services are giving undue exposure to untenable views on scientific, or other, issues?

  10. As for falcons–

    Do they not look at the birds, held poised in the midst of (the air and) the sky?
    Nothing holds them up but (the power of) God.
    Verily in this are signs for those who believe. Surah 16:79 Yusuf Ali

  11. Evolution is an evidence based fact established by means of rigorous scientific inquiry and discovery, and as such is open to verification and falsification.

    So, it’s simple! Anyone and everyone is at liberty, and indeed welcome, to submit counter evidence to natural selection.

    But of course, simple doesn’t mean easy.

    Religion is easy. The lazy way. Its followers can make things up as they go along, cherry picking what they feel inclined to believe at any given time, or, believing what they’ve been told to believe or are fearful of not believing, or just what makes them feel good.

    It enables its devotees to claim that their beliefs are immutable and or eternal, and to employ them to laud it over others, especially children, by putting the fear of God into the poor little mites.

    When all they really need is to feel that they are loved, and have some power, a modicum of influence, and they find comfort in the fact that evidence for what they believe in is surplus to requirements.

    Believers just know they and their particular faith are right, and that that which they don’t know, or can’t understand, or have been rendered by dogma too frightened to inquire about, just in case it or they are wrong, can remain a mystery, because – deep breath – God works in mysterious ways!.

    Religion infantilizes!

    Science is unremitting hard work; nothing is guaranteed; except advancement by means of discovering that you are wrong!

    It humanizes and helps us to think for ourselves; it opens up horizons while at the same time being a great leveler; it enables us to be honest with ourselves.

    It is the best way known to us for gaining advancement, because it has built in checks, balances and self correcting mechanisms; it works!

    And those who just sit around making slurs about science, and casting aspersions on it, only reveal their ignorance.

    They would do best to stop fannying around with fairy tales, and get stuck in with the creative process of debate, discovery and enlightenment.

    Oh, I’ve worn myself out!

    A cup of tea is called for I think.

  12. Maybe Al Jazeera published this because they don’t hold with censorship?
    Like American public access TV, they see it as a citizens right to air their opinions.
    I did not see any evidence (may have missed it of course) that Al Jazeera actually endorse it.

    • In reply to #18 by CliveHill:

      Maybe Al Jazeera published this because they don’t hold with censorship?
      Like American public access TV, they see it as a citizens right to air their opinions.
      I did not see any evidence (may have missed it of course) that Al Jazeera actually endorse it.

      I agree, I don’t see the big deal about this being published by Al Jazeera at all. Al Jazeera is more or less the CNN of the middle east. Although from what I’ve seen much better actual reporting of world news rather than the idiocy that CNN and other US news organizations spend most of their time on these days. Jon Stewart had a nice joke about this on the Daily Show last week, he started with an Al Jazeera report on all the issues the President of France would be discussing with Obama when they meet: Syria, etc. Then after a few seconds of that he interrupted and said something like “sorry, went to Al Jazeera by mistake, now for the really important issues that Americans care about” and then showed clip after clip of how CNN and the rest of the US media was describing the trip and it was all about the French president’s relation to his girl friend, how she wouldn’t be making the trip, and all the ways that was sending the people who care about protocols into a tizzy. “Who would sit next to Michele Obama at the state dinners!” and other earth shaking questions like that.

      But getting back to this article, if CNN or the NY Times were to publish a report or op ed supporting creationism no one would think twice about it. I guess it is reasonable to hold Al Jazeera to a higher standard but I don’t think this rates a lot of concern.

  13. Seems like Al-Jazeera is just another one of those two-faced Islamic organizations that says one thing to gullible liberal westerners and something entirely different to their Muslim audience. How many times have we not heard the same story before. Some allegedly liberal Muslim intellectual talks about peace and compassion to his western audience, while spouting out hatred and bigotry to his Muslim brothers.

    • In reply to #20 by Nunbeliever:

      How many times have we not heard the same story before. Some allegedly liberal Muslim intellectual talks about peace and compassion to his western audience, while spouting out hatred and bigotry to his Muslim brothers.

      I actually can’t think of any examples of that. I know plenty of examples of Muslims who both criticize the fundamentalists and also criticize the crimes of the US. In fact if you actually bother to read what Islamic intellectuals have to say some of the strongest criticism of groups like Al Queda comes from Muslim intellectuals, if for no other reason because the end result of terrorism is that most of the people killed in the attacks and especially in the responses are Muslim civilians.

      I know that some apologists for US crimes who think it’s only the Muslims at fault for all that’s wrong with the world see talking about US crimes as “spouting out hatred and bigotry to his Muslim brothers”. But I’m sure you aren’t one of those people. So please, since there are so many apparent examples of this according to you, it should be trivial to provide a few, so give us one example of a “liberal Muslim intellectual” who “talks about peace and compassion to his western audience, while spouting out hatred and bigotry to his Muslim brothers.”

    • In reply to #20 by Nunbeliever:

      Seems like Al-Jazeera is just another one of those two-faced Islamic organizations

      That’s nonsense. The fact that opinions are voiced on Al Jazeera does not mean endorsement by Al-Jazeera. Implying that articles are ‘hidden’ by being published in Arabic equally implies that articles in English are hidden from Arabic speakers.

    • In reply to #20 by Nunbeliever:

      Seems like Al-Jazeera is just another one of those two-faced Islamic organizations that says one thing to gullible liberal westerners and something entirely different to their Muslim audience. How many times have we not heard the same story before. Some allegedly liberal Muslim intellectual talks ab…

      To which I replied:

      I know that some apologists for US crimes who think it’s only the Muslims at fault for all that’s wrong with the world see talking about US crimes as “spouting out hatred and bigotry to his Muslim brothers”. But I’m sure you aren’t one of those people. So please, since there are so many apparent examples of this according to you, it should be trivial to provide a few, so give us one example of a “liberal Muslim intellectual” who “talks about peace and compassion to his western audience, while spouting out hatred and bigotry to his Muslim brothers.”

      To which I heard the response:… sound of crickets chirping…

  14. Why don’t any of the links provided have Al Jazeera in the URL, or look official at all?

    Am I missing the trigger of all the obvious, correct, disgruntled comments, this time?

    I really only know the brand by the TV news hour I get here, free-to-air. I’ve rated “Al Jazeera” at least as highly as “DW” and “France 24″. “SBS World News Australia” and “ABC News” follow closely.

    Those five do me pretty well in terms of directed news. They tend to decline documenting the preferred cocktail flavours of footballers wives, most of the time.

  15. Wow I actually thought Al Jazeera was more accurate and believable than American news channels however the fact about Rejecting Evolution means that Al Jazeera are not too different to 33 % of Americans… indoctrinated minds think alike

Leave a Reply