Page 849 - Atlas of Creation Volume 1

Darwinism and Materialism

Harun Yahya

he only reason that Darwin's theory is still defended despite its obvious refutation by science
is the close link between that theory and materialism. Darwin applied materialist philosophy

T to the natural sciences and the advocates of this philosophy, Marxists 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 paleontologist Stephen J. Gould said: "Darwin applied a consis-
2
tent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature". Leon Trotsky, one of the masterminds
of the Russian Communist Revolution along with Lenin, commented: "The discovery by Darwin was
3
the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter." However, science has
shown that Darwinism was not a victory for materialism but rather a sign of that philosophy's over-
throw.

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. "Marxism and Darwinism", London, 1993

Darwin Marx Trotsky

There is no doubt that to accept such a possibility is actually to reject the basic principles of reason and

common sense. Even one single correctly formed letter written on a page makes it certain that it was written
by a person. When one sees a book of world history, it becomes even more certain that the book has been
written by an author. No logical person would agree that the letters in such a huge book could have been put

together "by chance".
However, it is very interesting to see that the "evolutionist scientist" Professor 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 re-
quires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole uni-
verse. 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. 176

Demirsoy writes that he prefers the impossible, in order "not to have to accept supernatural forces"-in
other words, the existence of a Creator. It is clear that this approach has no relation whatsoever with science.
Not surprisingly, when Demirsoy cites another subject-the origins of the mitochondria in the cell-he openly

accepts coincidence 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 pro-

Adnan Oktar 847