Monday, July 7, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Print | Comments |

[UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

by Richard Dawkins

In 2006, I was one of tens of thousands of academic scientists all around the world who received, unsolicited and completely free, a huge and lavishly illustrated book called Atlas of Creation by the Turkish Muslim apologist Harun Yahya. The thesis of the book, which was published in eleven languages, is that evolution is false. The main 'evidence' consists of page after page of beautiful photographs of fossil animals, each one accompanied by a modern counterpart that is said to have changed not at all since the time of the fossil. It is a large-format book, a thick coffee-table book with more than 700 high-gloss colour pages. The cost of production of such a book must have been extremely high, and one is bound to wonder where the money came from to produce it and then distribute it gratis in so many copies and so many languages.

sea snake

Given that the entire message of the book depends upon the alleged resemblance between modern animals and their fossil counterparts, I was amused, when I began flicking through at random, to find page 468 devoted to "eels", one fossil and one modern. The caption says,

There are more than 400 species of eels in the order Anguilliformes. That they have not undergone any change in millions of years once again reveals the invalidity of the theory of evolution.

The fossil eel shown may well be an eel, I cannot tell. But the modern "eel" that Yahya pictures (see left) is undoubtedly not an eel but a sea snake, probably of the highly venomous genus Laticauda (an eel is, of course, not a snake at all but a teleost fish). I have not scanned the book for other inaccuracies of this kind. But given that this was almost the first page I looked at . . . what price the main thesis of the book that modern animals are unchanged since the time of their fossil counterparts?

Incidentally, in May 2008 Harun Yahya, whose real name is Adnan Oktar, was sentenced in a Turkish court to a three-year prison sentence "for creating an illegal organization for personal gain."

Postscript added 8th July

I have now looked at some more pages of this preposterous book. The double page spreads on page 54-55, 368-369, and 414-415 are all labelled 'Crinoid', and all purport to show how similar ancient fossil crinoids are to modern ones. Crinoids are stalked relatives of starfish, members of the phylum Echinodermata. The three spreads have almost identical captions. Here's the one on page 54:

The 345-million-year-old crinoid fossil, identical to its living counterparts, invalidates the theory of evolution. Crinoids that have remained unchanged for 345 million years refute the theory of evolution, manifesting the creation of God as a fact.

And all three spreads show a beautiful colour photograph of modern crinoids to illustrate the point. Except that, in all three cases, the modern animal pictured is not a crinoid. It isn't even an echinoderm. It isn't even a deuterostome (the sub-kingdom to which the echinoderms, and we, belong). Zoologist readers will recognize it as a tube-dwelling annelid worm, a sabellid.

On page 402, there are four fossil pictures, correctly labelled Britttlestar. The brittlestars are one of the major classes of echinoderms, others being starfish, sea urchins and crinoids. Once again, we have the standard-issue creationist caption:

This 180-million—year-old fossil reveals that brittlestars have been the same for 200 million years. These animals, no different to those living today, once again reveal the invalidity of evolution.

Here we have not one but two photographs of living animals to illustrate the lack of change since the fossils. One of these modern animals is indeed a brittlestar. The other is a starfish! Member of a completely different class of echinoderms and obviously very different to even the meanest glance.

Finally, PZ has already called attention to this on Pharyngula, but I include a picture for completeness. On page 244, Yahya wishes to say that caddis flies have not changed since some 25-million-year-old insects preserved in amber. Once again, the caption:

These living things have survived for millions of years without the slightest change in their structures. The fact that these insects never changed is a sign that they never evolved.

By now, we have come to expect something pretty good when we look at the photograph of the modern animal. What will the modern 'caddis fly' be? A minnow, perhaps? A garden slug? A king prawn? No, in a way is better than any of these: A fishing lure, complete with prominent steel hook!

I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the "breathtaking inanity" of the content . Is it really inanity, or is it just plain laziness — or perhaps cynical awareness of the ignorance and stupidity of the target audience — mostly Muslim creationists. And where does the money come from?

Written especially for RichardDawkins.net

Also see:
'Forbidden Music' post on Yahya
Fishing lure photos taken from Graham Owen Fly Tying

Posted: Monday, July 7, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1351 - 1400 of 2683 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1351. Comment #211432 by irate_atheist on July 16, 2008 at 2:36 am

Billy -

My wife was brought up to believe that witchcraft is real and needs to be opposed. This, at the end of the 20th Century.

Sheep-faced loons.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

1352. Comment #211477 by BillySands on July 16, 2008 at 4:15 am

Irate,

Members of David Robertson's church believe in witches. Some have even accused him of endorsing witchcraft. I just love the idea of the insane damning the insane

Other Comments by BillySands

1353. Comment #211501 by SPS on July 16, 2008 at 5:03 am

Joe,

I have gone into detail regarding what the Muslims achieved...

I'm not doubting that there are achievements by muslims in history. What I'm asking is what is 'muslim science' in relation to the other questions I asked.

Other Comments by SPS

1354. Comment #211654 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 8:12 am

joe you have done no such thing. You have answered none of my points about the utter stagnation that Islam produces wherever this weed has sprouted. If there are all these 'scientific' discoveries in the Qur'an, why did Muslims have to wait for Westerners to discover these?

Because the truth is that there's nothing there. Western scientists and western minds unlocked the secrets of the Universe, and Islam hopes to parasitize them, to steal an unearned and undeserved ride. Not with me, bucko.

Come on. Go back to my original counterblast to you, if you have the guts. Read it and try and refute it. Come on.

Or is it that you know that you're wrong? That little voice in your consciousness that can't be silenced?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

1355. Comment #211693 by mordacious1 on July 16, 2008 at 8:54 am

I see that Hezbollah has traded the remains of the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped in 2006 , for 5 live prisoners. Interesting how this works.

Other Comments by mordacious1

1356. Comment #211706 by Tyler Durden on July 16, 2008 at 9:01 am

Joe,

Why does evil exist in the world?

Why does Allah allow this evil to happen?

Is Allah incapable of stopping evil in the world?

Is your god weak?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

1357. Comment #211714 by epeeist on July 16, 2008 at 9:07 am

Comment #211701 by Joe Morreale

ALL SMOKE AND NO ROAST!

Ally you have is a load of argumentum ad verecundiam statements. And of course this is a logical fallacy.

Are you ever going to answer Brian English's question?

Other Comments by epeeist

1358. Comment #211725 by DamnDirtyApe on July 16, 2008 at 9:16 am

You're bringing us all doughnuts now? When did this happen? Can I have one?

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

1359. Comment #211728 by irate_atheist on July 16, 2008 at 9:18 am

1526. Comment #211712 by Joe Morreale -

THAT EVOLUTION HAS HAPPENED ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATIONS FUELLED BY YOUR WISHFUL-THINKING!

Four. Little. Letters:

MRSA

Stick your ignorance up your arse where it belongs.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

1360. Comment #211741 by irate_atheist on July 16, 2008 at 9:24 am

1531. Comment #211736 by Joe Morreale -

Fucktard.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

1361. Comment #211750 by epeeist on July 16, 2008 at 9:35 am

Comment #211736 by Joe Morreale

So please stop thumsucking propaganda, it is embarassing!

No, the thing that is embarrassing is the fact that you were given links to sites where evidence of evolution is documented.

But you refused to go read them.

Existence of god - any evidence yet?

Other Comments by epeeist

1362. Comment #211790 by DamnDirtyApe on July 16, 2008 at 9:55 am

Joe, you didn't answer my question. May I please have a doughnut?

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

1363. Comment #211800 by hungarianelephant on July 16, 2008 at 10:02 am

Ah, the light has dawned.

If it's in the Qu'ran, it's true. If it's contrary to the Qu'ran, it's anti-Qu'ranic propaganda. We know this because the Qu'ran is true.

The Qu'ran must be true, because it says it is the word of Allah, and since the Qu'ran is true, it must be the word of Allah, thus proving that it is true.

Furthermore, Allah exists and is the only deity. We know this because it says so in the Qu'ran, which is true and is the word of Allah. Any suggestion that Allah does not exist is anti-Qu'ranic propaganda, because it is contrary to the Qu'ran, which is proven true (see above).

It makes perfect sense now.

Excuse me, I'm off to buy a prayer mat and some boxcutters.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

1364. Comment #211818 by epeeist on July 16, 2008 at 10:18 am

Comment #211800 by hungarianelephant

If it's in the Qu'ran, it's true. If it's contrary to the Qu'ran, it's anti-Qu'ranic propaganda. We know this because the Qu'ran is true.

We have had the circulus in demonstrando before. We have also had bifurcation, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad baculum, innumerable argumentum ad hominem, ignoratio elenchi and many more.

And topping it all the argumentum ad nauseam.

The thing being that he actually thinks he is making an argument and presenting evidence.

Other Comments by epeeist

1365. Comment #211824 by bugaboo on July 16, 2008 at 10:21 am

Joe

Lets say, for the sake of argument that evolution has NOT occurred. Lets forget about evolution for the time being.

Now. What evidence do you have for gods existence?

Other Comments by bugaboo

1366. Comment #211830 by DamnDirtyApe on July 16, 2008 at 10:26 am

Can't fault him there. We doughnuts have been secretly conspiring against mankind for some time now. Looks like Joe's rumbled us.

Freeeedooomee for our doughy brothers!
Fry the man, fill him with jam!
Fry the man, fill him with jam!

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

1367. Comment #211849 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 10:40 am

Joe,

I learned Arabic. Did you?

I can read Arabic, does that mean my opinion carries weight?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1368. Comment #211862 by Tezcatlipoca on July 16, 2008 at 10:54 am

Joe,

You've been asked to provide evidence for the existance of your god. Yet you continue to ignore the request. If I were to subscribe to the same tautological and nonsensical thinking that you apparently do then I'd say your god does not exist simply on the basis of your responses. Let alone the abyssmal lack of evidence.

edit- I think it goes like this. Joe says he thinks his god exists. Through his statements Joe demonstrates he doesn't think at all. Therefore the thought of his concept of deity is unthinkable...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

1369. Comment #211868 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 11:02 am

Joe,

I read your "exposure". In fact it had nothing to do with his critique of Dr. Naik. Please show me where his critique of Naik was wrong.

All,

http://www.examinethetruth.com/Challenge_Sina.htm

You can see how ridiculous this exposure is. It is deliberately misleading in how it responds to Sina. In fact distorting what he says to make some insignificant point.

Any interest in having a debate with these people?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1370. Comment #211871 by decius on July 16, 2008 at 11:06 am

Excuse me, I'm off to buy a prayer mat and some boxcutters.

LOL

Other Comments by decius

1371. Comment #211875 by Tezcatlipoca on July 16, 2008 at 11:11 am

Joe,

I see you've called my Tautology and raised me a Tu quoque. Sweet!

That's 2 out of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe Top 20 Logical Fallacies...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

1372. Comment #211883 by Tezcatlipoca on July 16, 2008 at 11:20 am

Not to mention the Argument from Authority...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

1373. Comment #211887 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 11:23 am

Joe,

What about Dr. Naik saying Wajada means "it appeared" in Arabic when it actually means "to find".

How about that, you never answered. Naik either doesn't know Arabic very well, or he lied.

That is demonstrable. I don't need a Q & A session to figure that out.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1374. Comment #211896 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 11:30 am

Joe,

How come Dr. Naik incorrectly translated wajada

1) He lied

2) He doesn't know Arabic very well.

Looking forward to your answer.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1375. Comment #211901 by NFT on July 16, 2008 at 11:35 am

Comment #211873 by Joe Morreale

Major philosopher Karl Popper cites evolutionists such as J.B.S Haldane and George Gaylord Simpson and says:

"Some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the TAUTOLOGY that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring."

If we are in the business of quoting authorities, how about this one from Popper:

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation ... The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological." (Karl Popper, Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind)

Quote mining again eh? Naughty, naughty.

Other Comments by NFT

1376. Comment #211910 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 11:43 am

Joe,

Dr. Naik mistranslated the Arabic word wajada. Why;

1) He lied

2) He doesn't know Arabic very well

Which one, please answer.

Thanks,

Alex.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1377. Comment #211917 by Tezcatlipoca on July 16, 2008 at 11:48 am

"No other book in the World, can demonstrate what the Quran has demonstrated today"

That paedophilia is okay?

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

1378. Comment #211918 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 11:48 am

1379. Comment #211919 by Apathy personified on July 16, 2008 at 11:49 am

Al, you won't get a real answer because he can't copy and paste it from another site.

joe,
'That was too much for them, and they calmed down.'
page 168, barrels out of bonds, The Hobbit.

Clearly shows that Tolkien predicted the existence of pulsars, decades before scientists found them.
Ergo, The Hobbit is the word of god.

It's so easy to base my life around a book (pick anyone you want and interpret it how you like)

Other Comments by Apathy personified

1380. Comment #211928 by DamnDirtyApe on July 16, 2008 at 11:59 am

Yawn.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

1381. Comment #211932 by Tezcatlipoca on July 16, 2008 at 12:02 pm

I love infomercials...especially the testamonials...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

1382. Comment #211936 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Joe,

Dr. Naik mistranslated the Arabic word wajada. Why;

1) He lied

2) He doesn't know Arabic very well

Which one, please answer.

Thanks,

Alex

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1383. Comment #211939 by Apathy personified on July 16, 2008 at 12:07 pm

joe,
When you copy and paste entire sections from somewhere else you are supposed to quote the source, idiot.

THERE IS NO LONGER ANY POINT IN WASTING ANY MORE TIME WITH YOU BLIND DELUDED FOOLS

da svedaniya then, feel free to never bother coming back, i've seen more intelligence in brick walls.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

1384. Comment #211941 by epeeist on July 16, 2008 at 12:10 pm

You're not getting away with that one you quote mining little scrote.

This is what Popper says in the "Logic of Scientific Discovery"

I intend to argue that the theory of natural selection is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program; and although it is no doubt the best at present available, it can perhaps be slightly improved

He then goes on to say

And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.

And in "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". (Dialectica) he says

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation

and

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable but it turns out to be not universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research programme to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioural programme.

Trying to quote Popper at me is as stupid as trying to cite Arabic authors at Al-Rawandi.

Other Comments by epeeist

1385. Comment #211945 by mordacious1 on July 16, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Holy allah,

Don't tell me anyone actually read comment #211931 . If you did, you have to get a life.

Other Comments by mordacious1

1386. Comment #211952 by fizhburn on July 16, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I am hitting the troll button as hard as I can.

Other Comments by fizhburn

1387. Comment #211954 by epeeist on July 16, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Comment #211934 by Joe Morreale

GAME OVER BOYS!

THERE IS NO LONGER ANY POINT IN WASTING ANY MORE TIME WITH YOU BLIND DELUDED FOOLS

Joe - where in the Qu'ran is the Navier-Stokes equation written down? You never answered Scott on this one.

Equally, you never told me where it mentioned Brazil, koala bears on the planet Neptune.

And we still haven't had any proof of the existence of your god.

I haven't dragged this one out for a while.

Let us make the hypothesis

h = ~(∃ x) G(x)
h ⇒ p
~p
∴ ~h

Just because you are too ignorant to understand this I will spell it out in words.

The first line says we have a hypothesis h that the class of all personal gods is empty.
The second line say that this entails a prediction p.

The third line states that p is falsified

Which means that h is false.

This is a simple logical form known as modus tollens

So there's my hypothesis and a way to test it. Show me that I am wrong.

Other Comments by epeeist

1388. Comment #211957 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Fizhburn,

as a fellow philosopher... you might be interested in the last page of the "MnIndy Interview..." thread... Bonzai, Mitchell, huzonfurst and me talking about philosophy.

I would be interested in your response to Bonzai and huzonfurst... just out of curiosity.

Other Comments by MPhil

1389. Comment #211959 by Tezcatlipoca on July 16, 2008 at 12:24 pm

on #211931 I got to the third paragraph where I was utterly convinced...

that it was an infomercial...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

1390. Comment #211975 by Corylus on July 16, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Mordacious!

Don't tell me anyone actually read comment #211931 . If you did, you have to get a life.

Hehe!

I scanned it. The grammar seemed suspiciously good so I did an advanced search on it. It is all from the blog below.

http://islamic21.blogspot.com/2008/05/amazing-quran-part1.html

Maybe this is Joe's blog, but I doubt it. If not then the post above is not his work - the bad boy.

Hmm, just realised I am being unfair - I think he added some extra capitals. Maybe in some circles that counts as co-authorship.

Other Comments by Corylus

1391. Comment #211977 by babelfish on July 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Joe,

you seem to have plenty of time for writing. Why not take the time to answer al-rawandi's simple question?

Here it goes again:

Dr. Naik mistranslated the Arabic word wajada. Why;

1) He lied

2) He doesn't know Arabic very well

Which one, please answer.

Thank you.

Other Comments by babelfish

1392. Comment #212036 by alovrin on July 16, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Now Duffman you say think before you post,it seems you really should take some of your own advice.
Because You completely misunderstood/misconstrued everything I said.
And Duffman you finished up with this piece of excrement

Are you one of those people that feels a little inner joy when there is a large IED that kills a few American soldiers? Don't lie, just be honest, you seem like the type

Now I know you are in the game of cheap oneupmanship, sort of stock in trade for such as you.
But to even jokingly suggest that I could derive any pleasure from the suffering or death of another human being is an obscenity of the highest order.
Now you have two options apologise or not, up to you.
Remember where you are.

Other Comments by alovrin

1393. Comment #212039 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 1:51 pm

alvorin,

Sarcastically suggesting that you root against Americans.

I think I already had my answer.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1394. Comment #212051 by Ian Bamlett on July 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Al, perhaps it will help if someone copy / pastes YOU - since that it the format Joe is familiar with.

Joe,

Dr. Naik mistranslated the Arabic word wajada. Why;

1) He lied

2) He doesn't know Arabic very well

Which one, please answer.

Thanks,

Ian

(EDIT - Babelfish beat me to it I see - sorry didn't see it! Ah well.. no harm in a litle repetition)

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

1395. Comment #212055 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Here is another touching piece of humanism from Islam:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16785622486

The "Hitler we Love you" Facebook group. And what... do .... you..... know... All Muslims in it. And alomst 1,000 of them.

Religion of peace..... and Hitler.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1396. Comment #212059 by Corylus on July 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment 212039 by Al Rawandi

I'm afraid I do not understand what you have just said.

Was that comment an explanation, an excuse or an apology?

Alvorin can be grumpy at times, but I have seen no evidence for sadism in her posts.

'Inner joy' in the face of death? Come on now.

Other Comments by Corylus

1397. Comment #212065 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Corylus,

It was a hyperbolic reference (the original) to people who root against the western world. You will have to forgive me as I spent a few years around people who DID rejoice at that kind of thing, and believe it or not, had similar political views to some of our friends here. Thus my quick polarization on the issue. But you are right that was a bit much, no need to include alvorin in my past experiences.

But there are equally many people who rejoice in precisely the reverse (without reprobation)... for example joy at the Israeli bombing of Lebanon or something.

If you want there is an old post of Fanusi's that best sums up this attitude... something to the effect of piles of bodies being the cause for some people. When the bodies stop piling up the raison d'etre fades.

And finally, my response was a "don't take it seriously", off the cuff remark. And as a habit I try not to delete my old posts, so there we stand.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1398. Comment #212070 by Corylus on July 16, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Ok Al.

I'll butt out and mind my own business now.

If Alvorin wants to discuss this further with you then that is up to her.

And as a habit I try not to delete my old posts,

A good habit. I don't do that either, and man do I have a few I'm tempted by!

Sigh, I really miss that 'preview' button...

Other Comments by Corylus

1399. Comment #212072 by al-rawandi on July 16, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Corylus,

These posts happen when I am having a bad week.

What happened to the "preview" button?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1400. Comment #212076 by Corylus on July 16, 2008 at 3:12 pm

What happened to the "preview" button?

Dunno - I guess it was something that took up some space and had to go with the increased traffic this site is getting.

It's a pity because I only see errors when I look at the post all laid out.

Henri picked me up on a typo a little while back and I still haven't got over the shame :-(

Other Comments by Corylus

Reload Comments | Back to Top