|
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION: A MATERIALISTIC LIABILITY
The information we have presented throughout this book shows us that
the theory of evolution has no scientific basis and that, on the contrary,
the claims of evolution manifestly conflict with scientific discoveries.
In other words, the power that sustains evolution is not science. Evolution
can be defended by some "scientists", but there must be another fundamental
agent at work.
That other agent is materialist philosophy.
So the question becomes one of whether the materialist point of view
is correct. A method of testing whether a philosophy is true or false
is to investigate the claims of that philosophy, which are related to
science by using scientific methods. For instance, a philosopher in the
10th century could claim that there was a divine tree on the surface of
the moon and that all living things actually grew on the branches of this
huge tree like fruits and then fell on to earth. Some people might find
this philosophy attractive and believe in it. But in the 20th century,
at a time when people have managed to walk on the moon, it is not possible
to put forward such a philosophy. Whether such a tree exists there or
not can be determined by scientific methods, that is, by observation and
experiment.
We can therefore investigate by means of scientific methods the materialist
claim: that is, that matter has existed for all eternity and that this
matter can organise itself without a super-material Creator and cause
life to begin. When we do this, we see that materialism has already collapsed,
because the idea that matter has always existed since eternity has
been overthrown by the Big Bang theory which shows that universe was created
from nothingness. The claim that matter organised itself and brought
about life is the claim that we call "the theory of evolution"-the one
that this book has been examining and has also shown to have collapsed.
|
DARWINISM AND MATERIALISM
|
Charles Darwin |
Karl Marx |
Leon Trotsky |
The only reason that Darwin's
theory is still defendend despite its obvious refutation by science
is the close link between that theory and materialism. Darwin applied
materialist philosophy to the natural sciences and advocates of
this philosophy, Marksists being foremost among them, go on defending
Darwinism no matter what.
One of the most famous contemporary
champions of the theory of evolution, the biologist Douglas Futuyma,
wrote: "Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history"...
Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform
of mechanism and materialism." This is a very clear admission
of why the theory of evolution is really so important to its defenders.1
Another famous evolutionist, the paleanthologist Stephen
J. Gould said: "Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of
materialism to his interpretation of nature".2
Leon Trotsky, one of the masterminds of the Russian
Communist Revolution along with Lenin, commented:"The discovery
by Darwin was the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole
field of organic matter.".3
However science has shown that Darwinism was not a victory
for materialism but rather a sign of that philosophy's overthrow.
________________________________________
1 Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd
ed., Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1986, p.3
2 Alan Woods and Ted Grant."Marxism and Darwinism", Reason
in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, London, 1993
3 Alan Woods and Ted Grant."Markism and Darwinism" London,
1993
|
However, if one is determined to believe in materialism and puts his
devotion to the materialist philosophy before everything else, then he
does not act like this. If he is "foremost a materialist and then a
scientist", he does not abandon materialism when he sees that evolution
is belied by science. On the contrary, he attempts to uphold and save
materialism by trying to support evolution no matter what. This is exactly
the predicament that evolutionists defending the theory of evolution find
themselves in today.
Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time.
A well known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin
from Harvard University, confesses that he is "foremost a materialist
and then a scientist" with these words:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world,
but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set
of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive,
no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism
is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.71
The term "a priori" that Lewontin uses here is quite important. This
philosophical term refers to a presupposition not based on any experimental
knowledge. A thought is "a priori" when you consider it as right and accept
it to be so even if there is no information available about the correctness
of that thought. As evolutionist Lewontin expresses frankly, materialism
is an "a priori" given for evolutionists and they try to adjust science
to this given. Since materialism definitely necessitates denying the existence
of a Creator, they embrace the only alternative they have in hand, which
is the theory of evolution. It does not matter to them that evolution
has been belied by scientific facts; such scientists have accepted it
"a priori" as correct.
This prejudiced conduct leads evolutionists to a belief that "unconscious
matter composed itself" which is contrary not only to science but also
to reason. Professor of chemistry from New York University and a DNA expert
Robert Shapiro, as we have quoted before, explains this belief of evolutionists
and the materialist dogma lying at its base as follows:
Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed
to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to
the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described
in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such
as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence
of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical
materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin.72
Evolutionist propaganda, which we constantly come across in the leading
Western media organs and in the famous and "esteemed" science magazines,
is the outcome of this ideological necessity. Since evolution is considered
to be indispensable, it has been turned into a taboo by the circles that
set the standards of science.
There are scientists who find themselves in a position where they
are forced to defend this far-fetched theory or at least avoid uttering
any word against it in order to maintain their reputations. The academicians
in the Western countries are obliged to have their articles published
in certain science magazines to attain and hold the post of "professorship".
All of the magazines dealing with biology are under the control of evolutionists
and they do not allow any anti-evolutionist article to appear in their
magazines. Therefore every biologist has to conduct his studies under
the domination of this theory. They too are part of the established order
regarding evolution as an ideological necessity, for which reason, they
blindly defend all the "impossible coincidences" we have been examining
so far in this book.
When the evolutionist literature is browsed, this ideological
commitment to evolution can be easily observed. Professor Ali Demirsoy
is the famous advocate of the evolutionary theory in Turkey. According
to Demirsoy: the probability of the coincidental formation of Cythochrome-C,
an essential protein for survival, is "as unlikely as the possibility
of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making
any mistakes".73
There is no doubt that to accept such a possibility is actually to oppose
the basic principles of reason and common sense. Even a single correct
letter written on a page makes it certain that it is written by a person.
When one sees a book of world history, it becomes even more certain that
the book has been written by a writer. No one with sound reasoning would
agree that the letters of such a huge book could have been put together
"by chance".
However, it is very interesting to see that the "evolutionist scientist"
Prof. Ali Demirsoy accepts this sort of irrational proposition:
In essence, the probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C
sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence,
it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once
in the whole universe. Otherwise some metaphysical powers beyond
our definition must have acted in its formation. To accept the latter
is not appropriate for the scientific goal. We thus have to look into
the first hypothesis.74
The conclusion to be drawn from such pronouncements is that evolution
is by no means a theory arrived at through scientific investigation. On
the contrary, the form and substance of this theory were dictated by the
requirements of materialistic philosophy. It then turned into a belief
or dogma in spite of concrete scientific facts. Again, we can clearly
see from evolutionist literature that all of this effort indeed has a
"purpose". And that purpose precludes any belief that all living things
were created by a Creator.
Evolutionists define this purpose as "scientific". However, what they
refer to is not science but materialist philosophy. Materialism absolutely
rejects the existence of anything "beyond" matter (or of anything supernatural).
Science itself is not obliged to accept such a dogma. Science means exploring
nature and deriving conclusions from one's findings. If these findings
lead to the conclusion that nature is created, science has to accept it.
That is the duty of a true scientist; not defending impossible scenarios
by clinging to the outdated materialist dogmas of the 19th century.
|
