Prof.dr. Ibrahim Khalil wonders:


The Stool in the Bible:

The Stool is mentioned in the Bible as excrement or dung.

The Lord will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone; the Lord said: I will spread dung upon your faces, they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you!, Bake your cake using human excrement or Bake your cake using cow manure instead of human excrement, dig a hole and cover up your excrement and burn with fire the flesh, blood, skin, and dung of the sin offering

In addition, the Bible says that the carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field, he shall perish for ever like his own dung, They perished and became as dung for the earth, they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth, the carcases of men shall fall as dung upon the open field,

They shall die of grievous deaths, they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth, they shall be dung upon the ground, their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung. Moreover there is the dung port, the dung gate and a cab of dove’s dung is worth five pieces of silver.

Bake your cake using human excrement

Ezekiel 4:12

Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.”

Bake your cake using cow manure instead of human excrement.

Ezekiel 4:15

“Very well,” he said, “I will let you bake your bread over cow manure instead of human excrement.”

Dig a hole and cover up your excrement

Deuteronomy 23:13

As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.

Burn with fire the flesh, blood, skin, and dung of the sin offering

Exodus 29:14

But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.

Leviticus 4:11

And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung,

Leviticus 8:17

But the bullock, and his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Leviticus 16:27

And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.

Numbers 19:5

And one shall burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn:

The Lord will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.

1 Kings 14:10

Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.

A cab of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver.

2 Kings 6:25

And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver.

The carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field

2 Kings 9:37

And the carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel; so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel.

They may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you!

2 Kings 18:27

But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Isaiah 36:12

But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

The dung port

Nehemiah 2:13

And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.

The dung gate

Nehemiah 3:13

The valley gate repaired Hanun, and the inhabitants of Zanoah; they built it, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof, and a thousand cubits on the wall unto the dung gate.

Nehemiah 3:14

But the dung gate repaired Malchiah the son of Rechab, the ruler of part of Bethhaccerem; he built it, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof.

Nehemiah 12:31

Then I brought up the princes of Judah upon the wall, and appointed two great companies of them that gave thanks, whereof one went on the right hand upon the wall toward the dung gate:

He shall perish for ever like his own dung

Job 20:7

Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung: they which have seen him shall say, Where is he?

They perished and became as dung for the earth

Psalm 83:10

Which perished at Endor: they became as dung for the earth.

They shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth.

Jeremiah 8:2

And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, whom they have loved, and whom they have served, and after whom they have walked, and whom they have sought, and whom they have worshipped: they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth.

The carcases of men shall fall as dung upon the open field,

Jeremiah 9:22

Speak, Thus saith the LORD, Even the carcases of men shall fall as dung upon the open field, and as the handful after the harvestman, and none shall gather them.

They shall die of grievous deaths, they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth

Jeremiah 16:4

They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcases shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.

They shall be dung upon the ground

Jeremiah 25:33

And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.

Their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.

Zephaniah 1:17

And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.

I will spread dung upon your faces

Malachi 2:3

Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

I shall dig about it, and dung it:

Luke 13:8

And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:

I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung,

Philippians 3:8

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

The Stool in the Quran.

The Quran mentions the stool of the cattle once. The Quran says that the cattle produce their milk from a mixture of the digested food and the blood.

To the best of my knowledge, the Quran is the first book on earth that describes in few words how the milk is produced.

Nevertheless, the Quran says that all the messengers sent by Allah used to eat food, i.e., they used to defecate stool. Production of stool upon eating food is a characteritic phenomenon of human beings. Allah, the Lord does not eat i.e. never produce stool.

Also, the Angels do not eat i.e. never produce stool. All the messengers (Prophets) ate food i.e. produced stool. Jesus used to eat food i.e. produced stool. This means that He was no more than a Messenger and neither God nor Son of God.

All the messengers (Prophets) ate food i.e. produced stool.

Surah 21:7-8

[7] Before thee, also, the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: if ye realise this not, ask of those who possess the Message.

[8] Nor did We give them bodies that ate no food, nor were they exempt from death (nor were they immortals).

Surah 25:20

And the Messengers whom We sent before thee were all (men) who ate food and walked through the streets: We have made some of you as a trial for others: will ye have patience? For Allah is One Who sees (all things).

Jesus used to eat food i.e. produced stool. This means that He was no more than a Messenger and neither God nor Son of God.

Surah 5:75

Al-Masih, the son of Maryam (Jesus), was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

The Quran mentions the stool of the cattle once. The Quran says that the cattle produce their milk from a mixture of the digested food and the blood.

To the best of my knowledge, the Quran is the first book on earth that describes in few words how the milk is produced

Surah 16:66

SHAKIR: and most surely there is a lesson for you in the cattle; we give you to drink of what is in their bellies– from betwixt the feces and the blood– pure milk, easy and agreeable to swallow for those who drink

PICKTHAL: and lo! in the cattle there is a lesson for you. we give you to drink of that which is in their bellies, from betwixt the refuse and the blood, pure milk palatable to the drinkers.

YUSUFALI: and verily in cattle (too) will ye find an instructive sign. from what is within their bodies between excretions and blood, we produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it.

Back to the main topic of my series of articles; this is my question to you smart readers: “Is the Quran quoted from the Bible “?

Dana Smith wonders:


In part one we discussed the rising of these delusions. From the appearance of Aliens, Matreya, and the use of Remote viewing and ESP, these all are either appearing now, or will very soon. Unregenerate Man according to Scripture is a sinner in need of salvation. He is in darkness, and the delusion’s of this age will seduce man to believe them. Scripture also says in the days we live in that the ‘curse has devoured the earth’.

In addition, we also find that heaven is real and hell is the place for the devil and his angels. Within its pages are found life and death, blessings and cursing. Most bible believers take this as the whole truth, which it is. Put in this the groups who are decidedly watching for their own brand of “new age” to appear and compare it with Christians waiting for Jesus Christ. Now the battle begins. Thus those who deny truth of Jesus Christ will believe the delusion that appears. This delusion has no room for traditional biblical beliefs unless those beliefs can be persuaded to co-exist with ungodly behavior. As a result, society becomes a place where those on fire for God meet head on with those who want to pursue darkness. It is even within this definition of “what darkness is” that is debatable to many. For they see that what we have traditionally called wrong as being right. They also see anyone that is opposed to them as being narrow minded. So Believers who stand up for abortion, against homosexuality or fight some other godless thing in society is seen as bigots. It is also a struggle where the church finds the heretical in its own ranks. This is where the Whore church, seen in Revelation 17 (Spiritual Harlotry, woman on the beast) enters into the picture. Thus you have what we have today. A society with no toleration for salvation, holiness, heaven, hell, and the one way of Jesus Christ. Is it any wonder the bible covers this very attitude.

Psalms 2:1 ¶Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

The world wants to break its cords from heaven and the Lord of heaven. They want to do their own thing. That desire will be fulfilled in the last days as the Lord allows the harvest of evil to mature until the crop is fully developed for harvest. Then the Lord of the harvest will send reaper Angels to bring in the harvest of wickedness.

In the battle that is just starting to heat up, those people that many Christians would say are blind to the truth, will actually see. They see things that are very real. Today the ‘Prince of the Power of the air’, Lucifer has seen to that. From the regions of darkness we find false Messiah’s, Alien abduction, spacecrafts, black magic, black miracles, new age teachings, and much more. All of these are real. They come from a real enemy who is given power to deceive. Do aliens exist? For those people abducted, their belief is that aliens do exist. Do you think that Lucifer who has been given the ultimate ticket to deceive from God, could not produce an alien or a spacecraft? This dark force could also make a false messiah appear in the sky and look real. What would your faith say if you saw just such a thing? Say you saw a spacecraft, an alien, or a supernatural figure that works black magic would you believe your eyes? What people don’t know or fully understand is, many powerful deceptions are here already. Also true, is that these same dark forces are at work in America to make this nation the foremost purveyor of the “New World Order”.

So, the deception goes on and on and on. People keep seeing Aliens and they spread the word. People see Maitreya and they spread the word. People see Mary and they spread the word. New age religion spreads the inner gospel of mans own salvation as more believe in their doctrine. Meanwhile, society puts the church out to pasture and those who believe in it.

When all this gets into full swing, the true disciple of evil will appear himself. Lucifer as the ‘son of perdition’ will step onto the world stage. He will bring in the ultimate deception by proving to peoples, tongues, and nations, he is God. He will defame and discredit the God of heaven and his Christ. He will make war with the saints and win. He will cause all people on earth to take his mark. He will rule everyone, everywhere, all the time. The God of heaven will allow this. This is the tribulation. This is the time Christ spoke about. He warned us of this time. This is what the blind will see. God on earth, ruling as God. In essence he will be Lucifer the light bearer, the ‘son of perdition’. Luke 21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

The delusion which everyone will see is almost upon us. What will you believe? Will it be the God of heaven who sent his only Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for your sins, or will you believe what you see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears? For this delusion will be great. You will be deceived if you do not believe in Christ. For you, all these things will be real.

Chanchal Malviya wonders:


Sati Pratha or Simply Sati

A Hindu philosophy of women ness

SATI PRATHA – AS KNOWN TO MODERN WORLD

As far the common understanding about ‘Sati’ goes, it goes as about burning of a widow. The hype of burning women goes with an explanation like this: if the husband dies in an unnatural manner, the widow is forced to be burnt in the funeral if she herself does not accept it. The reasons behind this act as known are also many. One view known is that the woman and man are two bodies but one soul and hence death of one should be result in death of another, which would bring fame to the women for her faithfulness. Another view is that the widow may induce notorious people to go wrong against her. And at many times, it is simply accepted as a part of Hinduism as a traditional practice. I believe that the variance in views exists and signifies that it has nothing to do with religion. And there is a sound reason why I believe so – No where in any authenticated Hindu literature did I find such a rule. I agree, that there had been few occasional instances of such event, but then how did it come on the whole Hindu community – is a questionable point. Such instances of burning widows alive in the name of ‘Sati’ had been sometimes under news coverage too. Though, authenticity of such news as a religious practice or criminal causes was never traced after trial from criminal courts.

It is for sure that such cases were not very prominent in this country. Else, we would have found hundreds of women getting burnt every day. Now, what reasons lied behind those occasional and rare burning cases are under legal investigation arena. The media, newspaper and political forces have always declared them as religious drawback of Hindus. Had that been a religious process, as we have separate Islamic law, criminal offense would not have got registered and trials and punishments would not have taken place. Unfortunately, far more brutal acts are committed in Islam in India, but no law or politics interferes. No media highlights the religious brutalities, if they do not belong to Hinduism. In fact, such acts are actually not religious, as we will see in below sections; they are very rare and pure effect of enmity and individual differences. But, under the influence of Long Leaders, media highlights the events as a part of Hindu beliefs. If these events are not very occasional, if we do not find such events taking place in scriptures of Hindus, we will have to establish the core concept of ‘Sati’ in Hinduism in relation to such sarcastic events.

TRUTH OF ‘SATI’ AND THE ‘PRATHA’

The word ‘Sati’ started as the name of daughter of Raja Daksha, and wife of Lord Shiva. The myth goes like this – Once ‘Sati’ went to attend a ceremonial occasion planned by her father, though uninvited. Unaware of the fact that the occasion was kept for humiliating Sati’s husband Lord Shiva, she went there against the will of her husband, convincing him that going to her parents was her rights. But when she found that her husband was getting abused, she became so angry that she jumped into the flame of burning fire, making her father the guilty of her death. Lord Shiva got angry and destroyed Raja Daksha. How is the above myth related to burning of widow – ‘Sati’ was not a widow when she jumped in the funeral. Thus, such burnings in the name of ‘Sati’ is not at all justified in any way as per Hindu myths. In fact, the myth has manifold message to be analyzed. First, it shows that a ‘Sati’ should not have gone against her husband’s wish, as respecting him, particularly against people who goes to humiliate him, binds her stronger to him. Secondly, she delivered the blood relation a justice, but on the contrary she did not tolerate her husband’s humiliation. At one instance, this does not convey anything meaningful for those highly literate groups who live with the impression that these myths are baseless. But then these learned people should understand that when they undergo modern education like Business Management, they are told stories and puzzles related to Ant and Elephant that looks quite childish at one go, but conveys good management theories, actually practiced in Business world. Hindu myths are at least not based on animals and insects; they are mostly based on humans, Gods, deities and include all creatures around them. The reason such metaphors are of higher standard is purely because it visions a highly cultured society togetherness. How can they be absurd?

In medieval India, during Mughal attacks, Kshatriya women used to commit ‘Jauhar’, something similar to ‘Sati’, out of pure fear of Molestation and Rapes committed by Muslims after victory. Now, if the current literates say that even ‘Jauhar’ was wrong and not the Muslim attitude of molestation, the story ends here. But if not, then ‘Jauhar’ and the ‘Sati Pratha’ hyped today are two different things, for sure.

In both the points above, one myth and another hard reality, a picture of women in Hindu society is revealed, which is overlooked and the focus stills on women getting burnt. Both the points clearly reflect that Hindus have been a society where women were of utmost respect and molestation was as big a criminal offense as murder for the women. Dignity of a woman in Hindu society is directly related to her support to one and only one husband – unlike all other religious cultures where a woman marries one after another depending on her adjustments she or the husband can make with each other. Among Hindus, one-man relation builds so deep a binding between the partners that if one departs it is often hard for the other to resist – particularly for the woman. Kings though used to marry more than one wives, for political reasons mostly in order to either expand the territory through building relationships or provide the territory with more descendants.

However, in modern times none of the above criteria exists. Thus, in one or two cases, woman by herself have committed suicide at the untimely death of her husband. It is to be understood that such seldom events are either termed suicides or murders by Indian law – law that is made hard for around 70% of the population of India comprising of Hindus.

The above understanding of ‘Sati’ is what is known about it, in both positive and negative aspect. But in Hinduism, ‘Sati’ and ‘Pratha’ have a total different understanding than the above knowing. ‘Pratha’ is any practice that is coming from forefathers and is adopted by upcoming generation as well for the known well-impact. ‘Sati’ actually is a very pure word in Hinduism; it represents the purest form of woman; the purity that has tremendous power. The word refers to the natural power of a woman which she develops by the virtue of her truthfulness towards her husband. This truthfulness relates to so many aspects of the women and just not physical relationship. One, her thinking do not go beyond her husband, for the reason she regards the Husband nearly as God. Second, she acts to make sure that her actions in no way cause any damage or insult to her husband in any manner. In case, the woman finds contradicting ideology, she discusses it out with her Husband and her suggestions are greeted, recognized and honored. This still happens in Hindu family, in most of the cases. Instead of understanding the natural realization of women power by Hindus, unnecessary and meaningless conclusions are made about its myth and related to criminal incidences.

THE INDIAN WOMEN

There are many controversial scriptures too available as highlighted by other religions going against the honor of women among Hindus. A scripture from Ramayan goes as:

‘Dhol Gawanr Shudra Pashu Nari, Sakal Tadan ke Adhikari’.

It is to be noted that simply pulling out the word woman (‘Nari’) and declaring that Tulsidas told women are ought to be beaten and scolded (‘Tadan ke Adhikari’) as per Hindu society, would be wrong as the sentence contains many other entities and the context too has to be clarified. We will analyze the whole sentence and try to understand what is meant out of it, in context of the situation in the scripture, and as explained by Hindu saints. The above lines are said by the Sea Deity ‘Samudra’ to Lord Rama. When Lord Rama got angry and took out weapon in order to evaporate the whole sea, the deity appeared and said above lines in context of boundaries that are created by God himself in order to hold his creations. Even sea resides in its boundaries and hence to go across it, Rama supervised the construction of famous Rama Setu Bandh the trace of which exists even today. The metaphors are used to convince the reader that matter or non-matter, ignorant or learned, animal or human, all need to understand the importance of boundaries of nature. The exact meaning of the sentences even out of the context goes as:

Let us understand the literary meaning of ‘Tadana’ first. The word is of abstract meaning and can mean many things. Directly it means scolding or commenting so as to keep the conscience intact. Indirectly, it is considered as a boundary of society or family that holds a member of the family or society within its meaning.

‘Dhol’ means drum – it needs to be beaten, but in boundaries of rhythm to produce beauty of music, otherwise it becomes harsh noise.

‘Gawanr’ means ‘Ignorant and illiterate’ – they need to be held in the observed boundary and controllable limits, or else they would create havoc out of means of livelihood.

‘Shudra’ means ‘Worker classes – they need to be guided so that they do not create mess of their work.

‘Pashu’ means animal – they need to be controlled. ‘Nari’ means ‘Woman’ – they need to be kept in the boundary of culture, as they are more important pillar of a house, society and nation than men.

Thus, the complete sentence means within context of the story, as Drum, Ignorant, Illiterates, Animals and Women are ought to respect boundaries, so the sea also has its boundaries in respect and powers should not be forced to destabilize those boundaries – this is what is told by the deity. I wonder, instead of focusing on the real fact about how miles long bridge was constructed in those days over the sea (the bridge now being proven through the images from NASA and carbon dating for its age), a technology not known to modern world, the critics diverts the focus with wrong meanings to defame Indian values.

‘Sati’, as the myth also relates to women whose thoughts are always positive, whose actions are not doubtful, who regards her husband more than God, and who is purest in her existence. Actually, writers of Hindu text had deep-routed thoughts behind such concept which was never understood at social level in modern world and occasional incidences as an opportunity to political and other religious practitioners were correlated with ‘Sati Pratha’.

Women had been of highest regards in Hindu society. And this was exactly what Swami Vivekanand told when he was asked to differentiate west and east on this ground; he said, ‘In west, every woman other than a mother is a wife. But in India, every woman other than a wife is a mother’. Let the world show one country other than India, one society other than Hindu society that has moral as high as this. Which society would give so high regard to women, when she is called as Goddess Laxmi of the house where she dwells? Women enjoy the position of a deity, in most of the Hindu houses. Correlating the whole culture to few occasional incidences, which are criminal acts, would be absolutely wrong, diverting and intentional towards defaming the highest value society of the world.

Women are the pillars of a house. If they divert towards un-homely acts, it is for sure that collapse of the family would result. Indians believe that naturally, women are created more powerful then men. Men are stronger, but women are more powerful (In Hindu society, women are called ‘Shakti Swaroop’, meaning Goddess of Power). Strength and power are two different aspects. Strength persists in body, while power is a mental attribute. Tolerance capacity of women far exceeds men and it requires mental power to bear stress. Men are weak towards women, and this adds immensely to women’s power.

Women ness in India is a great responsibility. Women are the prestige of any house. People in India become dangerously aggressive if some external man tries to disregard their sister, mother, wife or any relation that belongs to them.

Everything depends on the perception of people and this perception is directly created by education system and social culture in which an individual grows. Honor and respect are a part of such perceptions and self-respect is the highest form of it. It depends on our perception how we want to see towards ourselves. If a woman is sure to find herself as an honorable lady, she has to at all cost maintain her dignity in her actions first. She has to see herself as a respectable woman first. Respect is a boundary and cannot be achieved by breaking through the walls of social culture and natural distinctions. Thus, ‘Sati’ word in Hinduism is an exact replica of such perception where a lady’s self-respect is maintained at highest state.

Unfortunately, the western culture during and after invasion percolated deep, breaking through the Indian beliefs. Culture of self-respect by practice of holding values was abolished under the shroud of English education and western life-style. Perceptions are stronger in framing individuality. Women started believing in their so appearing freedom of existence and lost their self-dignity first by categorizing Indian values as old scraps. What now appears to modern women as a boundary of religious belief is actually an important cultural regard which they are parting from their identity. Indian women were ever free, they only understood additional meaning of her relations with family, before or after marriage, and practiced a very important attribute of life – ‘Adjustment’ which is not found in any destabilized family, society, or nation. And who can deny the depth of this concept. No entity in this world exists without realizing the meaning of Adjustment. Adjustment in simple terms means compromising with one interest in order to realize or let realize another. Thus, Indian women in categorizing Indian values as scrap first compromise in their Originality and adjust to adopt the beliefs of aliens. It is important to understand that I call these as beliefs because there is no laws governing these kinds of life styles and they are framed under perceptions. Indian women are ready to adjust with what has proven to be failure in western society, but not with the responsibilities which has ever proved to be the reason of stability of families in India.

Some people simply thinks that one talking about Indian values and concepts like ‘Sati’ and all are against literacy and relates to blind faith or old faith prevalent in ancient times. They believe the time has changed and accordingly people have to change and hence the adoption of western culture is in process. But there is serious mistake that is committed by such mentalities – they have not understood the fundamental of how cultures in a country develop. First, whether ancient or modern, climatic conditions vary between West and East, particularly Indian climate has a different mixture than the climate variance in western countries. Secondly, geographical conditions hugely vary among the nations. Third, availability of natural resources also varies. There are many more conditions under which cultures are shaped, but these three conditions are enough to understand that the living conditions of creatures are hugely dependent on them. Thus, while in India, we have enough sources of Gold and money was not a necessary criterion of existence, culture developed around knowledge. And hence, if the concept of ‘Sati’ has erupted in Hindu scriptures, it cannot be meaningless, old or scrap. After all, the country has seen families thriving unbroken for thousands of years on same concept, unlike the West where parting is a very common solution. Thus, neglecting with a conclusion that ‘Sati’ is an old word, is not a reasonable answer to criticize it.

In any country, cultural identity of women is her true value. Unfortunately, under the sheet of modern education, women in India no more understands the meaning of ‘Sati’ as she no more holds that power. The true meaning of independence is lost and what is realized is the independence to do all wrong acts. If a woman is asked to respect and regard her elders, it is considered as boundary and conservativeness. If a woman is found to be in complete faith with her husband, she is like a religious lady. What is practiced now in terms of independence is the ability of a woman to murder her values, her dignity, and her identity. For her, freedom now means the opportunity to commit acts that can satisfy her desires. She is now expected to move freely with men other than husband and commit all that suits her desires. The culture to shape correct desires is vanished. The culture to allow fulfillment of extravagant desires now dominates.

If she lives with the belief that her husband is God, the whole community lives with the feeling that every woman is the Goddess. She is the ‘Laxmi’ (Goddess of Wealth and Peace) of her house and her house progresses on her constructive behavior. And we all know respect and regards are not things of demand. Westerners agree to this proverb, but do not practice them at mass level. Hindu society does this with perfection. What regards and respect can be more perfect, complete and greater than the one rendered towards God? At one go, it seems to be men dominated society, but in reality is brings out women with equal domination and respect. It is not that there is no dispute among wife and husbands. But then disputes are meant to be settled by matured people. Diversities are meant to be united. Separation is never a solution. ‘Sati’ was a well proven and adopted preventions culture against Separation.

The law of nature says that which comes easy goes easily, without pain no gain, perseverance is the key to all success, tolerance and patience is the answer to toughest problems. ‘Sati’ is a concept that shapes a woman around such hard ways of making life fruitful. The nature of shaping women is going against this. The so called advancement shrinks the broadened idea of human being social and responsible creature. Advancement might impact our living standards, but it doesn’t impacts our life in any manner. Life is a separate entity and it has nothing to do with this technology advancement. We take birth, we grow and we die is a natural phenomena. Technology has nothing to do with this. Desire is a natural phenomena where a need is created towards satisfaction of some physical or and mental agitation. Fulfillment of desire without being in synch to natural laws, the laws of humanness, the law of women ness, would surely lead to short term pleasure but long term devastation. And this is what is seen in most of the families. Marriages break away so easily. And why not should it break? After all, the meaning of marriage is achieved much before marriage and what remains after marriage is simply a reiteration of formed mechanical behavior. Feeling dies out even before it is established. Faith dies out even before it could be realized. Love dies out even before it could be felt. Husband is no more a unique person, he is another person in contrast to someone in past – better or worse. He becomes comparative and there is not limit to this concept. Naturally, someone is always better than you. If you are the best athlete, you are not the best dancer. If you are the best singer technically, someone would sound sweeter than you. If you are the noblest one, someone is the most beautiful one. Actually, this difference exists in individual perception. Nature has actually created everyone same but every perception is different. So, if a song is the sweetest for me, may be agitating for other. A beautiful face for me may not be that charming for other. Thus, nature has the capacity to create these perception patterns distinctly in every creature. And this is what is balanced in a Hindu society with the concept of ‘Sati’. ‘Sati’ makes a woman live with the perception that her husband is the best and the only one for her. Is this perception wrong or right? Is she actually restricting her thoughts by thinking so? I believe no – the impact of such philosophy is tremendously constructive. She becomes positive in her behavior so strongly that she earns the power to win over Nature and God. Practicing this philosophy is not easy and it requires patience, tolerance, perseverance, love, truthfulness and faith to be in character which defines a woman. Isn’t it thrilling to even imagine that the whole Indian society constituted of such great women.

We need to understand what does a Hindu mean when he says that the Husband is God for a woman. We should not simply declare it absurd. I will try to dig into its rationality. While going through Bhagwad Geeta, I found a different description of God there. The chapter explains the meaning of God acquiring the non-material world. Some of the excerpts of Lord Krishna’s words are, “Of the radiant Sun, I am the luminaries, of the senses I am the mind and intelligence in living beings, I am the quality of best among the best existences. Of the bodies of water, I am the Ocean, of the mountains I am the Meru, of lordly elephants I am Airavata, of men the king. I am the beginning, I am the middle and I am the end. I am the divine attributes of all realizations; there is no end to the particulars of my manifestations.” No where does this tell about any physical shape of God. Hence, it is required to correlate such definitions of God to Hindu aspects. And I found the meaning of a husband God.

For centuries, Hindu societies have seen stable married relations. The stability is long lasting because roots are deeper. A Hindu relation doesn’t exist as a simple human interaction. Most of the worldly relation breaks due to unfaithful behavior executed by partners. Unable to hold upon the senses, partners go beyond relations to unfold more powerful thoughts and actions. And to give this social behavior a respectful place, other religious believers cover it with the color of gender equality. Unlike the concept of equality, a Hindu society realizes the importance of men and women to be different and as defined by nature. For a man, going beyond his wife for unlawful relations is considered as sin and the same for a woman. The sin is the boundary that binds a Hindu family. For a woman, she recognizing her husband as a God binds her to believe that whatever she has got is complete manliness and she is bound in her perceptions to learn practicing complete mental and physical satisfaction. A woman cannot stick to one person, unless she has the highest regard for him. And thus, for a Hindu woman, her husband is the most intelligence person; he is the Meru, the Airavata, the king. He is the beginning and the end. He is everything for her. The definition of God is realized in such regarded relation. And consequently the family persists in stable and satisfied conditions. A women respecting and practicing this concept is considered as a ‘Sati’. This no where means that she should not live if her husband dies? This no where means that she should be burnt with her husband? It is disgusting to understand that such unlawful instances are attached to the high morale of a Hindu.

Swami Satchidanand wonders:


Other explorers of inner truth went still further in their search; and by experiencing the reality of mind and matter within themselves they recognized that diverting the attention from the bad behaviour or Energy Blockage is only running away from the problem.

Escape is no solution: one must face the problem. Whenever a negativity arises in the mind, just observe it, face it. As soon as one starts observing any mental defilement, it begins to lose strength. Slowly it withers away and is uprooted.

This is the case with all weak Energy Blockages, however for very deep and powerful Energy Blockages one must meditate with a Master of Meditation, within his buddhafield. Let the Master do the work!.

Or one must learn very powerful blockage busting techniques like Energy Enhancement. Then, like Alexander the Great, you can learn how to cut the Gordian Knot with your sword of Discernment!

Usually, the necessary solution is a mixture of both being with a Master of Meditation, and learning advanced Blockage Busting techniques yourself. This we do in Energy Enhancement!

Instead of running away from the problem, I am facing reality as it is. Then I shall find that the defilement loses its strength: it can no longer overpower me as it did in the past. If I persist, the defilement eventually disappears altogether, and I remain peaceful and happy.

In this way, the techniques of self-observation shows us reality in its two aspects, inner and outer. Previously, one always looked with open eyes, missing the inner truth. I always looked outside for the cause of my unhappiness; I always blamed and tried to change the reality outside. Being ignorant of the inner reality, I never understood that the cause of suffering lies within, in my own blind reactions toward pleasant and unpleasant sensations.

Now, with training, I can see the other side of the coin. I can be aware of my breathing and also of what is happening inside me. Whatever it is, breath or sensation, I learn just to observe it, without losing the balance of the mind. I stop reacting, stop multiplying my misery. Instead, I allow the defilement to manifest and pass away.

With Advanced Blockage Busting Techniques we go Blockage hunting in Meditation. Simply by using any memory of anger or fear. Simply by going into the timeline when bad things happened to us, we can simply find the Energy Blockages and remove them. As we remove them the negative emotions and bad behaviour never return for that particular Energy Blockage.

The more one practices this technique, the more quickly one will find one will come out of negativity. Gradually the mind becomes freed of the defilements and Energy Blockages; it becomes pure. A pure mind is always full of love–selfless love for all others; full of compassion for the failings and sufferings of others; full of joy at their success and happiness; full of equanimity in the face of any situation.

When one reaches this stage, the entire pattern of one’s life starts changing. It is no longer possible to do anything vocally or physically which will disturb the peace and happiness of others. Instead, the balanced mind not only becomes peaceful in itself, but it helps others also to become peaceful. The atmosphere surrounding such a person will become permeated with peace and harmony, and this will start affecting others too. And help them remove their own Energy Blockages.

By learning to remain balanced in the face of everything one experiences inside, one develops detachment towards all that one encounters in external situations as well. However, this detachment is not escapism or indifference to the problems of the world.

An Energy Enhancement meditator becomes more sensitive to the sufferings of others, and does his utmost to relieve their suffering in whatever way he can–not with any agitation but with a mind full of love, compassion and equanimity. He learns holy indifference–how to be fully committed, fully involved in helping others, while at the same time maintaining the balance of his mind. In this way he remains peaceful and happy, while working for the peace and happiness of others.

This is what the Buddha taught; an art of living. He never established or taught any religion, any ‘ism’. He never instructed his followers to practice any rites or rituals, any blind or empty formalities. Instead, he taught just to observe nature as it is, by observing reality inside. Out of Energy Blockages, one keeps reacting in a way which is harmful to oneself and to others. But when wisdom arises–the wisdom of observing the reality as it is–one come out of this habit of reaction. When one ceases to react blindly, then one is capable of real action–action proceeding from a balanced mind, a mind which sees and understands the truth. Such action or removing Energy Blockages can only be positive, creative, helpful to oneself and to others.

You are an immortal and pure being. Energy Blockages are that which is not you. They are filled with perverted spiritual energy which causes bad actions and negativity.

What is necessary, then, is to ‘know thyself’–advice which every wise person has given. One must know oneself not just at the intellectual level, the level of ideas and theories. Nor does this mean to know just at the emotional or devotional level, simply accepting blindly what one has heard or read.

It needs an Ancient Advanced Synthesis of Effective Techniques for Gaining More Energy – Meditation, Shaktipat, Energy Circulation, The Kundalini Kriyas, The Five Elemental Paths Of The Chi Of Chinese Alchemical Taoism, The Grounding Of Negative Energies, V.I.T.R.I.O.L, The Art Card Of The Thoth Tarot, Access To Kundalini Energy, Strong Psychic Protection, Learn The Merkaba, Pyramid Protection, Power Tower Protection, Create The Antahkarana, Soul Fusion, Monadic Infusion, Logos Infusion. The Painless Removal Of Stress, Trauma And Negative Emotion

However, to remove these sub-personalities completely, the more Advanced techniques of a Synthesis of Ancient Meditational Techniques are absolutely necessary:-

Leading onto the more advanced Techniques of The Karma Clearing Process. Learning how to clean The Karma From Past Lives, Future Life, Future Lifetimes, Integrating Soul Fragmentation And Retrieval of Inner Children, Selfish Ego Sub Personalites, Life Destroying Strategies, The Aloof, The Interrogator, The Violator, The Selfish Competitive Star, The Vamp Or Don Juan, The Pleaser, The Blamer, The Critic, The King, The Self Destructor, All The Destructive Vows From This And Past Lifetimes,.

Which results in The Creation Of Self Love, Love And Service.

Ponder on this…

Harun Yahya wonders:


The November edition of National Geographic magazine (NG) posed the question “Was Darwin Wrong?” on its front cover. Natural scientist David Quammen, author of the article by the same name, replied “No” to that question from his own perspective, and claimed that Darwin’s theory of evolution was today backed up by powerful scientific evidence. Quammen repeated the main claims from Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, but overlooked one important detail.

Darwin added another chapter to his book, one called “Difficulties on Theory,” and openly admitted the existence of difficulties in these terms:

Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory… I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. 1

The fact is, however, that the NG article discussed not one of the phenomena that Darwin regarded as a problem for his theory, and even ignored their existence. For example, although Darwin referred in his book to the way the fossil record failed to back up his theory and to the complexity in the eye, NG magazine did not even touch on such subjects which the theory of evolution is unable to account for as the Cambrian Explosion, biological complexity and the origin of genetic information.

Quammen, who thus appears to be more of a Darwinist than Darwin himself, emerged as the defender not of a theory that can account for difficulties, but of a “dogma” that needs to be shielded from criticism.

In this article, Quammen’s so-called evidence is analysed and the Darwinist propaganda embarked on by NG magazine refuted.

An Example of NG Turkey’s Dogmatic Stance

The English language edition of the NG article “Was Darwin Wrong?” also devoted space to Harun Yahya’s works about the theory of evolution. In the section describing worldwide reactions against evolution the following words appeared in reference to Harun Yahya:

Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls the theory of evolution “nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system.”

Interestingly though, Harun Yahya did not appear in NG’s Turkish version, and this section was altered, assuming the following form: “This unease displays a parallelism among those who support the Islamic idea of creation.”

As someone who states his primary aim as being that of describing the philosophy and scientific invalidity of Darwinism, Harun Yahya has closely monitored Darwinist propaganda in recent years and has responded, in the light of scientific findings, to the pro-evolutionist writings and broadcasts of media organisations, of which NG is one. (see www.darwinism-watch.com)

If Darwinism really were supported by a mass of evidence, as claimed in this NG article, then why is NG Turkey trying to prevent Harun Yahya’s scientific criticisms from being heard? Could it be that NG Turkey was concerned that Darwinism will be unable to withstand such scientific criticism? In fact, this attitude by NG’s Turkey desk not only shows that the magazine is unwilling to inform its readers of the source of effective criticism of evolution, but also confirms the criticism that it is seeking to keep Darwinism on its feet as an ideology.

NG Is Unwilling to Face the Modern Scientific Facts

There can be no doubt that in order to provide a realistic response to the question “Was Darwin Wrong?” one needs to look at what Darwin actually said and to compare this to modern scientific facts. In his book The Origin of Species, in which he unveiled his theory of evolution, Darwin provided a very important criterion by which to test his theory. So concrete is that criterion that in Darwin’s own words it could “absolutely break down” the theory. Darwin wrote:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” 2

Darwin maintained that organs evolved during a gradual process. Thinking of this imaginary process in reverse, it appears that Darwin assumed that these organs possessed reducibility. However, advances made in the field of biochemistry, especially over the last 40 years, have revealed that the cell possesses a superior complexity, the details of which were unknown in Darwin’s time, for which reason it was equated to a “black box,” and that certain structures within the cell actually possess the feature of “irreducible complexity.”

“Irreducible complexity” is a phenomenon based on empirical evidence and literally constitutes the antithesis of Darwin’s theory. The most important figure to bring this concept onto the agenda of the scientific world is the biochemist Michael J. Behe from Lehigh University in the USA. In his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Behe examines the irreducibly complex natures of the cell and certain other biological structures, and reveals that these cannot possibly be accounted for in terms of evolution. Behe sets out the effect that irreducible complexity has on the claims of Darwinism thus:

“To Darwin, the cell was a ‘black box’ — its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin’s test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin’s theory has ‘absolutely broken down’.” 3

Irreducible complexity has demolished Darwinism, and proved that life is the product of intelligent design, in other words that God has created all living things. The way that NG seeks to keep this from its readers constitutes a flight from reality.

NG’s biogeographical tales

In his article in NG, Quammen begins his account of the so-called evidence for Darwinism with biogeography, and it may be of use to provide a description of this concept at this point. Biogeography is a branch of science that investigates the geographical distribution of species and seeks an answer to the question of how they came by these habitat regions by drawing up maps of their locations on the Earth.

Most books in the field of biogeography are full of facts that say nothing, neither in favour nor against, the theory of evolution: such as maps of living species’ habitat areas, the features of those areas, questions regarding the spread of organisms, and the grouping together of species on the basis of geographical area … 4

When their distribution on the Earth is examined it can be seen that species do not generally exhibit a global distribution. Species have rather spread in large groups in areas possessing specific climatic and environmental conditions. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have sought to portray this spread as evidence for evolution, though with regard to the “fundamental” living categories of geographical distribution their efforts have failed to come up with a consistent evolutionary scenario.

In their book Systematics and Biogeography, G. Nelson and N. Platnick of the New York American Museum of Natural History analysed the studies performed in this field and set out their conclusion:

We conclude, therefore, that biogeography (or geographical distribution of organisms) has not been shown to be evidence for or against evolution in any sense. 5

If evolutionists really wish to offer evidence for their theory then what they need to do is to abandon their fairy tales about “if this living thing is found here then it must have evolved here, and if that living thing is found there then it must have evolved there,” and instead scientifically document their own responses to the question of how living things came into being in the first place. (It is an indisputable fact that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the origin of species.)

The fact that evolutionist claims based on biogeography are myths devoid of any scientific evidence clearly emerge on inspection of NG’s claims about palaeontology. The fossil record clearly reveals that the idea that living things spread by evolving is a myth.

NG’s palaeontology deception

NG makes a generalisation about the fossil strata, telling its readers that so-called closely related species are generally found side by side in consecutive strata, and that a life form going back millions of years in one stratum is followed by a similar, though not identical, one in the subsequent stratum. As an example of this generalisation it cites the equine sequence that even evolutionists abandoned years ago; it maintains that the modern-day horse emerged at the end of the sequence Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus and Mohippus, fossils of which are found in consecutive strata.

What NG is doing here consists of a blatant deception. The equine sequence is an unfounded one, the invalidity of which has now been demonstrated. That being the case, putting it forward as a generalisation regarding the fossil record cannot be described as anything else than an attempt to verify that generalisation with a deceptive example.

Life forms emerged with no evolutionary progenitors, but in a single moment, and with flawless bodily structures

Darwin, who maintained that living things emerged through graduated evolution and who hoped that the fossil record to confirm that claim would be obtained in future excavations, was mistaken. The fossils obtained in endless excavations carried out by palaeontologists all over the world have produced findings that openly refute the idea of gradual change in consecutive strata. These facts concern the phenomena of sudden appearance and stasis.

Species emerge suddenly, with no evolutionary progenitors but with flawless bodily structures. In his 1999 book Fossils and Evolution, Tom Kemp, Curator of the Zoological Collections in Oxford University Museum of Natural History, admits this:

In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms. 6

Fossils hundreds of millions of years old that bear no

trace of evolution invalidate neo-Darwinism

Furthermore, species exhibit no gradual change as suggested in the NG generalisation. Species with natural histories of hundreds of millions of years exhibit a “stability” demonstrating a permanency throughout geological strata. The shark, coelacanth, ant, salamander and many other species, fossils of which have been found and which have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, have led to palaeontologists accepting stasis as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record. This phenomenon refutes Darwinism’s prediction of gradual change and invalidates the theory. Professor of Geology Peter J. Williamson describes this in Nature magazine:

The principal problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record. 7

In short, NG’s claim of graduated change throughout geological strata is a myth supported in the face of the science of palaeontology. The way that NG seeks to support that myth with the equine sequence only makes matters worse.

The truth in the equine sequence that NG seeks to conceal from its readers

The equine sequence is based on various hoofed fossils unearthed in North America. Darwinists set these out in such a way as to establish a sequence, according to the fossils’ dental characteristics and numbers of toes, and for years put this forward as evidence for Darwinism. Continuing palaeontological excavations, however, definitively revealed the inconsistencies within that series. NG, known for its blind devotion to Darwinism, has no qualms about concealing this development from its readers and writing that the alleged evolutionary ancestors of the horse follow one another in consecutive geological strata.

Former BBC science editor Gordon Rattray Taylor describes how the equine sequence constitutes no evidence for Darwinism:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change… The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time. 8

At a meeting in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, attended by 150 evolutionists, one speaker, Boyce Rensberger, stated that there was no basis in the fossil record for the scenario of equine evolution, and that no gradual equine evolution ever took place:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. 9

Discoveries that living things included in the imaginary sequence of equine evolution actually lived at the same time, and even together, totally refute Quammen. One of the most striking examples of this came to light in 1981. Fossils of thousands of living things, 10 million years old, that had been buried under lava as the result of a volcanic eruption and whose skeletons had been preserved down to the present day, were dug up in the US state of Nebraska. With that discovery it emerged that three- and single-toed equines assumed to have lived at different periods and to have ancestral relationships with one another in the framework of evolutionists’ imaginary equine sequence, actually lived side by side. Interestingly the source of this information is NG magazine. 10

The myth of whale evolution

I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. 11

From watching bears fishing along a river bank, Darwin set out his ideas on the origin of whales in these words in his book The Origin of Species, though he elected to remove that section from subsequent editions of the book. Yet evolutionists who came after Darwin had no hesitation over adopting this myth, with various minor amendments, that came down as a monument to the unrestricted nature of his imagination. They continued to propagate the myth that the whale evolved not from the bear but from other land mammals, as if this were a scientific fact.

It can now be seen that NG, one of the main representatives of Darwinian mythology, is behaving no differently, and is seeking to portray this great myth, supported for the sake of the dogma of evolution, as representing evidence for evolution.

There are enormous differences, in terms of such basic physiological characteristics as water conservation, sight and communication, between whales and the land mammals alleged to have been their progenitors. Let us now consider the scientific dilemma facing the myth of evolution by examining the design in whales:

The special water conservation design in whales’ bodies

Although they live in water, whales are unable to meet their water requirements from salty sea water. They need fresh water to live. Although it is not known exactly how they meet their water needs, it is thought that a large part of it is obtained by eating sea creatures that contain levels of salt that are 30% lower than those of the ocean water.In such an environment, where fresh water is exceedingly scarce, the maximum conservation of water in living things’ bodies and minimum consumption thereof are critical. Water levels are of great importance to whales, for which reason, just like camels, whales do not perspire. Their kidneys regulate urine concentration in such a way as to supply water.

Why is whale milk fatty?

Another delicate balance with regard to water needs appears in the fat level in the female whale’s milk. The mother whale feeds her young with a very thick milk, of the consistency of cheese. This milk is ten times fattier than human milk. There is a chemical reason why this milk contains such a high level of fat. Water is produced as a side product as fat is processed after being consumed by the baby. In this way the mother meets her offspring’s need for water with minimal water loss.

The design in whales’ eyes

There are complex arrangements in the design of the whale eye and its communication systems, no examples of which are to be found in terrestrial mammals. Land mammals have eyelids to protect against dust and impact. Whales, on the other hand, have a hard layer to protect against a different danger, the pressure under the sea. Moreover, the refractive index in the design of the whale eye makes it possible for a killer whale to leap up and catch a fish six metres above the water level in an amusement park with considerable accuracy. In addition, whales’ eyes are on either side of the head, unlike terrestrial mammals, thus protecting them from the current. Thanks to the levels of rod and cone cells in the eye, their sensitivity levels to light, colour and other details are very high. In addition to that ratio, the presence of phosphorus in the eyes is a design that facilitates their ability to see in the dark depths of the oceans.

The mathematical calculation employed by whales

The sense used by whales in the location of sources of food and of one another is not actually sight, but rather hearing. Many whales hunt at the dark regions at the bottom of the sea thanks to a form of natural “sonar.” The whale’s brain emits clicking sounds, in a way not yet fully understood by scientists. The distance of an object is determined by means of a mathematical calculation. The whale brain multiplies the speed at which the sounds it emits strike an object and bounce back by the time necessary for this, and divides the result by two. The result is the distance of the object from itself. Furthermore, the whale also possesses the ability to focus the sound waves with its brain on a specific point and to emit these like a light impulse. The returning waves are analysed and interpreted in the animal’s brain. This interpretation determines the shape of the body in front of it, its size, speed and position. The animal’s skull is sound-proofed to protect it from the bombardment of powerful sound waves it constantly emits and which could even seriously damage the brain itself. The sonic system in the animal is unbelievably sensitive, so much so that the US Navy imitates the sonar design in sea mammals in developing its own technology. 12

Special designs for whale calves

The perfect designs in whales are by no means limited to these. The shape of a whale calf’s mouth has been designed in such a way as to be ideally suited to fit its mother’s teats, so that the calf is able to suckle without losing a drop of milk and without taking in a drop of sea water. Moreover, they possess lungs capable of storing high levels of oxygen for protracted dives and an ear membrane designed to protect them from high pressure.

These arrangements, every one of which indicates an evident design, are particular to whales and are not to be found in any terrestrial mammal. NG, however, expects it readers to set reason aside and believe that these all came about by chance. NG denies that whales were intelligently designed, maintaining instead that one fine day a land mammal decided to live in the sea, and that the whale evolved as the result of unconscious mechanisms such as random mutations and natural selection.

Yet what mutation could possibly produce sonar in a mammal that was allegedly the progenitor of the whale? Bearing in mind the effect of mutations and the importance of the brain to the whale’s survival, it is clear that mutations would damage the brain, crippling or killing the whale. Could the brain, that produces sound waves, be able to focus these on a particular point and determine the location of objects using a mathematical calculation, acquire a perfect sonar in an area that would be damaged during this random process? By what coincidence could it produce sonar of such a high quality that even the US Navy’s technology development units have been unable to match it? What mutations could turn a land mammal’s feet into fins and a tail capable of propelling several tons of weight?

There is no doubt that these questions may also be asked with regard to the systems that make it possible to use water so productively, the suckling system and the protective systems in the eye and ear. However, NG has no reasonable response to give to these questions. There is but one answer. Whales were created fully formed in a single moment. God created whales to be flawless, endowed with all the systems for their needs, just as He did all other living things. In one verse of the Qur’an it is revealed that:

Mankind! remember God’s blessing to you. Is there any creator other than God providing for you from heaven and earth? There is no god but Him. So how have you been perverted? (Qur’an, 35: 3)

(For a more detailed reply to NG’s fantastical whale story see http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_geographic_sci29.php)

NG’s error regarding embryology

Another error in Quammen’s article in NG is the repetition of a myth once known as the “law of recapitulation.” This belonged to the German biologist Ernst Haeckel and in his claim regarding embryology Darwin was to a large extent “inspired” by Haeckel. The law of recapitulation maintains that the embryological development of living things repeats the imaginary stages undergone during the descent of the alleged evolutionary ancestors.

The fact that Quammen devotes space to this in his article reveals a wide gap of knowledge on his part. Objections along the lines that Haeckel’s claims were devoid of any scientific justification and that the evidence he offered was forged began 136 years ago13, and the end of the law of recapitulation as the subject of scientific debate came as far back as 80 years ago 14. Even George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, admitted this fact 42 years ago in the words:

Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. 15

Moreover, the myth of recapitulation, which NG has no qualms over recapitulating itself, involves what one British embryologist referred to in 1997 as “the best known fraud in the history of biology.” In his book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation), written in 1868, Haeckel deliberately distorted the pictures of human, monkey and dog embryos in such a way as to support his claim.

One striking aspect of this fraud is that it also constitutes a “centennial monument” to Darwinist dogmatism. Until recently, a number of Darwinist sources, including text books, continued either to use the counterfeit drawings as they were, or else to repeat the myth of recapitulation. The Harvard University professor and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould displayed great common sense and offered the following criticism:

… [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks! 16

NG has not used counterfeit drawings. Yet it has no hesitations over using recapitulation, the invalidity of which emerged at least 80 years ago, as support for Darwinism.

We urge NG to consider Stephen Jay Gould’s words.

NG’s errors with regard to morphology

Quammen exhibits a most thought-provoking attitude in that section in which he deals with Darwin’s claims on the subject of morphology. The way that a zoo is organised into birds, monkeys, big cats, crocodiles or fish in the aquarium is interpreted as evidence for evolution. According to Quammen, the fact that living things can be classified under a hierarchical system in families, orders and kingdoms must be the product of an evolutionary process.

However, Quammen’s portrayal of hierarchical classification as evidence for evolution is nonsensical. That is because the fact that forms of life can be classified hierarchically is not a prediction first put forward by evolutionists and then subsequently confirmed. The Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus, the father of the modern system of classification, was a scientist who believed in creation from nothing and regarded that classification as the product of intelligent design. That is compatible with what we see with our own eyes and is grounded in common sense. The ability to be hierarchically classified is a well known hallmark of intelligent design. Means of transport, for example, can be classified as land, air and sea vehicles, and may be broken down into subcategories and even smaller subgroups. Yet this classification does not show that the modes of transport in question came into being through evolution.

Indeed, in an article published in the magazine New Scientist, the prominent evolutionist Mark Ridley makes the following statement:

The simple fact that species can be classified hierarchically into genera, families, and so on, is not an argument for evolution. It is possible to classify any set of objects into a hierarchy whether their variation is evolutionary or not. 17

Quammen’s preconception

In the same way that what Quammen writes on this subject are far from supporting his claim, it also reveals how he relies on preconceptions rather than scientific evidence:

Such a pattern of tiered resemblances?groups of similar species nested within broader groupings, and all descending from a single source?isn’t naturally present among other collections of items. You won’t find anything equivalent if you try to categorize rocks, or musical instruments, or jewelry. Why not? Because rock types and styles of jewelry don’t reflect unbroken descent from common ancestors. Biological diversity does. The number of shared characteristics between any one species and another indicates how recently those two species have diverged from a shared lineage. (p. 13)

Quammen placed the hierarchical categorisation in living things in a separate place, on the grounds that it reflects a continual chain of descent from a common ancestor. That term, however, is helpless labelling in Quammen’s desperate attempts to prove Darwin right.

As is made clear above, there is no fossil record capable of being proposed as evidence of any evolutionary link between living categories. The words of the prominent evolutionary palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould that “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches” are an admission of the fact that there is actually no evidence for the evolutionary links assumed to exist among living things. 18

In short, the origin of the evolutionary chain of descent that Quammen claims exists among living categories is not scientific fact such as the fossil record, but rather his own dogmatic mentality.

The five-digit skeletal structure error

Quammen maintains that the way that various vertebrates such as the bat, the dolphin and human beings all share the feature of having five digits stems from descent from a common ancestor. This claim rests on the fact that although there is the same basic plan in the front and rear legs of the living things in question, these can still be easily differentiated (the homological claim). This claim of Quammen’s can of course only deceive those readers who are unaware of the facts of modern science. Advances in the field of molecular biology definitively invalidate this morphology-based claim. One striking discovery that led to this is that the production of these organs, assumed to be a legacy from a common ancestor, is in fact controlled by different genes in different creatures.

The evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionary thesis concerning pentadactylism (having five digits) in this area in the face of this discovery:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl’ limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down. 19

NG’s vestigial Darwinism

Quammen displays a striking determination not to grasp the fact that Darwin’s claims have been demolished by modern science. One of the indications of this is his repetition of the claim regarding vestigial organs, a claim which is utterly illusory. It is maintained in the article that organs such as the male nipple, structures claimed to be the vestiges of rear legs in certain snakes, or the covered wings in coleoptera that are not actually used, are redundant, functionless organs left over from the evolutionary process. Quammen is clearly ignoring the definitive results from scientific developments:

The list of up to 180 supposed vestigial organs at the beginning of the 20th century eventually shrank to almost none in the face of discoveries from scientific research. One by one it emerged that a great many organs, such as the appendix and the plica semilunaris, once supposed to be vestigial organs, do actually have functions.20 “Science” is in any case the process by which human beings come to know what was previously unknown. The gradual emergence of the functions of organs that were once regarded as vestigial shows that, logically, the functions of the last few remaining organs whose functions are still unknown will soon be revealed.

Indeed, a great many present-day evolutionists have admitted that the myth of “vestigial organs” is an argument rooted in ignorance. In an article headed “Do Vestigial Organs Represent Evidence for Evolution?” published in the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionary biologist S. R. Scadding admits this fact:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution. 21

Evolutionists’ claim on the subject of vestigial organs stem not from any vestigialism in these organs, but from the vestigial nature of their own perspectives. The existence of any living thing proves only the existence of God, its creator. The way that inanimate and unconscious atoms combine to produce a hearing, smelling, touching and seeing human being is proof of God’s flawless creation. That it is because it is impossible for atoms, which cannot smell, hear or see, to wish to have perception and to combine together for that purpose. For a collection of matter to stand and look at itself in front of a mirror, or for matter to taste and touch itself, has no place in evolutionary logic. These feelings can only be explained in terms of a superior creation, in other words the existence of God and His flawless creation. Despite this self-evident truth, evolutionists hold to the irrational and blind belief that they themselves are the product of matter and blind chance, which shows that their claim regarding vestigial organs is one based on this prejudiced and dogmatic perspective.

The realisation that the organs regarded by evolutionists as vestigial do actually have functions is a proof of this. For example, the structures portrayed as the vestiges of rear legs in certain species of snake are now known to help them to grip one another during mating. To regard the male nipple as the product of an evolutionary process also rests on a distorted logic. If the male nipple were a leftover from an evolutionary process then males must have evolved from a population consisting solely of females, which is a scenario so unimaginable that no evolutionist has felt able to accept it. Coleoptera, another example cited by Quammen, also constitute no evidence for evolution. Insect species which do not develop a functional wing are generally seen in open habitats with strong winds, such as ocean islands. In an environment where strong winds blow and surrounded by large masses of water, insects’ being able to fly is by no means an advantage, and may even represent a danger. That is because insects flying in the air are exposed to the effects of the wind and can be hurled into trees or rocks, ending up crippled or dead. There may, therefore, have been a tendency for them to move towards a ground-based lifestyle. Over time, the insect population that lives near the ground comes to consist of individuals that do not develop fully fledged wings. That is because, unlike flying insects, mutations that prevent insects that live near to ground level developing wings may not be damaging to the insect (on the provision that they do not cause a total interruption in its physiology).

A mutation that prevented wing development in a flying insect living in a habitat uninfluenced by winds would be harmful and maybe even lethal. That is because normally an insect that uses its wings to feed and to avoid predators would possess functionless wings because of that mutation and would be unable to survive and thus eliminated from the population.

On the other hand, in insects living in a habitat affected by winds and that used their feet to move about in the same way as non-flying insects, a mutation in the wings might not have lethal consequences. That is because the insect will already have grown accustomed to a life style in which it does not use wings, and it will make no difference whether its wings are healthy or else lose their function due to mutation (as long as the mutation in question is not one that affects the insect’s general physiology). In short, a destructive mutation leading to the loss of an insect’s wings may not be lethal in an environment where wings are in any case of no consequence.

However, it cannot be said that the coleoptera that are assumed to have undergone such a process represent evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that organs gradually assume a more complex form. The genetic change proposed in support of this claim must be of such a kind as to add new genetic information to creatures’ DNA. It is evident, however, that coleoptera do not gain any new genetic information during this process and that, on the contrary, they suffer a loss of information in the genes that control wing development.

Can this acquisition of genetic information, which is not seen in coleoptera, be observed in any other living thing? Definitely not. Evolutionists have been unable to show the emergence of a new organ, or even a new protein, by means of random mutations.

In short, the theory of evolution maintains that living things acquire new organs with the addition of new genetic information to their DNA, but the vestigial organ argument is one that concerns a loss of function, in other words a loss of genetic data. Therefore, vestigial organs provide no scientific support for the theory of evolution. The reason for evolutionists’ determination to place this claim on the scientific agenda is psychological rather than scientific. Their display of blind devotion to materialism leads them to adopt a vestigial perspective towards the evident truth of creation. (You can read Harun Yahya’s article that demolishes evolutionists’ vestigial viewpoint here. http://www.darwinism-watch.com/hurriyet_science0407.php)

James P. Gills, M.D., founder of St. Luke’s Cataract and Laser Institute in Tarpon Springs, Florida, is a creationist scientist. He is also a world-renowned ophthalmologist. In his book Darwinism Under the Microscope, Gills cites a great many proofs of creation that totally undermine evolution, and writes that the only reason why scientists still insist on evolution is the spiritual cataract of thinking of themselves as the product of blind chance. 22

The error of thinking that resistance to antibiotics and DDT is evidence of evolution

The NG article seeks to show that bacterial immunity to antibiotics and insects’ resistance to such pesticides as DDT constitutes evidence for evolution. On the subject of the resistance that microbes appear to develop to drugs Quammen confidently states:

There’s no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs. (p. 21)

However, Quammen’s excitement in portraying bacterial immunity as evidence for evolution is totally misplaced. It is explained below why these two phenomena do not represent evidence for Darwinism.

The first of the “deadly molecules” employed against micro-organisms was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming discovered a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus mould bacterium, after which antibiotics taken from micro-organisms were used against various bacteria. Although it appeared at first that definitive results had been obtained, the truth later emerged: bacteria gradually acquire resistance to antibiotics. The great majority of bacteria exposed to antibiotics die, but since a small minority remain unaffected this rapidly multiply and eventually come to constitute the entire population. Thus the entire population becomes resistant to the antibiotic.

However, there is no question of bacteria developing through mutation here, because the bacteria already possess the characteristics in question before being exposed to antibiotics. Despite being an evolutionist publication, Scientific American magazine admitted these facts in its March 1998 edition:

Many bacteria possessed resistance genes even before commercial antibiotics came into use. Scientists do not know exactly why these genes evolved and were maintained. 23

Insects acquire resistance to pesticides such as DDT in the same way, and, again in the same way, this represents no evidence for evolution.

The prominent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala accepts the truth of this in the words:

The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds. 24

One of those to carry out the most detailed research on this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner. In his book Not by Chance, published in 1997, Spetner showed that bacterial immunity is brought about by two different mechanisms, but that these offer no support for the theory of evolution. For more detail on this subject see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions05.php#q19 and http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html)

Another so-called piece of evidence in the NG article, in addition to the resistance in bacteria and insects, concerns genetic similarities.

The deception that evolution can be observed

NG claims that evolution can actually be witnessed in nature and in the laboratory. This, however, is a fantastical and groundless claim. In an article titled “How Are New Species Formed?” published in the 14 June, 2003, edition of New Scientist, George Turner made the following significant “admission”:

Not long ago, we thought we knew how species formed. We believed that the process almost always started with complete isolation of populations. It often occurred after a population had gone through a severe “genetic bottleneck,” as might happen after a pregnant female was swept off to a remote island and her offspring mated with each other. The beauty of this so-called “founder effect” model was that it could be tested in the lab. In reality, it just didn’t hold up. Despite evolutionary biologists’ best efforts, nobody has even got close to creating a new species from a founder population. What’s more, as far as we know, no new species has formed as a result of humans releasing small numbers of organisms into alien environments. 25

As we have seen, evolutionists do not actually know how new species are formed. In other words, Quammen’s claim about being able to witness evolution in action is totally unfounded. The fact that the long years of study carried out by the Grants into chaffinch beak lengths on the Galapagos islands is cited in support is the result of Darwinism misrepresenting variations to represent evidence for itself. (For further information, see http://www.harunyahya.com/nas04.php)

Conclusion

As we have seen, Darwin was wrong. National Geographic’s posing the question whether he was wrong is as ridiculous as asking “Was Freud wrong?” or “Was Marx wrong?” That is because, like Freudianism and Marxism, Darwinism is a theory that has come to the end of its life. We call upon NG magazine to abandon its support for this outdated myth and to accept that creation is the true origin of life.

What NG needs to do is to set its preconceptions to one side and cease supporting Darwinism as a dogma, and to face up to the scientific evidence that undermines this theory. Discoveries in the last 40 years in particular have definitively revealed the invalidity of the naturalist philosophy at the heart of Darwinism. If NG does face up to that fact it will see that the organised complexity of life and the genetic information on which it depends point to intelligent design, in other words that life did not evolve on its own through chance and natural events, but was “created.”

NG – and all other Darwinists – have so far avoided facing up to this, and may therefore have resorted to covering up the difficulties facing their theory. Yet they must be aware that this avoidance will be of no use in keeping their theory alive. That is because a major development in the world of science is serving notice that the age of sweeping matters under the carpet has come to an end.

The way that the intelligent design movement, that has been sweeping through the USA over the last 10 years, has one by one unmasked the dogmas of Darwinism, has made it the focus of wide interest. The intellectual basis of this movement is the “Theory of Intelligent Design.” The theory in question maintains that complex biological structures containing large amounts of information can only be explained in terms of intelligence-based causes, and that these causes can be empirically studied in the field of biology. 26

One indication that the intelligent design movement may represent the dynamic for major cultural changes is the way it is effectively and in a widespread manner revealing that the evidence for so long taught as evidence for Darwinism in schools actually consists of mythology, deception, misrepresentation and even fraud. California Berkeley University’s Professor Phillip E. Johnson, the leader of the movement, stresses that Darwinism will pass into the dustbin of history sometime in this century. 27

It will be of use here to remind NG of the damage from a determined persistence in its policy of uncritical defence of Darwinism. It will be remembered that NG announced the discovery of the Archaeoraptor fossil discovered in China as definitive proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs, without waiting for it to be described in referred scientific journals. Later, however, it was realised that the fossil did not represent a missing link at all, but was a counterfeit “produced” by a Chinese peasant.26 Because of its blind devotion to Darwinism NG had no hesitation in embracing this fossil as “proof” by unscientific methods, and later found itself in “modern paleontology’s greatest embarrassment.” 29

According to the ornithologist Dr. Storrs Olson, “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” 30

The portrayal of the claim of recapitulation, which died at least 80 years ago, as evidence for evolution in NG’s article “Was Darwin Wrong” shows that it is devoid of the seriousness required by science and is continuing with its “unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” NG is not behaving intelligently. Maintaining this approach does not provide any support for Darwinism. On the contrary, NG is documenting its own dogmatism in an ever more obvious way.

We invite NG to consider these points and to accept that creation is the true origin of life.

There is no doubt that the Lord of all living things, on Earth, in the Sky, and between, is God. In one verse of the Qur’an God reveals that:

Your God is One God. There is no god but Him, the All-Merciful, the Most Merciful. (Qur’an, 2: 163)

Under the pen name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free of charge, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library.

2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.

3. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 1996

4. For more information about the evolutionist theses on biogeography, please see Walter J. Remine, “The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory”, Saint Paul Science; 1st ed edition, 1993. page 538.

5. G. Nelson & N. Platnick, Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance, Columbia University Press, 1981, p. 223.

6. Fossils and Evolution, Dr TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246.

7. Peter G. Williamson, “Morphological stasis and developmental constraint: real problems for neo-Darwinism,” Nature, vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214; Stephen E. Jones, http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/

8. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230.

9. Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.

10. Voorhies M.R., “Ancient Ashfall Creates a Pompei of Prehistoric Animals,” National Geographic, Vol. 159, No. 1, January 1981, pp.67-68,74 ; “Horse Find Defies Evolution” Creation Ex Nihilo 5(3):15, January 1983, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3723.asp

11. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.

12. Spotting Mines With Dolphin Sonar , ScienceNOW 1998: 2

13 L. Rutimeyer, “Referate,” Archiv fur Anthropologie, 1868

14 Keith S. Thompson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated”, American Scientist, vol. 76, May / June 1988, p. 273

15 G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace and World, New York, 1965, p. 241.

16 Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich! – Atrocious! – the precursor to the theory of natural selection,” Natural History, March 2000, p. 45.

17 Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90 (25 June 1981), p. 832.

18 Gould S.J, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, May 1977, p. 13-14.

19 William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1984, p. 189.

20 J. Bergman & G. Howe, Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, CRS Books, Terre Haute, IN, 1990.

21 S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?,” Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.

22 James P.Gills, M.D. & Thomas Woodward, Ph.D., Darwinism under the Microscope, Charisma House, 2002, p. 39.

23 Stuart B. Levy, “The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance,” Scientific American, March 1998, p. 35

24 Francisco J.Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239, September 1978, p. 64

25 George Turner, “How Are New Species Formed?,” New Scientist, vol. 178, issue 2399, 14 June 2003, p. 36

26 http://www.arn.org , http://www.discovery.org/csc/

27 Phillip E. Johnson, “Mothballed Science,” Touchstone Magazine, December 2003

28 For more information about Archaeoraptor forgery, please see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions03.php#q7

29 Tim Friend, “The ‘missing link’ fossil that wasn’t”, USA Today, 02/01/2000

30 Open Letter to National Geographic Society by Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

Terry Dashner wonders:


Days ahead…

Terry Dashner….Faith Fellowship Church PO Box 1586 Broken Arrow, OK 74013

A hunting accident in 1858 blinded a young Englishman, leaving him depressed and despondent. Letters from friends did not help much, for they mostly urged him to be resigned to the will of Providence. But one letter was different. It came from a former tutor of the 25-year-old man and said, “It will be your own fault if this trouble does not bring with it some alleviation. The evil that has fallen on you will lose half its terrors if regarded steadfastly in the face with determination to subdue it as far as may be possible.”

The letter continued with practical suggestions for study and plans for the future. It was the right challenge. Called on to accept his misfortune and make the best of it, Henry Fawcett became a professor at Cambridge University and later England’s postmaster general.

Our world is changing before our very eyes. Some of the changes are good—liberating Iraq from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, the world communities coming together to aid the victims of natural disasters worldwide, continuing advancements in science and medicine for the good of mankind, and many more. On the other hand, some of the changes are sobering, to say the least.

Current reports coming out of Asia are that China is getting ready to move against the United States for Taiwan. Nuclear strikes are probable in the noted scenario. Iran is about five years away from nuclear weapons. The Middle East is in turmoil. Israel is giving up occupied land in the Gaza. The Palestinians are claiming victory over Israel through years of jihad by suicide bombings and are steps closer to a Palestinian state. Weather patterns continue to alarm scientists worldwide and populated areas are being destroyed with its people displaced abroad. Truly these are trying times.

As Christians how should we interpret the signs of the times? Although we are Christian, that does not mean we are exempt from alarm and despair; nevertheless, we need not submit to the calamity and despair. Jesus told us over 2000 years ago (Matthew 24; Mark 13; and etc.) that troubling times would come worldwide. He told us that although the earth will shake and the heavens would fall, we are not to fear but rejoice because His coming is nigh. When calamity comes, we can do one of two things. We can fear and submit to the disaster around us. Or we can trust God all the more and do the Father’s business of serving our fellowman.

These days the Christian should stand head and shoulders above by stooping to serve everyone in need. This should be our “finest hour.” In the midst of darkness all around us, we should shine all the brighter because the light of Jesus Christ shines through us.

Keep the faith. Stay the course. Jesus is coming soon.

Pastor T.

Ernie Fitzpatrick wonders:


I have always thought of myself as a FAIR person. I’ve known fewer people who are quick to forgive as I. And when it comes to giving mercy, I always want to give it because I know that I need it. And yet I wonder just how valid my assessments are after discovering how judgmental I’ve been when I thought I wasn’t. Self deception is scary!

Being a parent to a couple of children is one of the wake up calls.

You think that you’re being as fair and open as possible with your first child until you have the second.

You think you’re being free (smart and spiritual) and open, allowing that second child to experience life until you have the third child. And you think that you’re an exhorter and encourager until you have the fourth, and so on. I’ve more or less “lightened up” on each child. Our fifth child has had the best go of life.

There are so many religious fundamentalists that in no way see themselves as judgmental or opinionated. They simply see the Bible as a Word sraight from the mind and pen of God and so therefore they are only upholding what is TRUTH. They are just following the RIGHT behavior. I was once there. Every word in the Bible was true. To question the Bible was tantamount to heresy.

It all seemed so simple then!

And then I faced the real truth- about myself and the Bible. The winds of change are blowing.

Bibliolatry and self deception are such subtle and yet so very dangerous concepts, but once you come to the real TRUTH about the Bible, once you let other people in to your life with their views, once you begin to CARE about what other people think and have to say, a new world opens up miraculously.

Words alone are not enough!

We are all at different places in life and however wrong our approach, most are seriously seeking God. I like the way Donald McCullough put it. “But whether you’re waving arms with Pentecostals or burning incense with Catholics or sitting property wioth Presbyterians, whether you’re meditating to find enlightenment or praying towards Mecca, whether you’re communing with nature or chanting in the light of a full moon- whatever form you religious practice takes- you probably want to be on speaking terms with the divine, to feel that between you and God things are okay, to sense that you have in some way touched the mysterious forces of life or been touched by them.”

And when you do, the blinders begin to fall off!