Richard Dawkins, a most ardent supporter of Darwinism, has long accounted for the perfect creation of the universe in terms of the theory of evolution, which has lately suffered a global collapse. In his recent writings and interviews, however, Dawkins has started to express that "life cannot form by chance." It is an absence of sense and reason to support evolution on one hand and to state that life cannot come about by chance on the other. That is due to the fact that according to the theory of evolution, which Dawkins supports, the existence of life is based on entirely random coincidences.
 
Dawkins has realized that he can get nowhere with the scenario of chance. But, he is now in the logical impasse as he basically claims that "evolution cannot be a result of coincidences, but has occurred by means of coincidences." What he should realize is that demagogy no longer works.

If Dawkins sincerely believes in this theory, we'd like to invite him to Turkey, or else we could come to UK to have a discussion. Dawkins should clarify hundreds of questions, only a few of which are listed below, before the cameras. So we, as well as the public, will be able to hear what he has to say. Obviously, it's no good to engage in unilateral programs. Moreover, with such an attitude Dawkins only deceives himself. Let us send the first 4 volumes of Atlas of Creation to Mr. Dawkins, and let him examine the photographs of the fossils therein which have not changed at all over the hundreds of millions of years. And let him account for them in evolutionary terms according to his much-publicized logic—if he can!
 

1. Archeological researches unearthed over a hundred million fossils, proving that life forms were created out of nothing. Still, there is not a single transitional fossil supporting the theory of evolution. If Dawkins is sincere in his claim, he should bring a transitional fossil and announce it to the public as "a transitional form!"
2. The odds against a functional protein emerging randomly is 10⁹⁵⁰ to 1—a practical impossibility. (In mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10⁵⁰ are accepted as "zero probability.") If Dawkins is honest, he should point at a mass of proteins that formed by chance or by means of the methods he espouses. Let Dawkins explain us how he can account for the origin of life in evolutionary terms, when even a single protein—the building block of life—cannot form by chance!
3. Let Dawkins explain us how all colorful, lively, three-dimensional and perfectly clear images, shortly life itself, can form in the pitch dark human brain and who sees this image in the brain!
4. Let Dawkins explain us in evolutionary terms how conversations, music and all other sounds form in the sound-isolated brain; who listens to and enjoys these sounds, who knows their meaning, who reflects on them consciously and who answers back these sounds!

Let Dawkins ask the same questions to us, and let us give our answers. Let us supply our evidence, and let him bring his—if he has any. Then let the public decide who is right. We want the public to know on a larger scale how Darwinism is a false theory and how it is the greatest deception of the world's history. We are confident that the days are soon to come when people will laugh, asking themselves "How could we ever believe this theory?" In near future, people will be wondering with amazement how they could ever have been taken in by it. In fact, this is already occurring, at an ever-increasing momentum. World-wide polls reveal statistical data proving this state of affairs.    

Darwinism, tried to be kept alive by engaging in demagogy and propaganda, has been refuted in all spheres and it is now widely recognized that it's no longer possible to defend Darwinism by demagogy. Dawkins' recent statement along the logic that "evolution cannot be a result of coincidences, but has occurred by means of coincidences" is nothing but a laughable misery of reason.

As you can see in the above movie, unable to provide a reasonable answer, Richard Dawkins paused a long time when asked to "give an example of a beneficial mutation."

If he answers (!) our above questions in the same way as he did in this interview, then our questions will remain unanswered. Therefore, we expect him to give reasonable, clear answers based on evidence, and hope he will accept our invitation.