Natural Selection Is a Blind and False Mechanism

Demagoguery is the main, and of course utterly ineffective, weapon of Darwinists, who are unable to admit defeat and insist on defending the false theory of evolution. After making it clear that life cannot form by chance, Richard Dawkins adds yet another to the long list of Darwinist demagoguery by saying that "everything is the work of natural selection." Natural selection means the survival of those individuals best suited to the natural conditions around them. In a herd of zebra menaced by lions, for instance, the fastest running zebra will survive. But the survival of the fastest zebra does not mean that these zebra will subsequently turn into a different species, cheetahs for instance. Natural selection merely weeds out sickly, weak or crippled individuals, or those in the group that have failed to adapt to their surroundings. It cannot create new species, new genetic information or new organs.

Why the Question of the "Origin of Life"
Goes Unanswered by Dawkins

One well-known question has been asked of Dawkins for many years now; What is the Origin of Life? And for many years now, Dawkins has been careful and determined not to answer it. The method by which he leaves it unanswered is again that familiar demagoguery. He loses the question in a fog of semantics, seeks to give the impression he is making a scientific statement, and makes allegations against the other side, rather than actually giving an answer. This is a classic Darwinist tactic. The question is smothered by demagoguery since he has no scientific answer. Dawkins has to date expended many words on the question of the "origin of life," but has still never actually answered it.

Dawkins' Mistake in Thinking That
Atheist Societies Enjoy Prosperity

Richard Dawkins claims that societies in which atheism constitutes the majority viewpoint are the most civilized communities, and attempts to conclude that religion is unnecessary to human beings. Yet the most civilized societies by that criterion are those devoid of any human qualities, which constantly flounder in the chaos and tension caused by atheism.

Dawkins's Error in Thinking That
Religion Is Not Necessary for Spirituality

In his interview with al-Jazeera, Richard Dawkins made the illogical claim that religion was not essential for spirituality. He said that atheist scientists also possessed a spiritual side, in the form of enjoying a poem, music or gazing at the stars. But this idea of Dawkins' is utterly without foundation and totally fails to reflect the true facts. If someone believes that the world is the work of chaos, that there is no life after death, that this transient world of pain and suffering, greed and hatred, is his only abode, that everything consists of matter alone, that nothing has any spiritual value, and that life is the result of the random combination of atoms, then his life can have no purpose or meaning. If he regards human beings as animals made up of atoms, then people will be of no worth in his eyes. Human love and values will also, therefore, have no meaning. If such a person does not believe he will have to account for himself in the Hereafter, then he is an entity capable of committing any crime, regarding everything as worthless and himself as a mere collection of matter. Fascists and dictators such as the mass-murderers Hitler and Stalin share just such a mindset. They have admitted this themselves in no uncertain terms.

Dawkins! You Can't Reach A Point By Debating Priests

You've turned down Mr. Adnan Oktar's face to face debate offer by bringing along scientific evidence. Now you only debate secondary school children and priests. If you're after  victory, you'll be ashamed. Would it be a victory to defeat a priest, who has no information about Darwinism? Sooner or later, you will confront Mr. Adnan Oktar. What are you going to do then? Your works feel show intended, you keep claiming you're an African ape. Whereas you know your grandmaster's explanation on this matter. You've turned down Mr. Adnan Oktar's face to face debate offer by bringing along scientific evidence. Now you only debate secondary school children and priests. If you're after  victory, you'll be ashamed. Would it be a victory to defeat a priest, who has no information about Darwinism? Sooner or later, you will confront Mr. Adnan Oktar. What are you going to do then?

We Challenge Dawkins To A Discussion Before The Public

Richard Dawkins, a most ardent supporter of Darwinism, has long accounted for the perfect creation of the universe in terms of the theory of evolution, which has lately suffered a global collapse. In his recent writings and interviews, however, Dawkins has started to express that "life cannot form by chance." It is an absence of sense and reason to support evolution on one hand and to state that life cannot come about by chance on the other. That is due to the fact that according to the theory of evolution, which Dawkins supports, the existence of life is based on entirely random coincidences.

Dawkins Is Desperately Trying To Deceive Young Children

Following the revelation of 100 million fossils all proving the fact of Creation, the atheist Richard Dawkins retreated into a profound silence.  He saw and was alarmed how these fossils that Darwinists had tried to conceal for so many years had totally demolished Darwinism. He then watched, in a state of terrible panic, as the Atlas of Creation, in which many of these fossils were pictured, spread across the world. He exhibited the same panic in the face of how people began to abandon Darwinism en masse. So much so that he had no compunction about calling his own countrymen "ignorant" when it emerged that 75% of people in Britain, his home country, say that "Allah (God) created living things."[1] He commenced crude attacks on the Atlas of Creation and Adnan Oktar. He imagined that this technique, rather than science, would work to his advantage, but he was wrong.