Page 317 - Darwinism Refuted

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the
scientific cause. We thus have to look into the first hypothesis. 388
Demirsoy writes that he prefers the impossible, in order not to have
to accept supernatural forces—in other words, the existence of a Creator.
However, the aim of science is not to avoid accepting the existence of
supernatural forces. Science can get nowhere with such an aim. It should
simply observe nature, free of all prejudices, and draw conclusions from
these observations. If these results indicate that there is planning by a
supernatural intelligence, which is the case in every corner of the
universe, then science must accept the fact.
Under close examination, what they call the "scientific cause" is
actually the materialist dogma that only matter exists and that all of
nature can be explained by material processes. This is not a "scientific
cause," or anything like it; it is just materialist philosophy. This
philosophy hides behind such superficial words as "scientific cause" and
obliges scientists to accept quite unscientific conclusions. Not
surprisingly, when Demirsoy cites another subject—the origins of the
mitochondria in the cell—he openly accepts chance as an explanation,
even though it is "quite contrary to scientific thought":
The heart of the problem is how the mitochondria have acquired this
feature, because attaining this feature by chance even by one individual,
requires extreme probabilities that are incomprehensible... The enzymes
providing respiration and functioning as a catalyst in each step in a different
form make up the core of the mechanism. A cell has to contain this enzyme
sequence completely, otherwise it is meaningless. Here, despite being
contrary to biological thought, in order to avoid a more dogmatic
explanation or speculation, we have to accept, though reluctantly, that all
the respiration enzymes completely existed in the cell before the cell first
came in contact with oxygen. 389

The conclusion to be drawn from such pronouncements is that
evolution is not 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, from evolutionist
literature, we can clearly see that all of this effort has a "purpose"—a
purpose that requires maintaining, at no matter what cost, that living
things were not created.

315