Muslims are Responsible for All Muslims in the World

Muslims are Responsible for All Muslims in the World

According to this commandment of God, all Muslims need to ask sincerely for peace and happiness for their Muslim brothers. Without doubt, they will come up with various difficulties in this service. However, the solidarity and alliance among the Muslims will enable them to overcome such hardship together.

http://www.callforanislamicunion.com

As we all know, there is a stirring in the Islamic world in the recent days: Military coups are taking place, there is strife and conflict; in brief, persecution against Muslims is spreading significantly. When we look at world media and review the headlines in newspapers, televisions and social media, everyone is searching for the perpetrators. It is an undeniable truth that the Islamic geography is impaired because of the unjust practices based on “Islamophobia”. Yet, do the Islamic countries have no share in the current turmoil?

How will the Islamic world benefit by complaining, bringing excuses, crying out that this is unjust treatment, or protesting and finding others at fault?

When will the Muslims comprehend that they are responsible for all Muslims and need to act in unity?

It is the Responsibility of Every Muslim to Protect Muslims Under Persecution

It is apparent that Muslims are being oppressed and in affliction in Palestine, Indonesia, East Turkestan, Patani, Egypt, Syria or in other parts of the world. Still, there are wars and civil uprisings in the majority of Muslim lands. Hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians lose their lives in such conflicts, women are raped, tortured and millions of Muslims are deported from their homes and countries, mutilated, and lose their family members. Innocent children are targeted with bullets, babies slaughtered in cradles, and people trying to flee are permanently disabled when they step on mines planted here and there. People are subjected to unprecedented savagery, and tormented severely. Even as in incidents in Egypt, they are martyred ruthlessly while performing prayers. In many countries where Muslims are living, women and children are persistently oppressed and tyrannized. Muslim communities lose their independence one by one, and expect people of conscience to help them but they cannot make their voices heard.

Everyone is aware of these Muslims who are being martyred, because almost everyday it is possible to encounter images of these outcast people in destitute in newspapers and on television broadcasts. Many see the circumstances of these persons and pity them, but later on, when they change the channel or topic of discussion, or flip the pages of a newspaper, they forget the existence of such people. Or a majority of them never consider that they need to make efforts for saving these people from that affliction and Muslims are responsible for one another. By thinking wrongly, “While there are rich and powerful countries and leaders in the world, is it not my duty to save those people”, they push that responsibility onto others. 

Such people may rather prefer standing back by saying, “I have no problems at home, nothing is wrong in my business, and children are fine at school”. However, such a mindset could only prevail in people who are passionately attached to this world, and only run after worldly interests in this transient and fleeting lifespan. Muslims should never forget that this oppression, of which he keeps silent and does not struggle against, could turn into a giant force and harm him drastically one day. He must be aware that not objecting to violence that does not harm him would be a remorseless act, opposite to a believer’s conscience. Particularly, ones who appear to be like “lions” in negligible matters suddenly leave aside all this responsibility to others when confronted with such important incidents instead of making efforts for the good pleasure of God; it would not be proper for a sincere and true believer to leave Muslims alone under persecution and watch these atrocities from the side and act through a mindset which says “Why should we have any concerns for that country, let us care about our own”.

Every Muslim of conscience should find it his responsibility   to strive for saving these Muslims who are suffering under torment. Almighty God is informing us of this obligation for all Muslims:

“What reason could you have for not fighting in the Way of God – for those men, women and children who are oppressed and say, ‘Our Lord, take us out of this city whose inhabitants are wrongdoers! Give us a protector from You! Give us a helper from You!’?” (Surat an-Nisa, 75)

Responsible Muslims Should Criticize Themselves Regarding Problems in the Islamic World

Muslims need to think about these questions sincerely:

·         As the “Islamic world” where did we make the mistake, what should we do from now on?

·         How can we correct past errors? What should be our clear and well-defined steps?

·         What could be the most precise solution that will provide progress in economic, political and social terms?

·         Is there only prejudice against topics that Western communities are not pleased with? Are there aspects that could be found rightful?

·         Does bigotry that is based on certain people’s lack of knowledge or insincerity play a role in this image?

·         Do we possess the understanding of Islam based on love and peace that everyone was pleased with at the time of our Prophet (saas)?

·         Since God informed Muslims to be united in the Qur'an, and revealed that if they do not act this way they would lose their spiritual strength and be oppressed and defeated, would this not make the Muslims liable because they are not in union but disintegration?

http://www.turkishislamicunion.com

Responsibility of Muslims In the Face of Afflictions Should Be to Abide by the Path of God and His Messenger (saas)

The ones who suggest abstinence or temporary solutions based on violence should be aware that as long as they are ignorant to these incidents, the oppression over Muslims grows more because while innocent and helpless Muslims are being mass massacred with no reason, if other Muslims keep silent and only watch the atrocities, that would mean giving support to the wicked ones and persecutors. The ones who are impartial to brutality in order to preserve their own comfort would definitely not be hoping for being together with the ones who have persevered and been patient to this persecution and unlawfulness in the Hereafter.

Some of our Muslim brothers may have different viewpoints regarding the incidents in Islamic countries. A group of them consider retaliating against violence with violence. The ones who would like the public to confront forces of the state with knives or weapons to resolve this affliction should be aware that this mentality does not prevent any persecution. This cruelty will not end with street fights, looting, aggressive attacks or rage. The change that will occur based on violence would never grant the tranquility, peace and security which people long for and are in need of.

And some other Muslim brothers are inclined to think that by means of artificial solutions such as humanitarian aid, truces, humanitarian corridors or refugee camps, this oppression would end. Surely some success or improvement could be achieved with humanitarian aid yet, these would not provide a persistent or substantial solution. Helping others and covering all the needs of the weak and impoverished are the good morals God commands believers to in the Qur'an. However, this is not solely adequate as a solution to people’s problems. Who will distribute this humanitarian aid and how this would be accomplished, whether the interests of the people will be looked after are other dimensions of such efforts.

On the other hand, stability and order must be established in a country for the betterment of living conditions of people. This stability should predominate in all areas from the economy to social life. In that regard, some of the Islamic countries are in great disorder. To sum up, it would be a mistake to expect humanitarian aid to bring solutions, or for such minor help to bring about extensive results since God informed us of only one solution for entire believers and commanded them to be in unity:

Allah loves those who fight in His Way in ranks like well-built walls.(Surat as-Saff, 4)

It should never be forgotten that the only lasting and true solution will be achieved by following the path which God and His Messenger (saas) guide us.

http://www.muslimspersecuted.com

It is very clear that establishing Islamic Union is urgent, so the ones who find this to be impossible or who do not strive for it should not forget that they are to be held responsible for their ignorance. They should not disregard the fact that accepting oppression actually means approving of it. Every Muslim who does not endeavor for Islamic Union is accountable for every drop of bloodshed, every demolished house, the martyred innocents and aggrieved ones living in starvation and poverty in this vast geography. The foundation of the Turkish – Islamic Union is the only solution that God guided us to in the Qur'an and our Prophet (saas) explained this with his hadith in great detail. Unity is an obligation according to the morals of the Qur'an, and division is unlawful.

The Only Solution is Turkish – Islamic Union for Having Peace and Tranquility Established in Muslim Countries

The most important and reasonable effort that Muslims should carry out is to institute “unity”. If the Islamic world wants to free itself from being directed from outside or intervened against in its internal affairs, or would like to gain independence economically from foreign countries or the system which obliges them to listen to the advice of global powers, it should establish unity right away. If a responsible Muslim is thinking that “We do not want to give in to the treacherous plans of dark circles that attempt to put off the rising star of Islam and take away the Qur’an from the hands of Muslims because of their disturbance of Islam’s spreading all over the world ”, then he must surely advocate Islamic Union. Even disbelievers come together in union with opposing ideas or philosophies for wrongdoing, mischief and turmoil and they are quite capable of finding the least mutual grounds for their selfish interests. If the Islamic world does not make an alliance within itself, God informs us that there would be mischief and turmoil in the land:

Those who disbelieve are the friends and protectors of one another. If you do not act in this way (be friends and protectors of one another) there will be turmoil in the land and great corruption. (Surat al-Anfal, 73)

What the Islamic world needs to do is not to allow any conflict between schools or races, and come together in union based on common ground, and to build the “Islamic Union” under the leadership of Turkey right away. This unity will be the means for the beauty of Islam to widespread in the entire region, for the problems to be resolved in itself and to prevent other countries from intervening in the internal affairs of Muslims; and all the conflicts between schools as well as civil wars and turmoil will end. The Turkish – Islamic world should never forget that they can only stand in unity as one body when it is integrated around one center. Just as our Master Bediuzzaman Said Nursi spoke of in The Flashes Collection (21^st Flash), when there is “unity” the entire organs of the body is in comfort and functions like the gears of a factory in harmony and completion. In the good morals of Islam, one hand does not compete with another, one eye does not criticize the other, the tongue does not object to the ear, the heart does not divulge the error of the soul; on the contrary, all these complement and cover their deficiencies to provide for all their needs. In brief: the rights of the entire Islamic geography will be preserved, all discrimination, unjust practices and oppression will end, and an amazing political, social and economic power will arise.

It is not appropriate to be concerned with saving oneself, but far better to seriously strive for every other Muslim. Many Muslims read the stories of the prophets and the lives of the Companions in detail, and appreciate their personalities and superior morality, take examples from their courage, momentum, and undeterred character that withstand all kinds of hardship or difficulties. These blessed persons are notably valuable and selfless individuals who have been given the glad tidings of God’s good pleasure and Paradise. They have always been fearless for goodness and honesty throughout their lives. However, the responsibility of Muslims today is not only talking about their lives, but also taking them as examples and acting like them every moment. The responsibility of every conscientious Muslim is to strive for Islamic Union: This is the only solution that will not only bring peace and serenity to Muslim countries, but also to everyone. As how God creates, our Lord will definitely establish Islamic Union. What is important is to work for this commandment without losing time or self-inflicting more pain.

The coming together of Muslims in unity, and their saying, “In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful”, by seeking refuge in God from the accursed satan, will be a great pleasure as being the start of this obligation that Almighty God commanded. Our Lord reveals that entire Muslims need to be brothers and one community in the verses:

“This nation of yours is one nation and I am your Lord, so worship Me. But they disagreed and split into different sects. Each one will return to Us.” (Surat al-Anbiya, 92-93)

“Hold fast to the rope of God all together, and do not separate. Remember God’s blessing to you when you were enemies and He joined your hearts together so that you became brothers by His blessing. You were on the very brink of a pit of the Fire and He rescued you from it. In this way God makes His Signs clear to you, so that hopefully you will be guided. (Surat Ali İmran, 103)

http://www.awaitedmahdi.com

Alawite, Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, Jafari or Muslims from all other schools should come to the realization that they are one another’s brother in religion; they should heed the cries of Muslims who are tortured and deported from their homeland, killed or mutilated, and comprehend that they have lost a great amount of time and should endeavor right away not to lose more. We should never forget that acting in unity and never separating is an obligation for every one of us as God’s commandment. It is clear that carrying out this commandment of God will be the best practice possible with the good pleasure of God. 

Once Upon A Time There Was Darwinism

Conclusion

The professor of philosophy and history of science Thomas Kuhn, in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, deals with the concept of paradigm—a scientific worldview accepted at any particular period of time. Sometimes scientists ally themselves closely with a paradigm, but over time as a result of new discoveries, it becomes clear that their paradigm was wrong. For example, at one time the commonly-held worldview was Claudius Ptolemy's model of an Earth-centered universe. It was a very strong paradigm, but was toppled by the discoveries of Copernicus, and a new paradigm was accepted in its place. According to Kuhn, the world of science often undergoes great paradigm shifts that are called "scientific revolutions."

Kuhn points out that a considerable number of scientists make every effort to preserve the existing paradigm; in other words, they are conservative. For this reason, according to him, those who initiate scientific revolutions are not those with "scientific authority," but those still outside the scientific world or young minds who have just entered that world. Kuhn quotes the known scientist Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."163

Everyone in the heavens and Earth belongs to Him. All are submissive to Him. It is He Who originated creation and then regenerates it. That is very easy for Him. His is the most exalted designation in the heavens and the Earth. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise. (Surat ar-Rum: 26-27)

Today, the scientific world is experiencing a revolution. Darwinism has been scientifically discredited, but individuals regarded as "authorities" in the scientific community have not accepted this. Their refusal to see the light is totally an ideological and dogmatic one. But it is getting weaker, and the public is aware of this. The name of the light beginning to glow before the eyes of the scientific world is the fact of Creation. Scientists who have studied this subject assert that life is not the product of random natural forces as Darwin maintained, but on the contrary, is the work of a Creator with supreme knowledge. This Creator is God, the Lord of all the worlds. More and more scientists are accepting this fact every day, and the scientific collapse of Darwinism is being clearly demonstrated ever more clearly.

One of the most important names in the anti-evolutionist movement, Phillip E. Johnson of the University of California at Berkeley, is certain that very soon, Darwinism will be thrown into the garbage can. After speaking about the new legal measures in various American states that allow scientific proofs against Darwinism to be included in textbooks, Johnson comments:

The decisive turn of events is occurring not in public school curricula, but in the minds and writings of those who know the evidence and have some independence of mind. Darwinists know they are losing evidence, not gaining it, and that they are also losing public support. They are desperately trying to postpone admitting, for example, that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks and that natural selection does not produce increases in genetic information. They are also getting practice in explaining away defeats. . . 164

Darwinists must consider how and why their theory has been criticized. Most of their colleagues have become aware of all the evidence examined in this book. Some still ignore these proofs and strive to support Darwinism. Uninformed of scientific developments, they want to live in the world of the 1950s, what they imagine to be Darwinism's finest days. If asked about proofs for evolution, they avidly propose the discredited Miller Experiment, the so-called gills in the human embryo, the story of the peppered moths or the fantastic horse series. They ignore the Cambrian Explosion, irreducible complexity and the origins of genetic information. But there is no longer any use for anyone influenced by outdated books and Darwinist propaganda to cling to this discredited theory. We invite Darwinists to avoid falling into such a situation, to discard their prejudice, accept the scientific evidence and see the truth.

Those attached to Darwinism must give up believing blindly in this theory, study the conclusions of science, and evaluate them without prejudice. If any evidence supports Darwinism, they must announce it. But when their arguments appear to be wrong, they must face facts and give up their blind attachment to the theory of evolution.

If sincere in their search, even Darwinism's most avid supporters will see that this theory is a great deception, as proven by scientific facts.

This scientific collapse of Darwinism is actually reported to us in the Qur'an, where God reveals:

Say: "Truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Falsehood is always bound to vanish." (Surat al-Isra': 81)

Darwinism is a false, deceptive doctrine. It once gained influence by taking advantage of lack of knowledge and an unsophisticated scientific milieu, and was able to deceive many people. But revelation of the truth, together with the evaluation of the real scientific findings by unprejudiced individuals, has led to this deception's collapse.

Today's Darwinists are trying to reject, hide or ignore the truth in order to sustain falsehood. But they are wrong; and in this, have deceived and humiliated themselves. In the Qur'an, God has revealed a verse from which Darwinists must learn a lesson:

Do not mix up truth with falsehood and knowingly hide the truth. (Surat al-Baqara: 42)

After seeing the truth, it is right to cease resisting it and to embrace it. Up to now, some may have believed in the lie of evolution because it was instilled in their minds by others. But if they are sincere, instead of running after a deception and being humiliated in this world and the next, they will seek to find the truth and live according to it. Sincerity and honesty, it must not be forgotten, will be rewarded both in this life and the next.

Notes

163- Phillip Johnson, “A Step Forward in Ohio”, Touchstone, Volume 16, Issue 1, Ocak-Şubat 2003, sf. 11; http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.1docs/16-1pg11.html

Once Upon A Time There Was Darwinism

Until Recently, There Were Stories of the Dino-Bird

Within the last ten years, dinosaurs with avian feathers, or imaginary "dino-birds," have been one of the Darwinist media's favorite pieces of propaganda. A series of headlines about dino-birds, reconstruction drawings, and persistent explanations from evolutionist "experts" persuaded many that half-bird, half-dinosaur creatures once existed.

 

The "dino-bird" tale in the media has no scientific basis. Scientific American, March 2003

The last, most exhaustive defense of this premise was undertaken by Richard O. Prum and Alan Brush, both well-known ornithologists, in the March 2003 issue of Scientific American. In their article, "The Feather or the Bird? Which Came First?", Prum and Brush were assertive, as if to finally put an end to the on-going arguments as to the origin of birds. They claimed that their findings had led them to a supposedly amazing conclusion: Feathers had evolved in dinosaurs, before birds came into existence. Feathers, they proposed, had evolved not for the purpose of flying, but for insulation, impermeability to water, to attract the opposite gender, camouflage, and defense. Only later were they used for flight.

However, this thesis in fact consisted of speculation devoid of any scientific evidence. The new thesis, developed by Prum and Brush and adopted by Scientific American, was nothing more than a new, but hollow, version of the "birds are dinosaurs" theory, furiously defended with a blind fanaticism in recent decades. In fact, like the other icons of evolution, this was also completely rotten.

One person whose views may be consulted on this matter is one of the recognized authorities in the world on the origin of birds: Dr. Alan Feduccia of the Biology Department of the University of North Carolina. He accepts the theory that birds came into existence through evolution, but he differs from Prum and Brush and other proponents of the "dino-bird" in thinking that the theory of evolution is not clear on this matter. He refuses to give any credence to the hype over the dino-bird, deliberately presented as a fact, without evidence.

 

Ornithologist Alan Feduccia opposes the "dino-bird" myth.

He wrote an article in the October 2002 issue of The Auk, a periodical published by the American Ornithologists' Union and which serves as a forum for highly technical discussions of ornithology. His article, "Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem," explains that the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, avidly supported ever since John Ostrom first proposed it in the 1970s, rested on no scientific evidence. Feduccia also gave a detailed account of how such a theory was impossible, and explained a very important fact concerning the dino-birds said to have been found in China: It is not clear that the structures found on the fossil reptiles, presented as feathered dinosaurs, are feathers at all. On the contrary, there is much evidence that this so-called "dino-fuzz" has no relation to feathers. Feduccia writes:

Having studied most of the specimens said to sport protofeathers, I, and many others, do not find any credible evidence that those structures represent protofeathers. Many Chinese fossils have that strange halo of what has become known as dino-fuzz, but although that material has been ''homologized'' with avian feathers, the arguments are far less than convincing.151

After this statement, he says that Prum showed prejudice in his article in Scientific American:
Prum's view is shared by many paleontologists: birds are dinosaurs; therefore, any filamentous material preserved in dromaeosaurs must represent protofeathers.152

According to Feduccia, one reason why this prejudice was refuted was that traces of this dino-fuzz were also found on fossils that have no provable relationship with birds. In the same article, Feduccia says:

Most important, ''dino-fuzz'' is now being discovered in a number of taxa, some unpublished, but particularly in a Chinese pterosaur [flying reptile] and a therizinosaur [a carnivorous dinosaur]. . . Most surprisingly, skin fibers very closely resembling dino-fuzz have been discovered in a Jurassic ichthyosaur [extinct marine reptile] and described in detail. Some of those branched fibers are exceptionally close in morphology to the so called branched protofeathers (''Prum Protofeathers'') described by Xu [a Chinese paleontologist]. . . That these so-called protofeathers have a widespread distribution in archosaurs [a Mesozoic reptile] is evidence alone that they have nothing to do with feathers.153

In the past, Feduccia says, certain residue was found in the area of these fossils, but it was shown to be inorganic matter with no relation to the fossil:

One is reminded of the famous fernlike markings on the Solnhofen fossils known as dendrites. Despite their plantlike outlines, these features are now known to be inorganic structures caused by a solution of manganese from within the beds that reprecipitated as oxides along cracks or along bones of fossils.154  

Another interesting point is that all the fossil "feathered dinosaurs" were found in China. How could these fossils have come to light in China, but nowhere else in the world? And why weren't any feathers or feather shafts found on these dinosaurs, claimed by evolutionists to be feathered, in these Chinese formations that could so well preserve even such a structure as the dino-fuzz? The answer is plain: It's because they didn't possess any avian feathers. Feduccia writes:

One must explain also why all theropods and other dinosaurs discovered in other deposits where integument is preserved exhibit no dino-fuzz, but true reptilian skin, devoid of any featherlike material (Feduccia 1999), and why typically Chinese dromaeosaurs preserving dino-fuzz do not normally preserve feathers, when a hardened rachis, if present, would be more easily preserved.155

So, what are these creatures, found in China, and presented as a supposed intermediate form between reptiles and birds?

Feduccia explains that some of the creatures presented as "feathered dinosaurs" were extinct reptiles with dino-fuzz, and that others were true birds:

There are clearly two different taphonomic phenomena in the early Cretaceous lacustrine deposits of the Yixian and Jiufotang formations of China, one preserving dino-fuzz filaments, as in the first discovered, so-called ''feathered dinosaur'' Sinosauropteryx (a commpsognathid), and one preserving actual avian feathers, as in the feathered dinosaurs that were featured on the cover of Nature, but which turned out to be secondarily flightless birds.156

 

One fundamental discrepancy in evolutionists' dino-bird scenario is that the theropod dinosaurs, depicted as the forerunners of birds, are much younger than Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird. To put it another way, when theropod dinosaurs, birds' alleged ancestors, first appeared, birds were already in existence. The pictures show a fossil Archaeopteryx and a reconstruction.

That is, all the fossils presented as "feathered dinosaurs" or "dino-birds" belong either to flightless birds like chickens, or to reptiles that possess the feature called "dino-fuzz," an organic structure that has nothing to do with avian feathers. Clearly, no fossil establishes the existence of an intermediate form between birds and reptiles. (Besides the above-mentioned two basic groups, Feduccia also mentions "the abundant beaked bird Confusiusornis," some enantiornithines, and a newly identified seed-eating bird called Jeholornis prima, none of which is a dino-bird.)

Therefore, Prum and Brush's claim in Scientific American that fossils have proved that birds are dinosaurs is totally contrary to the facts.

The "Age Problem" that Evolutionists Want to Hide and the Misconception of "Cladistics"

In all evolutionist articles that fan the flames of the dino-bird myth, including the one by Richard O. Prum and Alan Brush in Scientific American, there is one forgotten and even hidden but very important fact.

The fossils of what they falsely call the "dino-bird" or "feathered dinosaur" do not date back any more than 130 million years. However, there is an extant fossil of a true bird at least 20 million years older than the fossils they want to present as a "half bird:" Archaeopteryx. Known as the oldest bird,Archaeopteryx is a true bird with perfectly-formed flying muscles, feathers for flight and a normal bird's skeleton. Since it could soar through the skies 150 million years ago, how can evolutionists maintain such nonsense as to present other creatures that lived later in history as the primitive ancestors of birds?
Darwinists have discovered a new method of doing so: cladistics, which has been frequently used in paleontology over the past few decades to interpret fossils. Those who promote this method are not interested in the fossils' age; they only compare the measurable characteristics of extant fossils and, on the basis of these comparisons, devise an evolutionist family tree.

This method is defended on an evolutionist Internet site that explains the so-called rationale for positing Velociraptor, a much younger fossil thanArchaeopteryx, as the latter's ancestor:

Now we may ask "How can Velociraptor be ancestral to Archaeopteryx if it came after it?"

Well, because of the many gaps in the fossil record, fossils don't always show up "on time." For example, a recently discovered partial fossil from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar, Rahonavis, seems to be a cross between birds and something like Velociraptor, but appears 60 million years too late. No-one however says its late appearance is evidence against its being a missing link, it may just have lasted a long time. Such examples are called "ghost lineages"; we assume these animals existed earlier when we have probable ancient ancestors for them a long way back, and perhaps possible descendants back then too.157

 

An 80-million-year-old fossil Velociraptor and alongside, its imaginary reconstruction. Velociraptor is one of the fossils put forward as an alleged transitional form in the tale of how birds evolved from dinosaurs. Like the others, however, this is nothing more than evolutionists' biased interpretation. The feathers shown in the drawing are totally imaginary; in fact, there is no evidence that it had feathers.

This summation shows what a huge distortion cladistics is. The following point needs to be made clear: the Velociraptor in the above extract is one of the fossils portrayed as a supposed intermediate form in the myth of birds evolving from dinosaurs. Like the others, however, this is nothing more than biased evolutionist interpretation. The feathers seen in the imaginary reconstructions of Velociraptor merely reflect evolutionists' imaginations; the fact is that there is no evidence the animal had feathers at all. In addition, again as we have seen in the above quotation, evolutionists manifestly distort the results from the fossil record according to their own theories. The only reason for supposing that a species, with a 70-million-year-old fossil, actually existed 170 million years earlier—and establishing an evolutionary family relationship on the basis of that supposition—is to distort the facts.

 

Birds' feathers are one of the structures that represent an impassable barrier between these creatures and reptiles. It is impossible for feathers to have evolved from reptiles' scales, which have a completely different structure.

Cladistics is a covert confession that the theory of evolution cannot cope with the fossil record and opens a new dimension. To sum up:

1) Darwin predicted that, once the fossil record was studied in detail, intermediate forms would be discovered to fill in the gaps between all the known species. This is what the theory expected.

2) But 150 years of work in paleontology has produced no intermediate forms, and no traces of these creatures have been discovered. This is a great defeat for the theory.
3) In addition to the fact that no intermediate forms have been found, the age of those creatures posited as ancestors of others only on the basis of comparison is also in dispute. A creature that appears more "primitive" may have appeared in the fossil record later than a creature that seems more "developed."

So, at this point, evolutionists were constrained to develop the inconsistent method known as cladistics.

With cladistics, Darwinism, purporting to be a theory that starts from and relies on scientific evidence, has been revealed to be no such thing, but a dogma that distorts scientific evidence, changing it according to suppositions—much like Lysenkoism, the official scientific doctrine of the USSR in the time of Stalin. It was nonsense concocted by Trofim Lysenko, who rejected the laws of genetics and was an adherent of Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Like Lysenkoism, Darwinism, too, thus became recognized as having no basis in science.

The Unbridgeable Differences Between Birds and Dinosaurs

Not only Prum and Brush's thesis, but every version of the "birds are dinosaurs" theory has been discredited. The differences in anatomical structure between birds and dinosaurs cannot be bridged by any process of evolution. Here I outline some of these differences, examined in detail in my other books:
1) The structure of birds' lungs is totally different from that of reptiles and all other land vertebrates. Air is unidirectional in birds, it always flows in one direction through the lung. So a bird is able to constantly take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide at the same time. It is not possible that this structure, peculiar to birds, could have evolved from the lungs of an ordinary land vertebrate. Any creature possessing an intermediate structure could not breathe and therefore, would not survive.158

2) Embryological comparisons of birds and reptiles made in 2002 by Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki showed a major difference in the hand structure of the two, proving that it was impossible to establish an evolutionary connection between them.159

3) The final comparison between the skulls of the two groups showed the same conclusions. As a result of a study he carried out in 1999, Andre Elzanowski concluded that there were "no specific avian similarities found in the jaws and palates of dromaeosaurids [a group of theropod dinosaurs]." 160

4) Another difference separating birds from reptiles is their teeth. It is known that in the past, some birds had teeth in their beaks—which for a long time was presented as a so-called proof of evolution. But eventually, it became known that birds' teeth were peculiar to them. On this subject, Feduccia writes:

Perhaps the most impressive difference between theropods and birds concerns the structure of teeth and the nature of their implantation. It is astounding that more attention has not been given to the dramatic differences between bird and theropod teeth, especially when one considers that the basis of mammal paleontology involves largely tooth morphology. To be brief, bird teeth (as seen in Archaeopteryx, Hesperornis, Parahesperornis, Ichthyornis, Cathayornis, and all toothed Mesozoic birds) are remarkably similar and are unlike those of theropods. . . There is essentially no shared, derived relationship of any aspect of tooth morphology between birds and theropods, including tooth form, implantation, or replacement. 161

5) Birds are warm-blooded, while reptiles are cold-blooded. This means that they have two very different metabolisms and it's not possible that a change from one to the other was effected by random mutations. To remove this difficulty, it was proposed that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. But this thesis rests on no evidence and there is much proof to discredit it.162

All this removes scientific support for the evolutionist thesis about the origin of birds. The Darwinist media may be able to prolong the furor over the dino-bird, but it is now clear that this was a non-scientific propaganda campaign.

Everyone who examines the origin of birds and all the other creatures in nature apart from evolutionist dogma will plainly see that creatures are far too complex ever to be explained in terms of natural influences of random occurrences. The only explanation for this lies in the fact of Creation.

 

When the avian skeleton is examined, its bones are seen to be hollow, but reinforced with thin struts. This makes for a very light, but strong structure. Bird feathers are a marvel of Creation, consisting of thousands of hooks and barbs.

God, Who knows every kind of creation with His supreme knowledge, created every living thing perfectly in one moment. In the Qur'an, God reveals:

Does not man see that We created him from a drop yet there he is, an open antagonist! He makes likenesses of Us and forgets his own creation, saying, "Who will give life to bones when they are decayed?" Say: "He Who made them in the first place will bring them back to life. He is Knower of every kind of creation." (Surah Ya Sin: 77-79)

Notes

151- Alan Feduccia, "Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem", The Auk, Ekim 2002, vol. 119 (4), s. 1187–1201

152- Alan Feduccia, "Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem", The Auk, Ekim 2002, vol. 119 (4), s. 1187–1201

153- Alan Feduccia, "Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem", The Auk, Ekim 2002, vol. 119 (4), s. 1187–1201

154- Alan Feduccia, "Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem", The Auk, Ekim 2002, vol. 119 (4), s. 1187–1201

155- Alan Feduccia, "Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem", The Auk, Ekim 2002, vol. 119 (4), s. 1187–1201

156- Alan Feduccia, "Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem", The Auk, Ekim 2002, vol. 119 (4), s. 1187–1201

157- http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/2099/DinoKabin.html

158- Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, s. 361

159- David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs", EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php

160- A Elzanowski 1999. "A comparison of the jaw skeleton in theropods and birds, with a description of the palate in the Oviraptoridae". Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 89:311–323

161- Alan Feduccia, "Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem", The Auk, Ekim 2002, vol. 119 (4), s. 1187–1201

162- MORELL, V.."A Cold, Hard Look at Dinosaurs", Discover, 1996, 17(12):98–108.

Once Upon A Time There Was Darwinism

Once, There Was the Story of Peppered Moths

Biston betularia, a moth species of the family Geometridae, is perhaps one of the most celebrated species of the insect world, and its fame is due to the fact that it was the main so-called "observed example" of evolution since Darwin.

There are two known variants of Biston betularia. The widespread light-colored type called Biston betularia f. typica is a light gray color, with small dark spots that lends it its common name, "the peppered moth." In the mid-19th century, a second variant was observed: dark in color, almost black, it was named Biston betularia carbonaria. The Latin word carbonaria means coal-colored. The same type is also called "melanic," which means dark-colored.

In 19th-century England, the dark moths became prevalent, and this coloration was given the name melanism. Based on this, Darwinists composed a myth that they would use consistently for at least a century, claiming that it was a most important proof of evolution at work. This myth found its place in nearly all biology textbooks, encyclopedia articles, museums, media coverage and documentary films about Darwinism.

The myth's narrative can be summed up as follows: At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, in Manchester and other predominantly industrial areas, the bark on the trees was light in color. For this reason, darker, melanic moths landed on these trees could easily be seen by the birds that preyed on them, so that their life expectancy was very short. But 50 years later, as a result of industrial pollution, the light-colored lichens that lived on bark died off and the bark itself became blackened by soot. Now predators could easily spot the light-colored moths. As a result, the number of light-colored moths decreased, while the dark-colored melanic forms, harder to notice on the trees, survived to reproduce.

Evolutionists resorted to the deception that this process was a major proof for their theory; and that over time, light-colored moths had "evolved" into a darker-colored type. According to Darwinist literature, this was evolution in action.

Today, however, like the other classic Darwinist myths, this one has been discredited. In order to understand why, we must look at how the story developed.

Kettlewell's Glued Moths

The photographs of peppered moths on tree bark, published for decades in biology texts, were actually of dead moths that Kettlewell had glued or pinned to the trees.

The thesis that the melanic form of peppered moths appeared and multiplied in England because of the Industrial Revolution began to be discussed even while Darwin was alive. In the first half of the 20th century, it remained current only as an opinion, because there was not a single scientific experiment or observation to prove it. In 1953, H.B.D. Kettlewell, a Darwinist medical doctor and amateur biologist, decided to conduct a series of experiments to supply the missing proof, and went out into the English countryside, the habitat of peppered moths. He released a similar number of light and dark peppered moths and observed how many of each type the birds preyed. He determined that more dark-colored moths were taken by predators from the light lichen-covered trees.

In 1959, Kettlewell published his findings in an article entitled "Darwin's Missing Evidence" in the evolutionist magazine Scientific American. The article caused a great stir in the world of Darwinism. Biologists congratulated Kettlewell for substantiating so-called "evolution in action." Photographs showing Kettlewell's moths on tree trunks were published everywhere. At the beginning of the 1960s, Kettlewell's story was written into every textbook and would influence the minds of biology students for four decades.141
The strangeness of his assertion was first noticed in 1985 when a young American biologist and educator, Craig Holdrege, decided to do a little more research concerning the story of the peppered moths, which he had been teaching his students for years. He came across an interesting statement in the notes of Sir Cyril Clarke, Kettlewell's close friend, who participated in his experiments. Clarke wrote:

All we have observed is where the moths do not spend the day. In 25 years, we have only found two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps. . . 142

This was a striking admission. Judith Hooper, an American journalist and writer for The Atlantic Monthly and the New York Times Book Review, reported on Holdrege's reaction in her 2002 book, Of Moths and Men: The Untold Story of Science and the Peppered Moth:

"What is going on here?" Holdrege asked himself. He had been displaying photographs of moths on tree trunks, telling his students about birds selectively picking off the conspicuous ones. . . "And now someone who has researched the moth for 25 years reports having seen only two moths" sitting on tree trunks. What about the lichens, the soot, the camouflage, the birds? What about the grand story of industrial melanism? Didn't it depend on moths habitually resting on tree trunks?143

This strangeness, first noticed and expressed by Holdrege, soon revealed the true story of the peppered moth. As Judith Hooper went on, "As it turned out, Holdrege was not the only one to notice the cracks in the icon. Before long the peppered moth had kindled a smoldering scientific feud."144

Benjamin Wiker's book

So, in the scientific argument, what facts became clear?

Another American writer and biologist, Jonathan Wells, has written on this subject in detail. His bookIcons of Evolution devotes a special chapter to this myth. He says that Bernard Kettlewell's study, regarded as experimental proof, is basically a scientific scandal. Here are some of its basic elements:

 Many studies made after Kettlewell's experiments showed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks; all the other types preferred the underside of horizontal branches. Since the 1980s, it has become widely accepted that moths rarely rest on tree trunks. Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, Paul Brakefield, as well as other scientists have studied this subject over 25 years. They conclude that in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific.

Judith Hooper's book

 Researchers who tested Kettlewell's experiment came to an even more striking conclusion: In less polluted areas of England, one would have expected more light-colored moths, but the dark ones were four times as many as the light ones. In other words, contrary to what Kettlewell claimed and nearly all evolutionist literature repeated, there was no correlation between the ratio in the moth population and the tree trunks.

 As the research deepened, the dimensions of the scandal grew: The moths on tree trunks photographed by Kettlewell were actually dead. He glued or pinned the dead moths to tree trunks, then photographed them. In truth, because moths actually rested underneath the branches, it was not possible to obtain a real photo of moths on tree trunks.145

Only in the late 1990s, the scientific world was able to learn these facts. When the myth of the Industrial Melanism that had been a feature in biology courses for decades came to such an end, evolutionists were disappointed. One of them, Jerry Coyne, said he felt very dismayed when he learned of the fabrications with regard to the peppered moths.146

Rise and Fall of the Myth

How was this myth invented? Judith Hooper explains that Kettlewell, and other Darwinists who made up the evolutionist story of the peppered moths with him, distorted the evidence in their desire to find proof for Darwinism (and become famous in the process). In so doing, they deceived themselves:

They conceived the evidence that would carry the vital intellectual argument, but at its core lay flawed science, dubious methodology, and wishful thinking. Clustered around the peppered moth is a swarm of human ambitions, and self-delusions shared among some of the most renowned evolutionary biologists of our era.147

Greatly contributing to the myth's collapse were experiments that a few other scientists did on the subject after it became known that Kettlewell's experiments had been distorted. An evolutionist biologist who recently studied the story of the peppered moth and found it to be without substance was Bruce Grant, professor of biology at the College of William and Mary. Hooper reports Grant's interpretation of conclusions reached by other scientists who repeated Kettlewell's experiments:

"It doesn't happen," says Bruce Grant, of Kettlewell's dominance breakdown/buildup studies [on moths]. "David West tried it. Cyril Clarke tried it. I tried it. Everybody tried it. No one gets it." As for the background matching experiments, Mikola, Grant and Sargent, among others, repeated what Kettlewell did and got results contrary to his. "I am careful not to call Kettlewell a fraud," says Bruce Grant after a discreet pause. "He was just a very careless scientist." 148

Other evidence that the evolutionist story of the peppered moths is completely wrong lies in North America's population of Biston betularia. The evolutionist thesis is that during the Industrial Revolution, air pollution turned the moth population black. Kettlewell's experiments and observations done in England were regarded as evidence of this. However, the same moth lives in North America, where no melanism has been observed despite the Industrial Revolution and the air pollution. Hooper explains this situation referring to the findings of Theodore David Sargent, an American scientist who studied the question:

[Evolutionists] . . . also ignored the studies on the North American continent that raised legitimate questions about the classical story of dark backgrounds, lichens, air pollution, and so on. Melanics are equally common in Maine, southern Canada, Pittsburgh, and around New York City . . . and in Sargent's view, the North American data falsify the classical industrial melanism hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts a strong positive correlation between industry (air pollution, darkened backgrounds) and the incidence of melanism. "But this was not true," Sargent points out, "in Denis Owen's original surveys—which showed the same extent of melanism wherever sampled, whether city or rural area—and hasn't been found by anyone since. 149

With the discovery of all these facts, it came to light that the story of peppered moths was a giant hoax. For decades people all over the world were misled by photographs of dead moths pinned to a tree bark, intended to supply Darwin's missing evidence, and the constant repetition of an old-fashioned story. The evidence Darwin needed to find is still missing, because there's no such evidence.

THE FAKE MOTHS STILL REMAIN IN THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Although Kettlewell's account of the "evolution of the peppered moth" has been revealed as totally untrue, Darwinist sources continue to portray this fraud as scientific evidence. These pictures, taken at London's Natural History Museum in October 2003, show that myth of the peppered moth was still on display in the museum's Darwin Centre.

A 1999 article published in The Daily Telegraph, a London newspaper, sums up how the myth was finally discredited:

Evolution experts are quietly admitting that one of their most cherished examples of Darwin's theory, the rise and fall of the peppered moth, is based on a series of scientific blunders. Experiments using the moth in the Fifties and long believed to prove the truth of natural selection are now thought to be worthless, having been designed to come up with the "right" answer. Scientists now admit that they do not know the real explanation for the fate of Biston betularia, whose story is recounted in almost every textbook on evolution.150

In short, the myth of industrial melanism—like other supposed proofs for evolution, avidly defended by many evolutionists—crumbled.

Once, because of conservatism and lack of knowledge, the scientific world could be duped by tales like that of the peppered moths. But now, all such Darwinist myths have been discredited.

Notes

142-Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York, 2002, s.xvii

143- Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men, s.xviii

144- Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men, s. xviii

145- Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, ss. 141-151

146- Jerry Coyne, "Not Black and White", a review of Michael Majerus's Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature, 396 (1988), ss. 35-36

147- Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men, s. xviii

148- Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men, s.296

149- Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men, s.293

150- Robert Matthews, "Scientists Pick Holes in Darwin's Moth Theory", The Daily Telegraph, London, 18 Mart 1999