The Strategies to Neutralize the Atheistic Evolution With Correct Academic Approaches
For English Section Main Page Click Here (Other Articles, Utterly Different Experience Visual/Interactive Books and Training Program Presentations)
We are asking to you: Should we refuse all proponents of evolution, without categorization? Should we consider evolution as alternative, anti-thesis or opponent of creation and should we try to find answers to an opposing idea? We ask these questions both as a believer and also as someone who has certain sensitivity about academic approach.
“Doesn’t the high intelligence of the little bird that makes her nest with excellent skills and fine art disapprove the evolution theory?
There have been many reactions by the proponents of Evolution Theory to a message recently tweeted by Prof. Dr. Nevzat Tarhan, Rector of Üsküdar University. There were even some people who questioned “how a scientific subject like evolution could be handled by a university rector in such a manner and why the Creation is ever expressed in a scientific environment like a university. Certainly we love and respect our Professor. We also support him in this matter. The shallowness, worthlessness, narrow-mindedness belong to those who react in this way. However, there are other very important aspects of the matter. We would like to draw your attention to these. Let us also mention that we have already evaluated the matter with our Professor and he has informed us that he thinks in parallel to the approach, strategy and correct academic categorization followed in this article. In this article, we have also cited some of his thoughts about the subject.
First of all, let us put forward that there is a serious confusion of concepts in relation to the subject of evolution and it is necessary to identify some distinctions and categorizations before react against evolutionists. Unfortunately, our Professor did not (could not) make such a differentiation (unintentionally, and most probably due to the limitation on the number of characters used in tweets). Later in his e-mail, he expressed that he also shared our views and that the conservatives in the society made a strategic error in this matter. We will tackle these matters soon. At first, we would like to dwell upon that tweet. In addition to the reactions of the proponents of evolution, there are two types of criticism: the first one is related with the necessity of underlining the divine incentive rather than the intelligence of the bird. The second is that mentioning the theory of evolution in its general meaning rather that atheistic evolution which denies the existence of the creator. It is a technical mistake that causes controversy in the scientific community (we will deal with the details later).
We think that the point implied and tried to be underlined in the tweet by our Professor is in fact very nice. That is to say, there are hidden sentences behind the question mentioned in the tweet. In our opinion, this question is asked to bring the following questions to the mind: “How come does this bird have such an intelligence? How could such a complex structure, a nest/home that could normally be made by advanced intelligence of a creature like a man who covered a great length at the steps of the evolution, be possible with the intelligence of a small bird, which is underdeveloped and way beyond in the evolution processes? Could a smart man believe that this bird could really do such a work on her own and that she had the intelligence required for the completion of such king of work? How could the mechanisms of the evolution, which are mindless, unconscious, ignorant and which does not have any willpower calculate the benefits of this clever work and make the necessary designs and carry it out with the hands of a creature with such a small brain, without interference of any external reason?
Now we can start talking about “strategies to neutralize atheistic evolution with correct academic approaches”
We are asking to you: Should we refuse all proponents of evolution, without categorization? Should we consider evolution as alternative, anti-thesis or opponent of creation and should we try to find answers to an opposing idea? We ask these questions both as a believer and also as someone who has certain sensitivity about academic approach. In our opinion the answer to that question is the following: “Certainly we should not do that and we should adopt an academic approach considering the niceties of the matter.” We believe that the style, which we present with its details below, will be more suitable strategically and academically. This does not mean that we justify or confirm the theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with that. It means to put things with different categories in their right places and to decipher what the real characteristics of, for example atheistic evolution, is and to neutralize it.
Our opinion is that this very effective method, which we expressed in our previous articles, is not truely understood by the people (unfortunately as well as the academics) who believe in the existence of a creator. Whereas, we have to say that this effective method is masterfully used by the evolutionists. They reflect religion and the creator as things that are outside the subject area of the science, which are not appropriate to study and hence they neutralize the idea of creation.
Then why don’t we get armed with their weapon?
Primarily, let us lay the foundation of our basic approach to evolution instead of adopting approaches which are fundamentally and categorically wrong. Then we will provide you with details. You can memorize this and indeed you should do so. These are the powerful weapons that you have.
* Evolution is not equal to Atheism.
* Evolution is not the opposite of Creation or it is not an alternative for Creation.
* Creation is an model at a higher level that does not address the theory of evolution (in the sense of an opposing view).
The ideas/views expressed by the proponents of the evolution theory can be divided into two groups:
1- The approach that considers evolution just as a mechanism of the coming into existence of the living beings.
This first group is also divided into two sections:
* Those who see evolution as a mechanism used by the Creator.
* The ones who see the Creator as not being in the subject area of the research and not interested in its existence and say that “we only study natural processes”.
2- Atheistic evolution which claims that the mechanism of the evolution works on its own without any need for a Creator and that evolution is the real explanation for the existence of the living beings.
In addition to this basic classification, it is also necessary to tell that so many different things are meant by evolution. In essence, the concept of evolution, which is the name given for the coming into existence of living things by improving from other living things, is a speculative/fictional idea. However, the supporters of this view, as a result of their endeavor to demonstrate their ideas as scientific, labeled all the processes, changes formations and transformations that living beings pass through during their lifetimes as “evolution.” (In fact these things are not theories but laws, concrete facts that can be observed). Once they did this, it became easier for them to label everything as evolution and claim that “evolution is a scientific truth that can be seen before our very eyes”. However, taking the development (maturation) of a living creature or changes that living thing goes through and presenting them in most general way as the evidences of evolution is nothing more than a trick and a fraud. With the term “evolution” we imply the coming into existence of living beings and their derivation from each other. (If someone uses the term “evolution” within this context and without any ulterior motive, we do not have any objection to that and we do not have problem that needs to be solved with this person).
Now, we will present to you the intellectual framework, that is the philosophy of science, of the categorical approach, which we outlined above. If you fully understand the intellectual framework given below and if you can explain it fully to the person you address, who is the proponent of evolution theory, and you can express your views accordingly, you will not have any problem with anybody and you can neutralize the evolution theory and knock it down easily, because you do not see evolution as an alternative to the creation. You just reject atheistic evolution and, against the approach which accepts the existence of the creator, viewing the evolution as a mechanism of creation, you would express the reasons why you do not accept it, in an academic format. That is all. This other type of people who we address is very important: Those who present evolution only as a mechanism of the coming into existence of the living beings and who does not claim that it is the real influencing factor, saying: “we are not interested in who is the Operator, this is beyond the subject area of our work, we are interested in the processes.” To these persons we would be content with just telling the following: “It is OK, we do not have any problem with you. Neither we nor you do interfere in each other’s work. We should not. Please go on with your studies and if you do find out anything, please let us know!” That’s all.
The Intellectual Framework of Our Categorical Approach to Evolution:
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 New Perspectives from Treatise of Nature “, given at the end of the article.
Evolution is the mechanism of arrival and functioning of living things. It is not a real influential cause and it can not be. 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.
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.
The essence of the matter is: The essential purpose of Quran is to teach about the creator and the Master of Art and to prove his existence with the order of the matter. It is important to come to this point. This is the perspective in which Quran is interested. The rest is thought to be details that do not harm the real purpose.
It happens this way or that way. This is the field of science. Quran leaves this completely as a free field. It says: “You should search and learn about it” and encourages the efforts in that sense. But whatever the processes and workings and the styles are, it asks us certainly to notice this order and through this to reach to the existence of the creator. Because, the order does not change, stays as it is, without being affected. What is important is to notice this fact. Quran teaches us about this order. Is it evolution, science, multiple universes or the creator? There is no need to make such a duality, differentiation, and to make a choice between them. In fact, all work together! There is only one mechanism! You can’t think of a plane separately from the law of thermodynamics. The point that we object to is why the engineer of that plane is not taken into account. This is all we care for.
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.”
All the critiques in our book (The New Perspectives from Treatise of Nature) and in this article about the theory of evolution are valid for the atheistic evolutionary approach, which accepts the evolution as the true explanation of living creatures and which asserts that the mechanisms exist themselves and they are created by material reasons and they do not need any external creator. Otherwise, the critiques are not directed to scientific approaches that present evolution as a mechanism of forming the living creature and that do not present as the unique influential cause.
(The reasons why we do not accept the evolutionary approach that does not reject the effect of the Creator and we consider this approach distant from the science are explained in “The New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature” and in the negotiation section at the end.)
You can find the details on this subject and important determinations/observation made about the fact that neither evolution nor laws of nature could be the real influencing factors and explanations for the explanation of the coming into existence of both the matter and the living things, in two resources given below.
For the analysis of the subject in all its details and for the proof of tawhid (creation) model with a strong intellectual construct and evidences, we propose our book, “New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature” as an excellent source (on the condition that it is read with great care).
It seems to us both more appropriate and wise to neutralize atheistic evolution without bringing the Evolution and the Creation face to face, opposing each other. For sure, we will be against atheistic evolution. However, as a scientific approach, evolution itself does not pose any threat to the idea of the existence of the Creator. (in deed, we see atheistic evolution not as a theory but rather as a story of science-fiction because of its fictional characteristics.)
Moreover, it is also necessary to differentiate between evolution and development; that is between the inter-species crossings of the living beings and the procedures/phases faced by a living being during her lifetime. Why should we have any problem with someone who labels the latter as evolution and says that this is a scientific reality?
We have some justifications on the basis of religious, scientific and logical grounds as to the erroneousness of the idea of the evolution of the species. Moreover, the formation of different living beings artificially or mixing of the species does not prove that this is also the case in nature. Despite this, we believe that it is appropriate not to be strictly against it and to leave the answer to the science and to state that this is not a matter that could affect the religious faith.
In conclusion, evolution is neither an alternative to creation not it is adressed by Creation, which is in fact a model of higher level. At most, evolution could be just a mechanism and we do not (could not) take it as an opposing view, which could be considered in fact only as a sort of operating system. The logic and science wouldn’t allow that, because creation or tawhid are about “the One who is operating”, not “the one which is operating or being operated”.
Altough “being done with evolution” and “being done by evolution” are two different things, when viewed from the perspective of the Creator, it is meaningless and unnecessary to create the living beings which are created first, through evolution instead of creating them directly. Creating living beings with different characteristics from other living things in much longer periods of time rather than creating them directly does not seem logical. The first living being of the first created species, that is Adam of that species, should be authentic. It must have been created independently (specially).
It does not seem appropriate when seen from the perspective of the Creator. Then, it may be asked: “Why do material reasons exist? Why does a baby have to grow in mother’s womb? If you pay attention, this is something else. They try to compare this with the other thing. But, these are not the same things. Well, some says that “this happens through a process, then why the other thing should not happen also through the same way.” Besides, “there is no a justification/wisdom in the first creation”. Why should the Creator then choose the longer way. We think this is meaningless.
We wonder! Could it ever be possible that an artist with infinite power, who has the capability of making infinite numbers of canvasses and paintings out of nothing , does not paint each of his pictures on a different canvas but rather paint every picture on the same canvas by making changes in these pictures. Besides, could he ever delegate the job of painting the pictures to the paintbrushes rather than painting the pictures himself? Could this be possible? Does he have any obligation to do that? Is there any necessity? In the same manner, every living being/species and every member of that species is a different painting. The nature is just like the canvas over which the painting is made. The paintbrushes, on the other hand, could resemble the mechanisms of evolution that work inside every living being, equal to the pen of the divine power (Almighty). Which one seems more logical?
In this way, we have mentioned some of our deductions about the inappropriateness of the coming into existence of the species from each other. To keep this article short, here we will not be able to give place to another brilliant and strong evidence that we have in this regard. But we will provide you with a source related to this subject. We would like to ask you to read the analyzes we make about the section entitled “The Difficulties of the Theory” of Darwin’s well known book entitled “Origin of the Species”, together with our whole article. We would like you to read that section, we suggest you to do so because it contains a detailed examination with a strong logical construct, which is so much extensive that it will not leave you in need for additional evidences about this subject. You can read this article from the address mentioned below:
We hope that, it has become clearly apparent that directly objecting to the theory of evolution is wrong academically and logical as well as from a religious point of view. Certainly, you should read the things, which we have written, with great care by assimilating it and thinking about it carefully. Otherwise, it is highly probable that you could misunderstand them. We are telling you.
It is quite clear that we should categorize both the evolution and its proponents. Besides, we should categorize atheistic evolution and decipher its characteristics so carefully that, we can annihilate the damages it makes, by neutralizing it and we will not face any problem with the scientific community.