|
The
theory of evolution, born of the primitive level of science in the
nineteenth century, has been completely invalidated by successive
scientific discoveries.
Those
evolutionists who are blindly devoted to the theory look for a
solution in demagogy, since no scientific foundation is left to
them. The most frequently resorted to of these is the clichéd
slogan that "creation is a faith, so it cannot be considered
part of science." The claim goes that evolution is a
scientific theory, whereas creation is just a belief. However,
this repetition of "evolution is science, creation is a
belief" stems from a totally erroneous perspective. Those who
keep repeating that, are confusing science and materialist
philosophy. They believe that science must remain within the
borders of materialism, and that those who are not materialist
have no right to make any statements at all. However, science
itself completely rejects materialism.
Studying
Matter is not the Same as Being a Materialist
Let
us first briefly define materialism in order to examine the matter
in more detail. Materialism is a philosophy that has existed since
Ancient Greece and is based on the idea that matter is all that
exists. According to materialist philosophy, matter has always
existed and will continue to do so for all time. Nothing exists
apart from matter. This is not a scientific claim, however,
because it cannot be subjected to experiment and observation. It
is simply a belief, a dogma.
However,
this dogma became mixed up with science in the nineteenth century,
and even came to be the basic foundation of science. Yet science
is not compelled to accept materialism. Science studies nature and
the universe, and produces results without being limited by any
philosophical classification.
In
the face of this, some materialists frequently take refuge in a
simple word game. They say, "Matter is the only subject of
study for science, so it has to be materialist." Yes, science
only studies matter, but "studying matter" is very
different from "being a materialist." That is because
when we study matter, we realize that matter contains knowledge
and design so great that they could never have been produced by
matter itself. We can understand that this knowledge and design
are the result of an intelligence, even if we cannot see it
directly.
For
instance, let us imagine a cave. We do not know if anyone has been
in it before us. If, when we enter this cave, there is nothing in
it but dust, earth and stones, we can infer that there is nothing
but randomly distributed matter there. However, if there are
expertly produced pictures in stunning colors on the walls, we may
assume that an intelligent entity has been there before us. We may
not be able to see that entity directly, but we can infer its
existence from what it produces.
Science
Has Refuted Materialism
|
| Take some
matter, heat while stirring and wait
|
Science
studies nature in the same way as shown in that example. If all
the design in nature could only be explained by material factors,
then science could confirm materialism. However, modern science
has revealed that there is design in nature that cannot be
explained by material factors, and that all matter contains a
design brought into being by a Creator.
For
example, all experiments and observation prove that matter could
not by itself have given rise to life, for which reason life must
stem from a metaphysical creation. All evolutionist experiments in
this direction have ended in failure. Life can never have been
created from inanimate matter. The evolutionist biologist Andrew
Scott makes the following admission on the subject in the
well-known journal New Scientist:
Take
some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern
version of Genesis. The "fundamental" forces of gravity,
electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are
presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale
is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation?
In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical
precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of
either controversy or complete bewilderment.1
The
root of life is based on speculation and debate because
materialist dogma insists that life is the product of matter. Yet
the scientific facts show that matter has no such power. Professor
Fred Hoyle, an astronomer and mathematician who was knighted for
his contributions to science, makes the following comment on the
subject:
If
there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic
systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable
in the laboratory. One
could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the
primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological
nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you
please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your
fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of
those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have
appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time
and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will
find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed
of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.2
Actually,
materialism is in an even worse dilemma. Matter cannot even form
life when combined with human knowledge and time, let alone form
it by itself.
The
truth that we have briefly glanced at is the truth that matter
cannot form design and knowledge by itself. Yet the universe and
the living things in it contain extraordinarily complex design and
knowledge. That shows us that this design and knowledge in the
universe and living things are the works of a Creator Who
possesses infinite power and knowledge, Who existed before matter
and rules it.
If
we look carefully, this is an entirely scientific conclusion. It
is not a "belief," but a truth acquired through
observation of the universe and living things in it. That is why
the evolutionists' claim that "Evolution is scientific,
whereas creation is a belief that cannot enter the domain of
science" is a superficial deception. It is true that in the
nineteenth century materialism was confused with science, and that
science was led off course by materialist dogma. However,
subsequent developments in the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries have completely overthrown that hoary old belief, and
the truth of creation, that had been concealed by materialism, has
finally emerged. As the banner headline "Science Finds
God," used by the famous magazine Newsweek in its
historic July 27, 1998, edition makes clear, behind all the
materialist deception, science finds God, the Creator of the
universe and all that is in it.
Join
our discussion
forum to discuss this article and the theory of evolution
in general.
*
The author, who writes under the pen-name Harun Yahya,
has published many books on political, faith-related and
scientific issues. Some of the books of the author have been
translated into English, German, French, Spanish, Italian,
Portuguese, Albanian, Arabic, Polish, Russian, Bosnian,
Indonesian, Turkish, Tatar, Urdu and Malay and published in the
countries concerned. Visit his website at www.harunyahya.com
or contact him at info@harunyahya.com
1-
Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis,” New Scientist,
vol. 106, May 2nd, 1985, p. 30.
2-
Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph,
London, 1983, p. 20-21.
|
