The Delusion that Harun Yahya’s scientific claims are met with lampoon in the West

 

New Humanist seems to be in trouble probably due to the extraordinary, real and scientific evidence submitted by Mr. Adnan Oktar to Darwinism. Indeed, due to this trouble the magazine made a very interesting comment and claimed that Mr. Oktar’s claims are met with lampoon in the West. Yet the editorial board in question very well knows that Mr. Oktar provides precise and concrete evidence against Darwinism which is a theory that thoroughly lacks any evidence. Indeed for this very reason he is the one Creationist author whose views are most respected all around the world. Readers worldwide enjoy his books which are also downloaded in ample amounts on the Internet.
European Darwinist publications, France being the foremost, consider Mr. Oktar’s works as a great threat against the theory of evolution and comment on the impact of Atlas of Creation upon Europe with expressions of despair. (For detailed information please see: http://darwinistpanicinfrance.com/index.php) This is no doubt the reason why Atlas of Creation was banned from the curriculum by the European Council. Aware of the profound effect of Atlas of Creation upon pupils, Darwinist centers strove to hinder the access of this precious work into schools. Consequently the situation is far more different from how it is depicted by New Humanist. The major reason of the Darwinist panic taking place in the world today is the works of Mr. Oktar which have great worldwide impact. New Humanist is totally aware of it.

News of Harun Yahya that Appeared in the World Press

The Atheist Ideology of New Humanist Magazine

The verdict to ban Dawkins' site

The claim regarding the caddisfly: Dawkins highlighted the photograph of caddisfly in Adnan Oktar’s opus, Atlas of Creation as a great discovery.  However this is the photograph of a model particularly put by the author in the book. Whether the photograph is of a model or not does not change the fact that this living being is still alive in our day. Desperate, speechless and bored in the face of the extraordinary evidences of Creation in the Atlas of Creation that invalidate evolution, Dawkins takes every opportunity to express this photograph of a model particularly put by the author in his book as a great discovery. By this attitude Dawkins, in fact, reveals the pathetic situation in which Darwinism finds itself. Caddisfly lives in our time with the same appearance its millions of years old fossil has. That is, it has not undergone any change. That is why Dawkins feels offended.  You can read detailed information here:

The claim regarding the ban on Dawkins' Internet site:
Judicial authorities’ decision to ban Dawkins’ site is not related to the personal claims Dawkins expressed in his site. It is evident that Dawkins expressed these claims in a spirit of panic, out of the pitiful situation resulting from the collapse of Darwinism. The official verdict of the ban taken by the Court is due to the libelous comments made against the author. Mr. Adnan Oktar’s attorneys warned the administrators of the site about these comments, but because these warnings were not taken into consideration and the necessary precautions were not taken, there existed no way other than litigating. In the face of libelous words, Turkish courts found the demand justified and banned the site. Consequently the verdict of the ban of Dawkins’ site is an official one given by the judges in the face of explicit evidence. Surely nobody has the right to insult any other person by any means. The verdict in question is an extremely important and necessary decision that protects the rights of all people and is taken for this purpose.

Claims regarding the plots against Mr. Adnan Oktar

Claims of schizophrenia about Mr. Adnan Oktar are baseless: Mr. Adnan Oktar has been subjected to many plots since he has been giving a very comprehensive and strong ideological struggle worldwide against atheist, Darwinist, materialist, communist and masonic centers. One of them is the alleged “schizophrenia diagnosis”, which was annulled when it was proved to be a groundless plot by the related institutions. Mr. Adnan Oktar was held in mental hospital among the most serious mental patients for 10 months without any justification only because of the unease his book Judaism and Freemasonry caused in some certain centers. He was further held in a cell in prison for 9 months. This method of dissuasion employed to put an end to Mr. Oktar’s activities continued for around 19 months through various forms of torture and difficulties. But then this diagnosis made out of a plot to Mr. Oktar was annulled by the military hospital and he was reported to be “spiritually and physically well.” The report in question was also approved by the Supreme Specialty Council.  
During the period Mr. Oktar was held in the mental hospital some Darwinist press organs frequently voiced this subject and often published writings against Mr. Oktar. However, when the military hospital annulled the report against Adnan Oktar, these press organs never mentioned a word about the military hospital’s report verifying Mr. Oktar’s physical and spiritual well-being. Similarly New Humanist still employs this devious tactic and only mentions the fake report and never mentions the fact that it is annulled. (You can see Mr. Oktar’s explanations here.)
The “alleged Crime-Organization” Claims against Mr. Adnan Oktar are baseless:
The court verdict against Mr. Adnan Oktar and some SRF members is still in the process of the Supreme Court of Appeals. Yet there exists an important point to stress here; the Court verdict is based on judicially invalid testimonies taken in the police station under duress in the absence of attorneys.
The legal errors occurring during the trial of the case were gathered under 70 articles which are submitted to the Supreme Court and European Human Rights Court. Indeed, the prosecutor of the Court related with the SRF case applied for appeal for the verdict of penalty due to the absence of evidence against the defendants and the mispleads of the Court. We have full respect for the verdict of the Court but for the case, which includes no elements of crime, our expectation is the reversal of the verdict by the Supreme Court.
You can read more details about this issue here, here and here.

The Collapse of Darwinism caused Panic at New Humanist

The groundlessness of the claims regarding Ebru Simsek

Several court rulings definitively established that Ebru Simsek’s allegations against Mr. Adnan Oktar and the SRF circle were all slanders. But New Humanist magazine never mentioned the rulings in question, presenting all of Ebru Simsek’s claims as if they were true fact. This is an example of a most familiar psychological warfare method conducted by masons, atheists and Darwinists. 
Judicial rulings showing that all of Ebru Simsek’s claims are slanders:

1. The Chief Prosecutor’s Office’s considered acquittal opinion showing that Ebru Simsek’s allegations in Case No. 2006/26, an extension of the SRF case, were slanders and the VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL No. 2007/7 dated 22.01.2007 by the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court.
2. The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION of Ebru Simsek's fantastical claims (in 1999) under ruling No. 96/9848 Hz – 99/8409 K. dated 12.08.1999. 
3. The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION No. 05/27549 Hz. - 05/12003 K. dated 18.10.2005.
4. The Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/60013 Hz. - 02/18838 K. dated 31.12.2002 and the Beyoglu 3rd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/458 Mut. dated 28.04.2003 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
5. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/39606 Hz. - 03/8860 K. dated 30.06.2003 and the Beyoglu 2nd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/333 Mut. dated 03.10.2003 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
6. The Bagcilar Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/21669 Hz. - 03/6120 K. dated 15.10.2003 and the Eyup 2nd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/894 D.Is. dated 02.01.2004 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
7. The Uskudar Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 04/7693 Hz. - 04/4749 K. dated 01.07.2004 and the Kadikoy 2nd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 04/437 Mut. dated 09.09.2004 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
8. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 05/51724 Hz. – 06/2432 K. dated 27.03.2006.
9. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 05/51725 Hz.
10. Following the known images of Ebru Simsek in the press, an Istanbul University Medical School Department of Forensic Medicine expert carried out an inquiry in which IT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER REPORT No. 2005/127765 dated 21.10.2005 that Ebru Simsek’s claims were merely slanders.
11. Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court had the home in the allegations of Ebru Simsek and the home in the images examined by an official expert, accompanied by the court judges. This expert report revealed that THE HOME IN THE IMAGES DEFINITELY DID NOT BELONG TO THE SRF MEMBER.
12. Filiz Karatas, who shared a house with Ebru Simsek at the time she began issuing slanders against the SRF members, gave a witness statement to the court in Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court file No. 04/337 E. on 09.12.2004 and said that the SRF members were uninvolved in the matter and THAT THEY HAD ISSUED THIS IMAGINARY ALLEGATION TOGETHER TO SLANDER THE SRF.
13. Ten separate criminal complaints brought by those slandered by Ebru Simsek were examined by 10 different Public Prosecutors from different offices; these prosecutors concluded, as a result of their investigations, that Ebru Simsek’s claims were slanderous.

Baselessness of libels having sexual content against Mr. Adnan Oktar and his friends

New Humanist, an atheist and Darwinist magazine, amazingly cites some disproved claims against Mr. Adnan Oktar and thus becomes a part of an anti-propaganda. The line of the magazine in question, which is an atheist and Darwinist publication, clearly reveals its biased attitudes in its claims against Mr. Adnan Oktar. Like all atheist, Darwinist publications, this magazine also appears to be severely annoyed by the strong anti-Darwinist activities.
Libels with sexual content against Adnan Oktar and Science Research Foundation (SRF) have always been an important indicator of the unease felt by Darwinists. Whenever atheist and Darwinist parties sense their defeat, they lose no time resorting to libels having sexual content, which is the most delicate subject of the society. Consequently it is not surprising that such claims were revealed in New Humanist magazine. For the claim in question to be accepted, there should primarily be a complainant, an aggrieved party and a witness. Yet, for the claim in question to be accepted as true, there exists not a single witness, complainant or an aggrieved party. Furthermore, it is legally proven that the claim of hidden cameras referred to in New Humanist has no validity whatsoever. The verdicts of acquittal and dismissal of proceedings given by the Courts and public prosecutors totally disprove this claim. Indeed there exists not a single video camera or a recording that would verify this claim.
Tugce Doras and Seckin Piriler, two people New Humanist tries to show as witnesses, are the people who had to sign the testimonies put in front of them under duress in the police station. These people then stated that they were subjected to pressure in the police station and thus refused to accept their testimonies in police station. Furthermore, they declared before the judge that they do not accept their testimonies since they were subjected to pressure in the police station. They further added that they had not been oppressed or harmed either by Adnan Oktar or anyone from this community, and that there exists not an interest with sexual-content as claimed in question. The statements in question are available in court minutes. You can reach related detailed information and documents from here.
The claims stated here are based on the testimonies signed under duress and torture by all SRF members tried and taken under custody as a result of the plots hatched by the alleged Ergenekon terror organization in 1999. According to the law, police testimonies signed under torture and in the absence of advocates are utterly invalid. However, based on the invalid testimonies taken by police, the Court imposed a penalty on the SRF case. These testimonies illegally considered by the Court as a basis for the verdict, the very same explanations, are repeated in the New Humanist and presented to the readers as if they have any actuality.

Baselessness of claims against SRF families

The claims brought by New Humanist regarding SRF members’ attitude toward their families are based on atrocious slanders. Only 4-5 families whose names are included in the evidence files known to be supported by masonic centers and the alleged Ergenekon terror organization members voiced the slanders produced by this alleged terror organization through various speculations. They tried to affect the judgment and carried out a negative propaganda against the SRF community. In order to see the respect and love of SRF members to their families, one should consider the convictions of HUNDREDS of families who explicitly express their views and love for Mr. Adnan Oktar and SRF community rather than a mere 4-5 families supported by the alleged Ergenekon terror organization. Hundreds of families express their gladness about how Mr. Adnan Oktar brought up their children as faithful individuals with moral perfection and state that their children are their greatest supporters and helpers in times of hardship and sickness. You can watch their personal views and the press conference held by these families here.
The claim that families provide money to the community is another consequence of the provocation carried out by people from the alleged organization. This claim, which is asserted to, in their own way, affect the Court and cause indignation in public, has not even a single solid evidence. This claim is utterly disproved by the testimonies before the Court given by 4 people whose names are mentioned in the SRF case indictment. There is neither a witness, nor a complainant or an aggrieved party about this subject.
Furthermore members of the SRF community are made up of 40-45 years old, married people who have regular family and business lives. Each of them are the graduates of prominent Turkish and foreign universities who have quite successful business lives. This claim made against them is, first of all, not becoming to their personalities. This aside, it is also extremely baseless when their financial situations are considered.
Besides, as can also be understood from the statements of the families, these families receive financial contribution from their children. As a requisite of our religion all members of SRF circle consider their families as holy and show great respect and love to them. Consequently such claims are utterly unreal and are based on indecent speculations.