Important Points on Evolution, Atheism and Creation
This article text is part of our book: “Academic Proof of the Creator Visual/Interactive Book (New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature)” Click Here for Book Page
For English Section Main Page Click Here (Other Articles, Utterly Different Experience Visual/Interactive Books and Training Program Presentations)
To prevent misunderstandings, we want to point out at first that the emphasis in this section is that even if evolution is a reality, it will not abolish the need of a creator, it will not be an alternative to creation and, evolution is nothing more than an explanation of operation mechanism.
In our article, the first sentences which could be misunderstood were clarified so as not to leave any blurred parts in the next sentences. Our reasons for not accepting an evolutionary approach that does not reject the Creator and even seeing it away from the scientific nature are explained in detail in our source book “The Nature Epistle Initiatives”, given at the end of the article.
Evolution is an alternative theory (which has characteristics of fiction and which resembles a science fiction story rather than a scientific theory) for “coming into existence and functioning of living beings”. The mechanism itself, this or that, is a variable independent of the fact whether there is a creator of the living beings or not, whether they come into being coincidentally. In other words, even if an evolutionary mechanism was working in the emergence of the living creatures, this would not necessarily eliminate the need for a Creator. (We would like to state that this phrase, which was said for examination and analysis purposes, should not be understood as a judgement.)Saying that “living beings are created with material causes and through the mechanism of evolution” is one thing and saying that “living beings are created by materials and by the mechanisms of evolution” is quite another thing. Nevertheless, we, of course, reject the atheistic notion of evolution which claims that the living beings come into existence coincidentally evolving from each other without intervention of any creator. However, the Tawheed, which is the faith in Oneness, is a superior model, which is interested not in the mechanisms but rather in who is operating this mechanism, and which does not address itself to such approaches.
In short, the evolution is not an alternative for the creation. The creation model answers the questions of who creates and operates the matter and the living beings (and the functions and mechanisms) while evolution answers how and with which mechanisms they function.
The Theory of evolution, like natural laws, only describes the rules, mechanisms and the system (with its own fictional assumptions) of an existing visible formation and it does not have the properties of a real explanation and does not give any information about the one who really handles and has an effect over the living formations. But if is somebody, puts his own philosophical acceptance of atheism and coincidence under the cover of evolution and abuses it as an instrument of ungodliness and present it as a scientific reality then we would object to that.
Other than that, we do not address ourselves to evolution or see it as an alternative in terms of the faith in Oneness so that in Risale-i Nur, has been seen as target and adversary and as alternative explanations of the formation of the matter but evolution has not been mentioned at all and no effort was made to refute it, because once it is proved that all these cannot happen accidentally, then evolution will lose its fancy.
If someone who finds a user manual of a television and a brochure displaying the scheme of evolution for all models of television, from the oldest to the newest ones, and says that, “now we do not need an electrical engineer or a factory anymore to explain the existence of the television” then we can see this as an illusion and a fallacy; then in the same way, thinking that evolution mechanisms, which are working rules and formation mechanisms, also make the creator unnecessary is so much more a nonsense and a scientific lie. (Remember Hawking’s words: “Darwinism ended Biology’s need for a Creator.”)
For years we have been indoctrinated with the idea that evolution was a theory to explain the coming into existence of the living things. Here, we had better divide the theory of evolution in two parts. First one is the approach which presents evolution just as a mechanism by which the living beings come into e existence and not as the real affect leading to that. Then we need not to address to this approach, because functioning and mechanisms could not replace the real cause and take over their place. The other approach is showed by those who respond to the question of what makes the evolution mechanism by replying (or by being forced to reply) with these words: “of course with coincidence” and claim that the mechanisms based on evolution should be accepted as the real causes of the existence of living beings (coming into existence on their own without a need for a creator). It is this part that is a categorically erroneous.
Important Note on the Concept of “Coincidental Formation”:
It can be said: “However, in scientific theories and explanations, it is not told that life was coincidentally formed. Everything is based on certain concepts and mechanisms”.
If there is such an objection, then our response is as following: Whatever the name and the mechanism proposed is, whether nature, evolution or mutation, if these were conscious matters/material objects which could perform a work by planning and preferring; then making any explanation based on these factors could be considered as irrelevant to coincidence. Since material causes are lifeless, likewise, they are things that act in an unconscious, ignorant, and unplanned fashion without any willpower. Our position is so clear indeed. Nevertheless, however hard you may try, you can’t paint the imaginary fictions with the colour of the truth. The fact that processes and material causes lack the capability to create the results themselves necessitates the search for another external reason affecting the events. Then of course, attributing (the reasons of existence) to these ignorant, unconscious, powerless matters, even to laws of nature, which do not have any material existence, not being more than the explanations of the emerging events, and to evolutional processes; would not have a meaning other than randomness, spontaneity and coincidence.
(Please Read the Resource Book We Gave the Link Above for Details)