Page 471 - Atlas of Creation Volume 3

Harun Yahya

Benjamin Wiker gives this detailed interpretation of the relation between Epicurus
and Darwin:

The first Darwinian was not Darwin, but a rather notorious Greek, Epicurus, born on the
Island of Samos about 341 B.C. It was he who provided the philosophical underpinnings of
Darwinism, because it was he who fashioned an entirely materialistic, [atheistic] cosmol-

ogy, where the purposeless jostling of brute matter over infinite time yielded, by a series of
fortunate accidents, not only the Earth, but all the myriad forms of life thereon. . . .

After stating that Epicurus fashioned the cosmology, not out of evidence but from
his desire to abstract the world from the idea of a Creator, Wiker goes on to say:

. . . This common disdain for religion unites Epicureanism and modernity because we
moderns [Darwinists] are the heirs of Epicurus. Through a long and winding path, a re-

vived form of Epicurean materialism became the founding creed of modern scientific ma-
terialism—the very materialist cosmology that Darwin assumed in the Origin and that still
grounds the materialist dismissal of design in nature. 6

Today, those motivated to stubbornly defend the theory of evolution are not on the
side of science, but on the side of atheism. Like their precursor Epicurus, their attach-

ment to atheism stems from the awareness that accepting the existence of God would
clash with their own selfish desires.
There is a verse in the Qur'an in which God completely describes the situation of
non-believers: "And they repudiated them wrongly and haughtily, in spite of their
own certainty about them." (Surat an-Naml: 14) And in another verse, He reveals,

"Have you seen him who has taken his whims and desires to be his deity?" (Surat al-
Furqan: 43)
The Epicurus-Darwinist "clan" rejects the existence of God only because His exis-

tence conflicts with their personal desires and passions; in this, they are very much like
those described in the verse above. Therefore, it is very deceptive to regard the evolu-
tion-Creation argument as a conflict between science and religion.
Evolution and Creation, two different explanations of the origins of life and the uni-
verse, have existed from ancient times. In order to understand which of these explana-

tions is scientifically correct, we have to consider the discoveries of science. Here, as in
our other books, we will once again see how all findings prove that the theory of evolu-
tion is erroneous, and that Creation is true.

It is False that Science Must Be Atheistic

There is no compulsion for science to be atheistic, that is, to believe in and to main-

tain the dogma that the universe is composed of matter only, and that there is no con-
sciousness apart from matter. Science must investigate its discoveries and go wherever
true discoveries may lead.

Today various branches of science such as astrophysics, physics and biology clearly
demonstrate the examples of creation in the universe and in nature, which are impossi-
ble to explain in terms of random events. All proofs point towards a Creator. This
Creator is God Whose eternal power and intelligence has created the heavens, the Earth
and all things animate and inanimate that lie between.

The unproven "faith" is atheism. The following pages will show that atheism's most
important support—that is, Darwinism—has collapsed.

Adnan Oktar 469